Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday downplayed evidence presented by prosecutors in Case 4000, portraying alleged interventions in media coverage and late-night contacts with the controlling shareholder of Walla as routine, misunderstood, or rooted in sarcasm, as his cross-examination entered another pointed day at the Tel Aviv District Court.
The hearing, part of the bribery, fraud, and breach of trust case centered on the Bezeq-Walla affair, focused largely on Netanyahu’s relationship with Shaul and Iris Elovitch, the former owners of the Walla news site, and on whether regulatory decisions were improperly linked to favorable coverage.
Prosecutors maintain that the prime minister advanced regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels to Bezeq while he was communications minister, in exchange for systematic interference in Walla’s editorial line. Netanyahu denies the charges.
At the heart of Tuesday’s session was a May 2016 Walla article criticizing Channel 12 analyst Amit Segal, and a text message Segal sent in response, quipping that he might as well “call the Netanyahu family to have the item removed, as was customary on your site.”
Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh argued that the message reflected what Segal said he had observed at Walla, suggesting political intervention in editorial decisions.
Netanyahu rejected that interpretation, insisting the prosecution was inflating a sarcastic remark to use it as evidence of systemic conduct.
He described Segal as a journalist known for his ironic tone, suggesting that the text should be read in that context. According to Netanyahu, extracting a single line from a journalist’s offhand remark and presenting it as proof of editorial manipulation distorted both Segal’s intent and the reality of Walla’s conduct.
Netanyahu uses senior aides to convey messages to Elovitch
Tirosh also returned to a central pillar of the indictment: Netanyahu’s alleged use of senior aides to convey messages to Elovitch, including during late-night hours.
She cited testimony by former Communications Ministry director-general Shlomo Filber, now a state witness, describing how Netanyahu asked him shortly after midnight to contact Elovitch and coordinate a meeting at the prime minister’s Caesarea residence the following day.
Netanyahu said he did not recall the specific exchange but rejected the notion that such conduct was unusual or improper. He acknowledged that he often contacted subordinates at unconventional hours, attributing this to his own work habits rather than to any special relationship with Elovitch.
If someone was available and had a phone number, he said, he would call. The prime minister bristled at the characterization of Elovitch as a uniquely powerful figure in this context, arguing that late-night calls were not uncommon in dealings with senior officials and international counterparts.
The cross-examination further revisited a series of binders containing opinion columns published on Walla, some supportive and some critical of Netanyahu, which prosecutors say he tracked closely.
Tirosh said that the evidence showed Netanyahu was less concerned with ideological balance than with whether coverage served his political and personal interests. She suggested that the message conveyed to Elovitch was clear: criticism, whether from the Right or the Left, was unwelcome if it undermined Netanyahu.
The prime minister countered that argument by framing the coverage dispute as part of a broader ideological struggle. Attacks from the Right, Netanyahu said, were used to lend credibility to what he described as a wider campaign against him and against right-wing governance.
Requests for supportive coverage, he maintained, stemmed from a belief that he was facing a sustained effort to unseat him for representing the right-wing camp, not from any quid pro quo arrangement.
Tirosh also pressed Netanyahu on the transfer of a booklet analyzing pro- and anti-Netanyahu opinion pieces at Walla, which Elovitch said he received directly from the prime minister.
Netanyahu said he did not recall that encounter clearly, suggesting the material may have been passed on via his office staff. When confronted with Filber’s testimony describing the booklet as part of an assignment that the then-Communications Ministry director-general felt crossed a line, Netanyahu dismissed the account.
The prime minister responded by saying that this was exaggerated, denying that he instructed his aides to act as intermediaries without his knowledge.
At several points, the exchange grew sharp, with Netanyahu accusing the prosecution of constructing implausible narratives and wasting court time, while Tirosh underscored inconsistencies between his courtroom testimony and earlier statements to investigators.
The presiding judges intervened intermittently to clarify the factual record and keep the questioning on track.
Outside the courthouse, a small group of demonstrators gathered, some calling for the trial to be halted and others carrying protest signs, accentuating the political and public sensitivity surrounding the proceedings. The trial ended three hours earlier than scheduled.