‘Have you no shame?’: Netanyahu accuses prosecutor of ‘dragging him through hell’ in criminal trial

In his testimony at his criminal trial on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu erupted in rage at prosecutors, accusing them of “setting up” the indictment against him. He cited what he claimed were false accusations that he had an illegal quid pro quo agreement with Shaul Elovitch, the owner of the Walla news website.

Netanyahu was incensed, calling it “unbelievable” that he had been prosecuted on accusations he believed were without merit.

“For eight years, you’ve been dragging me through this hell. For what? Have you no shame?” he demanded at the prosecutors in the courtroom.

One of the main accusations made against Netanyahu in Case 4000 was that he had delayed the implementation of telecom market reforms to favour Shaul Elovitch.

Netanyahu countered that he had actually given then-communications minister Gilad Erdan an additional two weeks to complete the reforms.

Due to many postponements caused by schedule conflicts, his recent prostate removal operation, and his trip to the United States last week, Netanyahu was testifying for the eighth time since 10 December, 2024.

Netanyahu is accused in Case 4000 of accepting regulatory decisions that favoured Shaul Elovitch, the main shareholder of Bezeq, the nation’s largest telecoms company, in spite of resistance from officials in the Communication Ministry.

Elovitch is accused of securing favourable publicity for Netanyahu and his family on Walla in exchange.

Judge Rebecca Friedman-Feldman asked Netanyahu’s attorney, Amit Hadad, to restrict the amount of time he spends discussing the more than 300 specific instances in the indictment of alleged media intervention by Netanyahu and his colleagues in Walla’s coverage at the beginning of the session.

Hadad declined, stating that before he would comply with the court’s order, the prosecution should eliminate any cases that don’t seem to be pertinent. A hearing on the issue has been scheduled for next week.

It was one such instance that prompted Netanyahu’s outburst against the prosecution later in the trial.

The indictment described an item on Netanyahu’s son Avner joining the IDF that was posted on the Walla website in December 2014. As part of their alleged deal, prosecutors claim that Netanyahu was involved in pressuring Walla to publish an item.

Hadad maintained that the incident was generally a noteworthy story, pointing out that many other media sites, like as NRG, Ynet, and even Haaretz, which is very critical of Netanyahu, had written about Avner’s enrolment.

“How is it possible that I am indicted for this when it’s published in every other outlet, including my ‘friend’ [Haaretz publisher Amos] Shocken?” Netanyahu demanded. “For eight years, you’ve been dragging me through this hell. For what? Have you no shame?

“This is unbelievable… Did you check this?… You didn’t check anything. How can you say that is ‘special treatment?’ You set me up from beginning to end!”

Hadad had previously cited another instance from the indictment that accused Netanyahu of media meddling, claiming that he pressured Elovitch and Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua to change a story that said Sara Netanyahu had squandered money at the Prime Minister’s Residence.

In what Netanyahu called the “minimum” of journalistic ethics, Hadad drew attention to the fact that Walla had been asked to provide a reaction to the piece on behalf of his wife, something they had neglected to do initially.

Netanyahu chastised the prosecution for adding this case to the indictment, claiming that it was quite reasonable to demand to include a response to such a story, and noting that other outlets had requested and published a response in their stories on the same topic.

The prime minister admitted that he was engaged in crafting the statement, stating that it was appropriate because it directly touched his wife, but stated that it was his spokeswoman Nir Hefetz who submitted the message to Walla and other news sites.

Hadad also addressed charges in the indictment that Netanyahu stymied telecom market changes in late 2014 to benefit Elovitch.

At the time, then-communications minister Gilad Erdan was working on restructuring the internet market to allow Bezeq’s rivals to use the telecoms infrastructure that Bezeq controlled, so increasing competition for the benefit of customers.

According to the indictment, Elovitch wanted Netanyahu to remove Erdan from office because the changes he was promoting would have a detrimental impact on Bezeq, and Hefetz, a state witness who has testified against Netanyahu, relayed these demands to Netanyahu.

Erdan left the Communications Ministry at Netanyahu’s request at the end of 2014. Following the resignation of the current minister, Gideon Sa’ar, the premier requested that Erdan take over as interior minister.

Netanyahu told the court, however, that Erdan had urged him to continue as communications minister for an additional two weeks in order to accomplish the telecoms market changes he had been working on, which Netanyahu agreed to.

“He requested time to complete the reform. I said, ‘Take it.’ Not only did not I not prevent him, I enabled him [to complete the reform],” Netanyahu told the court, and denied he had received any request from Elovitch to remove Erdan.

After Erdan left, Netanyahu took over the communications job, which he kept until 2017. He stated in court that he did so, in part, to promote variety in Israel’s media landscape. The prime minister has often stated in court that he wants to establish right-wing media channels to oppose what he sees as the current media’s monolithic “left-wing” political agenda.

Although the reform granting Bezeq’s competitors access to its infrastructure was implemented, a second part of the reform requiring Bezeq to allow its competitors to use physical infrastructure for the nationwide rollout of fibre optic cables was stalled for three years after Erdan left office, while Netanyahu served as both communications minister and prime minister. The defence has not yet responded to that portion of the indictment.

“I supported the reform, I gave [Erdan] full support because that’s what interested me… to advance competition,” said Netanyahu.

When asked about Hefetz’s evidence that Elovitch had complained to Netanyahu about the changes through him, Netanyahu dismissed the charges as “total lies,” and said Hefetz was trying to please investigators when he offered such testimony because they “were torturing him.”

Hefetz said in 2021 that he was subjected to difficult physical circumstances in jail, including sleep deprivation, inadequate food, and unsanitary surroundings, before agreeing to testify as a state witness. Despite this, he has stated in court that he did not accept to testify against Netanyahu because of pressure.

Netanyahu also denied in court that he met with Elovitch in November 2014 to negotiate Bezeq’s merger with cable TV operator Yes, which was finally authorised and benefited Elovitch by millions of dollars.

According to the indictment, Hefetz arranged the encounter, which took place at the Prime Minister’s property, and Netanyahu instructed Hefetz to ensure that Elovitch’s presence to the property was not noticed by other guests.

Netanyahu admitted in court that Elovitch was brought in in this fashion, but argued that it was a frequently used technique meant to safeguard guests’ privacy and prevent the prime minister’s calendar of engagements from being revealed.

“The office is not a queue for a dentist appointment, you ensure separation, discretion of the meetings… [visitors] don’t see one another, this is standard practice. People don’t wait in a waiting room together,” said Netanyahu, adding that the claim “reveals a fitting ignorance” by the prosecutors as to the functioning of the Prime Minister’s Office.

At the start of his evidence, Netanyahu informed the court that he was encountering medical “challenges,” including being prescribed high doses of antibiotics, as a result of the prostate-removal surgery he had in December, and that he would require extra pauses from testimony.

The prime minister did not request an unusual number of breaks in the proceedings, but did request that the hearing end early at 3 p.m., one hour before the scheduled end time, so that he could arrive on time at the Knesset to speak ahead of a no-confidence motion in the plenum, which the judges agreed to. Netanyahu began his remarks in the Knesset plenum just after 5 p.m.

The court cancelled a hearing set for Tuesday at the request of the prime minister’s counsel, citing a new crisis in the hostage-release arrangement with Hamas in Gaza.