As prosecutors seek to prove that the alleged bribery arrangement at the heart of Case 4000 extended beyond formal regulatory decisions and into the private sphere of Israel’s most powerful household, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday rejected claims that members of his family played any meaningful role in shaping media strategy or decision-making.
The confrontation unfolded during the 68th day of Netanyahu’s testimony in his criminal trial, as the prosecution advanced one of its central contentions in Case 4000, or the Bezeq-Walla affair: that the relationship between Netanyahu and Bezeq controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch was not limited to discrete regulatory benefits but was part of a sustained, coordinated effort to influence news coverage – including through Netanyahu’s immediate family.
In Case 4000, prosecutors allege that while serving simultaneously as prime minister and communications minister, Netanyahu advanced regulatory decisions that significantly benefited telecom giant Bezeq, generating financial gains estimated in the hundreds of millions of shekels.
In return, according to the indictment, Elovitch and his associates applied heavy and ongoing pressure on executives and editors at the Walla news site – which Elovitch also owned – to tilt coverage in Netanyahu’s favor, suppress negative stories, and promote favorable reporting.
The prosecution maintains that this was not incidental media outreach but a corrupt quid pro quo. Netanyahu denies the allegations, arguing that regulatory decisions were made on professional grounds and that interactions with the press were routine political conduct.
Netanyahu day 68: PM rejects Hefetz’s testimony on family
Against that backdrop, prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh focused Tuesday’s questioning on testimony by former Netanyahu adviser and state witness Nir Hefetz, who has described close coordination within the Netanyahu household on media matters during the relevant period.
Tirosh questioned Netanyahu about meetings held in 2009-2010 in which, according to Hefetz, Sara Netanyahu joined discussions related to media messaging and public image. She also pressed the prime minister on whether his wife was involved in interviewing senior aides, influencing spokesperson appointments, or weighing in on editorial considerations.
Netanyahu repeatedly said he could not recall the meetings described and categorically denied that his wife played a structured role in interviews or decision-making. He acknowledged that aides and senior staff naturally encountered his wife in the family home and may have spoken with her informally, but dismissed claims of systematic involvement as exaggerated narratives.
The prosecution argued that the questions were intended to expose a gap between Hefetz’s account – which depicts shared decision-making on media strategy – and Netanyahu’s portrayal of minimal family engagement. Tirosh suggested that the evidence points to broader involvement in communications issues than Netanyahu has acknowledged.
At one point during the hearing, proceedings were briefly halted after Netanyahu received a sealed envelope and requested a short recess before returning to the stand.
Tirosh also updated the court on the projected length of the proceedings, estimating that cross-examination in Case 4000 will require approximately 28 additional hearing days. The prosecution anticipates another eight days for Case 2000, which concerns alleged discussions between Netanyahu and publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes over favorable coverage in exchange for legislative action.
While Netanyahu has said he is capable of managing the trial alongside his duties as prime minister, the proceedings have repeatedly been shortened or postponed due to parliamentary votes, official travel, and state obligations – including recent cancellations during his visit to the United States.