Prosecution preemptively strikes PM’s story on James Packer

The most notable of the three occasions that Netanyahu pushed for Elovitch to sell, was his request to sell Walla to Australian tycoon billionaire James Packer.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
(From left) WRITER JACOB NAGEL, then national security adviser, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee head Avi Dichter at a 2017 meeting in the Knesset. ( (photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH 90)
(From left) WRITER JACOB NAGEL, then national security adviser, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee head Avi Dichter at a 2017 meeting in the Knesset. (
(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH 90)
The prosecution’s tactics in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shifted on Monday as it engaged in a preemptive strike against an anticipated attack by the defense.
Former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua testified for the sixth day before the Jerusalem District Court, revealing that Netanyahu had pressed his alleged media bribery co-conspirator, Shaul Elovitch, to sell Walla on three separate occasions.
Elovitch owned both Walla and telecommunications giant Bezeq, and allegedly used giving positive coverage at Walla to the prime minister in order to influence Netanyahu to give Bezeq preferential treatment.  
The most notable of the three occasions that Netanyahu pushed for Elovitch to sell, was his request to sell Walla to Australian tycoon billionaire James Packer.
Packer is expected to play a significant role when the trial reaches Case 1000, the “illegal gifts affair,” since he allegedly gave illegal gifts to Netanyahu along with tycoon billionaire Arnon Milchan.
But he had not previously come up in the context of Case 4000 – the focus of the public corruption trial to date.
It appeared that the prosecution’s aim in raising these issues was to try to defang attacks which it expects the defense to pursue either in cross-examination or when it presents its own witnesses.
The obvious point of attack by the defense would be to argue: how can the prosecution say that Netanyahu was involved in media bribery with Elovitch and Walla, if the prime minister was so upset with the coverage that he pressed over and over again for it to be sold to other allies.
If, in fact, Netanyahu was in collusion with Elovitch, he would never have wanted him to sell Walla, the prosecution had expected the defense to argue.
Anticipating this, Yeshua testified that Elovitch never had any intention of selling to any of the three buyers.
In fact, Yeshua said that Elovitch ordered him to only appear to negotiate with the potential buyers in good faith, but to do all he could passively to undermine reaching a deal.
Tactics to prevent a sale included postponing meetings, offering Walla at an unrealistically high price and other moves.
Further, Yeshua testified that his understanding was that Netanyahu did not want Walla sold because it was not giving him overwhelmingly positive coverage.
Rather, he wanted Walla sold so that he would have even greater or complete control of the coverage.
“The website acted to fulfil the demands [of Netanyahu] regarding coverage, but very occasionally did not [fulfil those demands.] Maybe the idea was to fulfil all of the demands,” said Yeshua.
In parallel, Yeshua testified that Netanyahu and Elovitch had pressed for him to fire Walla journalist Amir Tibon for publishing a negative article relating to the prime minister’s Iran policies.
Responding to this pressure, Yeshua said that he had ordered chief editor Avi Alkalai not to post any of Tibon’s articles before the former Walla CEO had personally approved them.  
He added that “not even a poem” by Tibon would be published without his approval, and told Elovitch he would try to figure out some way to legally fire him without it being obviously connected to Tibon’s failure to play along with the positive coverage for Netanyahu plan.
A separate reason that the prosecution has raised the issue was to show how important it was for Elovitch to keep control of Walla so he could use it as a way to influence Netanyahu regarding Bezeq.
Another issue the prosecution explored on Monday was the correspondence between Yeshua and Elovitch from before the 2013 elections, where Yeshua was ordered to block publication of negative articles about the Netanyahu family.
An example given was a picture from 2013 that showed Netanyahu’s son, Yair, kissing his girlfriend.  
According to Yeshua, Elovitch warned him to prevent the picture from being posted “at all costs” because he was waiting for the prime minister to sign off on additional major regulatory economic benefits to Bezeq related to the issuance of shares of stock.
The prosecution is expected to complete its questioning of Yeshua on Tuesday.
Next, the defense has already told the court that it wants a recess of several weeks to prepare its cross-examination of Yeshua – especially since he raised many new claims which had not surfaced when he testified to police.
It is unclear how the court will rule on the defense’s request.
MEANWHILE, Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit on Monday night came closer than ever to declaring Netanyahu unfit to continue leading the country due to the trial, but refrained from actually crossing that line.
Mandelblit made several points in a legal brief to the High Court of Justice which could start the building of a case to disqualify Netanyahu as prime minister due to his specific behavior even if the law does not formally require him to step down simply because he has been indicted.
The attorney-general was responding to a petition by the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel.
Some points he made, such as the severity of the media bribery charges and the inherent conflict of interest in maintaining public trust, had been made by him when a previous petition was filed before the calling of witnesses in Netanyahu’s trial had begun.
But this time, some points were new.
Mandelblit said that the intensity of the prime minister’s attacks on law enforcement had crossed lines which could serve as a basis for declaring him unfit if such deterioration continued beyond a certain unspecified point.
He said that Netanyahu’s failure to appoint a justice minister was another sign that he might eventually be declared unfit, even if the law might not have required his resignation, if he was maintaining normal government positions and business.
However, Mandelblit ultimately said that Netanyahu could remain in office in light of his adhering to limitations placed on him to stay away from involvement in law enforcement and judicial appointments, as well as policy changes which could impact his trial.
Further, the attorney-general said that Netanyahu had not yet perpetrated a clear disqualifying act showing him incapable of carrying on his duties, even if he seemed to be nearing that point.
Mandelblit implied in his brief that Netanyahu has not attended much of his trial to date, only missing prime ministerial business on three occasions since May 2020 for a couple of hours at a time.
On Sunday, the High Court rejected a separate petition to declare Netanyahu ineligible to form a government by virtue of the fact that the witness stage of his trial has started.
However, it appeared that it was easier for the court to reject this petition since it was similar to a petition which the justices rejected 11-0 in May 2020.
But Monday’s petition appears to be a closer call. This is because Netanyahu’s ongoing and evolving personal behavior has become an issue in terms of his fitness to serve, not merely the interpretation of the Basic Law regarding when any prime minister can be legally forced to resign.


Related Tags
bezeq
Case 4000