Netanyahu criminal trial returns after two months, testimony hearing cut short

The hearing marked Netanyahu’s first appearance on the witness stand since February 24, after repeated delays and a last-minute cancellation of Monday’s scheduled testimony. Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana and Likud MK Tally Gotliv were present in the courtroom. Before the hearing began, representatives for the prosecution and defense met with the judges in chambers.

Netanyahu is charged in Case 4000 with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He denies all charges and has repeatedly argued that the cases against him are politically motivated.

Much of Tuesday’s questioning focused on what the prosecution describes as supporting evidence for the alleged “guidance meeting” between Netanyahu and former Communications Ministry director-general Shlomo Filber, a central state witness. According to the prosecution, that meeting is the point at which Netanyahu allegedly directed Filber on matters that would later benefit Elovitch and Bezeq.

Tirosh returned to Filber’s “yellow notebook,” a notepad found in the investigative materials after Filber’s original testimony. When Filber was questioned again after the notebook was found, he said one page, written under the heading “Prime Minister,” contained a cumulative list of tasks he had received from Netanyahu.

The prosecution’s position is that the top lines match what Filber described as having been raised in the guidance meeting, including references to Elovitch, the Bezeq-Yes merger, and other communications issues.

On Tuesday, Tirosh moved to the continuation of the same page, focusing on entries she said could only have come from Netanyahu. They included references to speaking with then-attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit about changing legislation for a minister in the ministry, attorney Ran Shitrit, Nimrod Sapir, the Broadcasting Authority, and a sticky note with names of members of the Public Broadcasting Corporation council.

Filber had testified that Netanyahu told him to look into the matter and that he then checked with Mandelblit and others whether responsibilities inside the ministry could be divided or rearranged.

Tirosh confronted Netanyahu with his own previous testimony, in which he had said he knew Akunis wanted to be a minister in the Communications Ministry and that new legislation would be required. On Tuesday, however, Netanyahu said he did not remember the matter.

“When I prepared for that hearing in March 2025, I remembered,” Netanyahu said. “Many, many things have happened since. I have nothing to hide here. So many things since then have demanded my attention in a dramatic manner.”

Tirosh pushed back, arguing that if the testimony was true then, it should remain true now, even if Netanyahu no longer recalled the details independently.

The questioning also turned to Shitrit, an attorney and Likud activist who had worked with Akunis and later served in the Communications Ministry. Shitrit’s name appeared in Filber’s notes, and the prosecution argued that his inclusion supported Filber’s account.

Netanyahu rejected the implication that the issue was connected to the telecommunications matters at the heart of Case 4000.

“I remember talking to Akunis about the media issue,” Netanyahu said, apparently referring to media diversity. “I never talked to him about the telecom issue.”

The hearing was paused around noon. Shortly before the break, an envelope was brought to Netanyahu in the courtroom.

After the break, Tirosh moved to the regulatory steps the prosecution says followed the alleged guidance meeting. She put to Netanyahu the claim that Filber advanced a weaker regulatory solution for Bezeq’s landline phone services, contrary to the Communications Ministry’s position before he became director-general.

Tirosh said the prosecution’s position was that Filber’s conduct was influenced by a desire to benefit Bezeq, following Netanyahu’s alleged instructions on pricing and Bezeq’s landline phone services.

Netanyahu rejected the claim outright.

“It never happened,” he said, adding that he did not know the issue and had not dealt with it. He argued that the claim made no sense because Elovitch had filed a High Court petition against him when he was communications minister, and said that if he had been involved, which he denied, he would have instructed the opposite.

“It is all a malicious fairy tale,” Netanyahu said, tying the allegation back to his broader attack on Filber’s state’s witness testimony. He argued that Filber had originally told the truth in his first interrogations and later changed his version only after investigators threatened him and his family.

Tirosh rejected that characterization, and Netanyahu responded that Filber had changed his testimony into what he called a “fictitious thesis.”

The exchange again brought the courtroom tension to the surface. Gotliv interjected from the gallery, drawing another reprimand from the judges. Presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman replied that the point had been understood, and asked for quiet.

Tirosh then asked Netanyahu directly whether Elovitch had complained to him about Bezeq’s landline phone services. Netanyahu answered unequivocally that he had not.

Tirosh confronted him with his police interrogation, in which, she said, he had answered that he did not remember. She asked how an answer of “I don’t remember” in 2017 could become a firm denial years later.

Netanyahu said investigators had tried to pull him into a version of events and “engineer consciousness.” He said he meant he did not remember any such conversation because no regulatory issue had been raised with him.

Tirosh suggested that during the police interrogation Netanyahu did not know what evidence investigators had, including whether they had recordings, and was therefore more cautious. In court, she argued, his memory had become categorical because he knew there was no recording.

Netanyahu rejected that as misleading, and again returned to Filber, saying Filber had repeatedly told investigators that Netanyahu had not spoken to him about Bezeq, and certainly had not mentioned Elovitch.

Tirosh objected sharply to Netanyahu’s repeated references to Filber’s treatment in the investigation, calling it a “blood libel.” Gotliv again interrupted, then left the courtroom.

Netanyahu denied that he had asked Filber to help Bezeq or acted to assist the company. He said he had fully backed a reform that was very difficult for Bezeq and caused it enormous damage, referring to the structural separation reform advanced under governments he led.

Friedman-Feldman later announced that Tuesday’s testimony would end at 2 p.m., two-and-a-half hours before it had been scheduled to conclude.

The shortened hearing came against the background of renewed tension over the pace of Netanyahu’s testimony, which began in December 2024 and has since been repeatedly disrupted by war, diplomatic travel, security developments, and requests to cancel or shorten hearing days.