Prosecutor Yehonatan Tadmor questioned Netanyahu's memory and integrity, suggesting he had taken breaks during early police interrogations to consult with his legal team — a charge Netanyahu firmly denied. The Prime Minister maintained that whenever he said he "didn't remember," it was a genuine lapse in memory, not an attempt to avoid telling the truth.
Lead Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman reminded Netanyahu, “The instruction to tell the whole truth is in effect until the end of the trial.”
Focus on Case 1000: Gifts from Milchan
Tadmor zeroed in on Case 1000, in which Netanyahu is accused of promoting legislation favorable to billionaire and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan — a former friend turned state witness — while accepting lavish gifts including cigars and champagne worth thousands of shekels.
The prosecution's strategy centered on showing contradictions in Netanyahu’s version of events. While Netanyahu claimed he had cleared his schedule to attend police interrogations, Tadmor cited a transcript from January 2, 2017, in which Netanyahu complained, “[This] can’t be open-ended forever.” Netanyahu replied sarcastically in court, “Clearly, I was mistaken. This has gone on forever.”
Tadmor also questioned Netanyahu's motives and preparation for interrogations, highlighting inconsistencies with previous statements and legal protocols. Netanyahu admitted he had been aware of the investigations beforehand but claimed he did not think they were serious or personally significant at the time.
Disputes Over Memory and Timing
The prosecution emphasized Netanyahu’s repeated use of “I don’t remember,” which he allegedly said 1,788 times during interrogations in Cases 1000 and 2000. Tadmor contrasted this with occasions when Netanyahu recalled details with remarkable precision.
A key point of contention was the origin of Netanyahu’s friendship with Milchan. Netanyahu claimed it began in 1999, a year when he was temporarily out of politics, which would reduce legal concerns. The prosecution argued it began in 1996, while he was still in office — a period when the relationship could have influenced public decision-making.
Tadmor pointed to testimony from Milchan recalling specific encounters in 1996, including a dinner with the Netanyahus and a humorous but telling anecdote about running through New York in the rain to buy a large Bugs Bunny doll for their son Yair at Sara Netanyahu’s request. Netanyahu confirmed only vague recollections.
Political Implications and the "Netanyahu Law"
The cross-examination also examined the political context of 1999–2001. After Netanyahu lost the May 1999 election to Ehud Barak, he claimed to have taken a genuine break from politics. However, the prosecution highlighted an attempted amendment to Israel’s Basic Law — widely dubbed the “Netanyahu Law” — designed to allow former prime ministers to run again in special elections. It passed an initial Knesset vote in December 2000 but was ultimately shelved when Ariel Sharon won the premiership.
Tadmor argued this political maneuvering revealed that Netanyahu still held ambitions and influence, making his relationship with Milchan during that time politically significant.
Netanyahu responded that in real-time he had truly believed his political career was over. In his 2022 autobiography Bibi: My Story, he wrote that it was only around 2002 that he came to terms with a return to politics. He said he shared this belief with close friends, including Milchan.
Legal Stakes
At the heart of the prosecution’s argument is that Netanyahu’s public role made his relationship with Milchan problematic — forming the basis for fraud and breach of trust charges. Any personal benefits derived while holding public office, they argue, constitute improper conduct.
Tuesday’s hearing was marked by numerous technical objections and delays, but the prosecution made clear its intention to undermine Netanyahu’s credibility as a witness and draw a clear link between personal gifts and political favors.
0 Comments