Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criminal trial resumed on Monday at the Tel Aviv District Court, with prosecutors in Case 4000 continuing their cross-examination regarding Netanyahu’s knowledge of and involvement in contact between his family and the Elovichs, the former owners of the Walla news site.
Case 4000 alleges that Netanyahu, while serving concurrently as prime minister and communications minister, advanced regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels to Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage on Walla’s website, which was controlled at the time by Shaul Elovich. Netanyahu is charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He denies all wrongdoing.
Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh focused her questioning on Netanyahu’s awareness of the relationship between his wife, Sara Netanyahu, and Iris Elovich. Netanyahu told the court he was largely uninvolved.
“The table was long [where we all sat]; I didn’t deal with any of that,” Netanyahu said, referring to social encounters involving the Elovich family. He insisted he did not concern himself with the relationship between the two women.
Tirosh presented interrogation protocols in which Netanyahu stated that Sara Netanyahu had made “all kinds of demands” of Iris Elovich. Confronted with the discrepancy, Netanyahu said he was aware only of a general complaint about a “change of stance,” not of specific requests.
The lawyer also revisited Netanyahu’s earlier testimony regarding text message exchanges between the two women. “I knew they were in touch, not the contents,” Netanyahu said, “my wife spoke to lots of people.” He then stressed in English, “I wasn’t involved.”
Tirosh further cited testimony by former Communications Ministry director-general Shlomo Filber, a state witness, who testified that he overheard a conversation in which Netanyahu asked his wife whether she was still in contact with Iris Elovich and allegedly instructed her to cut off contact and delete messages.
Judge Moshe Bar-Am intervened, questioning the necessity of further narrowing in on granular details of the text exchanges and the assumptions concerning what the prime minister knew. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel headed by Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman, alongside Bar-Am and Judge Oded Shaham.
Netanyahu says to be aware of general complaint regarding 'change of stance'
Netanyahu was also confronted with testimony by former aide and state witness Nir Hefetz, who described instances in which Yair Netanyahu requested changes to Walla coverage. The prime minister rejected the claim that these incidents – one of which is cited in the testimony – show that he or his household knew such a mechanism existed, functioned, or was available to them.
Tirosh then turned to Netanyahu’s 2015 conflict-of-interest arrangement, signed when he assumed the communications portfolio, pressing him on why Elovich was not explicitly included. Despite Elovich’s central role in the communications sector, the agreement did not bar Netanyahu from involvement in Bezeq-related matters.
Tirosh presented an internal email dated December 8, 2015, sent by a member of the Prime Minister’s Office legal advisory team to then-PMO legal adviser Shlomit Barnea Farago. The correspondence followed a Haaretz article by journalist Gidi Weitz detailing Netanyahu’s long-standing personal relationship with Elovich, after which two Knesset members sought clarification on potential conflicts of interest.
Barnea Farago responded that Netanyahu and Elovich had been friends for over two decades, and that any conflict concerns should be examined through Filber, who was the Communications Ministry director-general at the time.
Questioned by Bar-Am, Netanyahu said the article was raised only after Barnea Farago asked him about it, but dismissed its importance. “She wasn’t even interested in it,” he said, adding that he told her the relationship was no different from those he had with other senior business figures.
Tirosh countered that Netanyahu never disclosed the nature of his relationship with Elovich as it related specifically to communications and media – a key element of the indictment. Citing Barnea Farago’s testimony, the attorney said he failed to provide “the full picture.”
Netanyahu rejected that, saying the article was never discussed in substance and likening the omission to not mentioning “what I ate for lunch that day.” According to the prime minister, the sole concern raised by legal advisers was whether he had made regulatory decisions benefiting Bezeq, which he denied.
“I viewed this whole incident as thin air,” Netanyahu told the court. “Nothing deeper.” At one point, he added: “This is a waste of the prosecution’s time.”
Tirosh maintained that the absence of an explicit explanation relative to the nature of Netanyahu’s relationship with Elovich in the media and communications sphere was itself material. Netanyahu stood by his position, insisting the relationship was indistinguishable from his contacts with other CEOs.
The court announced that the hearing would conclude at 2 p.m., two hours earlier than originally scheduled, as hearings are set to continue next week.