The rebuttal stage in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criminal trial continued at the Tel Aviv District Court on Wednesday, with the questioning shifting from the prosecution’s cross-examination to the attorneys for Netanyahu’s co-defendants in the media-related cases.
The hearing was led in part by Sharon Kleinman, the attorney for Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes, who questioned Netanyahu over the prosecution’s claim that the alleged understandings between Netanyahu and Mozes were reflected in less negative coverage of the prime minister in Yediot Aharonot and Ynet after their sixth meeting in December 2014.
“This thesis by the prosecution is absolutely absurd,” Netanyahu said when asked to respond to the claim that the coverage by the Yediot group had shifted.
Case 2000 centers on conversations between Netanyahu and Mozes ahead of the 2015 election. According to the indictment, Mozes offered to improve coverage of Netanyahu in Yediot Aharonot and Ynet and worsen coverage of his political rivals in exchange for Netanyahu using his influence to promote restrictions on Israel Hayom, the free daily newspaper that posed a major economic threat to Yediot Aharonot.
Netanyahu is charged in the case with fraud and breach of trust, while Mozes is charged with offering and promising a bribe. Both deny wrongdoing.
Prosecution says Yediot, Ynet coverage skewed by corruption
Kleinman’s questioning appeared aimed at taking the prosecution’s cross-examination of Netanyahu and extracting from it the explicit or implicit theses that could affect Mozes’s defense.
In practice, that meant testing the prosecution’s contention that Yediot and Ynet coverage could be treated as part of the alleged benefit offered to Netanyahu, and that a change in tone after the December 2014 meetings supported the prosecution’s narrative.
Kleinman told Netanyahu that after the sixth meeting between him and Mozes in December 2014, the communication between them continued for roughly another month before ending badly, and suggested that there had been less negative coverage during that period.
She then presented several examples of negative coverage and asked Netanyahu to respond, in what appeared to be an effort to challenge whether the coverage actually reflected the prosecution’s theory.
Netanyahu’s answer was consistent with his broader line throughout Case 2000: that Yediot Aharonot and Ynet remained hostile to him, that Mozes had significant influence over the media and political arena, and that the conversations with Mozes were not a corrupt bargain but part of Netanyahu’s attempt to prevent or blunt legislation that would have harmed Israel Hayom.
The questioning came after prosecutor Yonatan Tadmor spent recent hearing days pressing Netanyahu on whether he had sought to give Mozes the impression that he was acting to advance or soften the so-called Israel Hayom bill.
Netanyahu has denied that, saying he opposed the law and sought to stop it. In previous testimony, he has said that if he could not block the bill entirely, he tried to soften it, and that ultimately he dissolved the Knesset, thereby ending its legislative path.
Wednesday’s hearing also took place against the now-familiar backdrop of Netanyahu’s dual role as a criminal defendant and sitting prime minister. Before a break at around noon, Netanyahu said in court, “We are in a diplomatic process with several countries,” while referring to his schedule.
He was expected to leave for the nearby Kirya military headquarters at 2 p.m. for approximately 15 minutes, had another call scheduled for 3 p.m., and was expected to leave the hearing for good at 3:45 p.m., according to the schedule discussed in court.
The trial has repeatedly been affected by Netanyahu’s security and diplomatic schedule, including shortened or canceled hearing days. The court has continued to balance the prime minister’s official duties with the need to move forward in a case that opened in 2020 and in which Netanyahu’s testimony began in December 2024.
After the current section of questioning by the co-defendants’ attorneys concludes, Netanyahu’s own defense team is expected to conduct a short re-examination
Bezeq, Walla owners co-defendants in Case 4000, bribery, fraud, breach of trust
Netanyahu is on trial in three cases. In Case 1000, he is charged with fraud and breach of trust over gifts allegedly received from wealthy businessmen. In Case 2000, he is charged with fraud and breach of trust over the Mozes talks. In Case 4000, he is charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust over allegations that regulatory benefits were advanced for Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage on Walla.
Shaul and Iris Elovitch, the former controlling owners of Bezeq and Walla, are also defendants in Case 4000 and deny wrongdoing.
Netanyahu denies all charges and has repeatedly described the cases against him as politically motivated. Mozes and the Elovitches also deny wrongdoing.