Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s testimony in his criminal trial was cut short on Monday after judges agreed to end the hearing early, following a sealed envelope delivered to the prime minister roughly an hour after proceedings began.
Netanyahu, who is in the midst of cross-examination by the prosecution, received an envelope and told the court the contents were “important.”
After a brief discussion, the judges agreed to adjourn proceedings at 1:30 p.m. instead of the scheduled time. The circumstances surrounding the envelope were not disclosed publicly.
The decision followed a string of shortened or canceled hearings last week: Monday’s session was curtailed due to Netanyahu’s mandatory “40-signature” speech in the Knesset; Tuesday’s was shortened due to the illness of lead prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh; and Wednesday’s hearing was canceled altogether due to judicial constraints.
The judges also announced that testimony on Tuesday would be shortened, running from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., due to scheduling limitations.
Monday marked Netanyahu’s 70th day of testimony in his ongoing corruption trial and his latest appearance under cross-examination in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla affair, considered the most serious of the three cases against him. Netanyahu is charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, allegations he has repeatedly denied.
At the heart of Case 4000 is the prosecution’s claim that Netanyahu granted regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels to Bezeq, then controlled by Shaul and Iris Elovitch, in exchange for favorable and tailored coverage on the Walla news website.
According to the indictment, Netanyahu and members of his family, with his knowledge, relayed specific demands regarding coverage of the prime minister and his political rivals, which were then passed down within Walla’s editorial hierarchy.
Tirosh on Monday continued to confront Netanyahu with testimony from state witness and former chief of staff Ari Harow, focusing on the alleged use of intermediaries to influence media outlets. She challenged Netanyahu’s repeated assertion that he dealt directly with publishers and editors, without relying on envoys.
Addressing testimony that portrayed former aide Natan Eshel as a conduit to Israel Hayom, Netanyahu rejected the characterization outright. “I would speak directly with Sheldon [Adelson] or [editor Boaz] Bismuth,” he said. “I didn’t need a pipeline. The idea that Natan Eshel was my exclusive channel is fundamentally absurd.”
Tirosh pushed back, clarifying that Harow had not described Eshel as an exclusive intermediary, but rather as one of several channels used when Netanyahu was occupied with other matters. Netanyahu countered that Eshel often acted on his own initiative and that he himself was in frequent, direct contact with media figures.
Broader pattern of reaching out to media
Tirosh sought to show a broader pattern of Netanyahu turning to non-official figures with media connections, including French-Jewish politician Meyer Habib, to facilitate interviews abroad. Netanyahu responded that such approaches were routine, driven by requests from foreign outlets, and did not replace the work of official spokespeople.
Netanyahu also acknowledged that on several occasions he had asked Harow to contact Yediot Ahronot publisher Arnon Mozes regarding coverage, while rejecting any claim that Harow served as a “continuous or exclusive pipeline.”
“There were a few instances,” Netanyahu said. “There was no ongoing channel.”
Separately, the trial on Monday followed testimony given the previous day by retired police superintendent Yoram Naaman, one of Netanyahu’s investigators in Case 4000. According to Haaretz, Naaman struggled to explain why investigators had not presented Netanyahu during questioning with specific Walla articles alleged to constitute favorable coverage.
Defense attorney Amit Hadad cited Naaman’s own remarks from the investigation, accusing police of failing to substantiate the claim that Netanyahu had received systematic positive coverage.
Last week’s testimony also focused on the alleged involvement of Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, in staff appointments and media relations. Netanyahu dismissed claims of her influence as an “urban legend,” while acknowledging that she was occasionally present at the official residence during meetings.
“She passes through, people shake hands, and suddenly it’s called a job interview,” he said. “That’s nonsense.”
Netanyahu has consistently argued that the charges against him criminalize standard political and media interactions, and that the prosecution’s case rests on distorted interpretations of routine conduct. The cross-examination in Case 4000 is expected to continue in the coming weeks, subject to further scheduling constraints.