Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu insisted during testimony at his corruption trial on Monday that he never asked Walla to alter its coverage of him. He also pointed out that the way the site reported on other politicians was inconsistent, sometimes flattering and sometimes critical.
This stage of questioning marks a crucial point in Netanyahu’s legal defense and is expected to last about a week. The focus is now on the part of the trial where defense attorneys for the co-defendants—Shaul and Iris Elovich and Arnon “Noni” Mozes—are leading the examination before the prosecution begins cross-examination.
Monday’s session ended two hours earlier than scheduled. Netanyahu told the court he had an urgent security briefing. He also asked ahead of time that Tuesday’s hearing be shortened to accommodate other national security obligations.
The lawyers for the Elovichs and Mozes are now steering their questioning toward Netanyahu, who is the main defendant, aiming to challenge the allegations against their own clients in two of the three cases he is facing.
In what’s known as Case 4000, also referred to as the “Walla-Bezeq Affair,” Netanyahu stands accused of using his influence to push regulatory changes that favored the Elovich family’s financial interests. In return, the prosecution claims he expected more favorable media coverage from the Walla website, which was under the control of Shaul Elovich and Bezeq.
This particular case carries the most severe accusation—bribery—alongside charges of fraud and breach of trust. Shaul and Iris Elovich face bribery charges as well, which their attorney, Jack Chen, is working to refute during the current proceedings.
In Case 2000, the allegations center around Netanyahu’s interactions with Yediot Aharonot’s owner, Arnon Mozes. Prosecutors claim Mozes offered Netanyahu positive press coverage for him and his family, as well as negative portrayals of his political adversaries, in return for legislation that would undercut his newspaper’s main competitor, Yisroel Hayom.
In that case, Netanyahu faces accusations of fraud and breach of trust, while Mozes has been charged with attempted bribery.
During Monday’s proceedings, prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh raised several objections to the way Chen posed his questions, arguing that he was being overly suggestive and summarizing too broadly. In response, Chen agreed to rephrase his inquiries.
When asked whether he had any awareness of the editorial structure at Walla, Netanyahu stated that he never knew how the newsroom operated and had no information on who held which positions or how decisions were made.
Chen showed court records indicating that between 2012 and 2017, Netanyahu was the subject of nearly 15,000 articles on Walla—about ten times the number of stories written about any other political figure. “We have records of how many times I called [Elovich]—they don’t measure up to the sheer volume of coverage,” Netanyahu remarked.
“I was treated uniquely in the other direction—consistent hostility—when it came to coverage!” he asserted.
Chen is trying to establish two key points in defense of Elovich. First, that there was no actual transaction—no benefits were exchanged—and second, that there was never any intent to arrange such a deal in the first place.
To support his claim, Chen presented messages from 2015 written by Isaac Herzog, then head of the Labor party, to Walla’s CEO Ilan Yeshua. In those texts, Herzog asked Yeshua to call him back to discuss an idea. The next day, a favorable piece about Herzog appeared on the site.
Chen also referenced another message from Herzog in which he requested a meeting. Netanyahu commented that during election seasons, efforts by politicians to engage with media executives are routine.
Chen then asked whether it’s typical for political figures to suggest favorable coverage ideas to journalists. Netanyahu confirmed that this was indeed a common practice. This was part of Chen’s broader effort to show that Walla’s editorial standards fluctuated for various political actors—not just Netanyahu—weakening the foundation of the bribery charge in Case 4000.
Furthering his point, Chen attempted to demonstrate that Walla’s inconsistency was systemic—not tailored to Netanyahu—thereby suggesting that even if Netanyahu had received unique attention, it was largely unfavorable and therefore not indicative of any quid pro quo arrangement.
In another example, Chen cited texts sent by Naftali Bennett to Ilan Yeshua following a negative story about Bennett’s political ally, Ayelet Shaked. Yeshua responded: “I saw your [Facebook] post [about the incident], please let’s talk.”
Netanyahu told the court that he had never been on the receiving end of such outreach from Walla’s leadership. Chen emphasized that such communications, especially around elections when campaign materials and financing are involved, are entirely typical.
Meanwhile, the spokesperson’s office at the court informed reporters Monday that any journalist who speaks to Netanyahu before judges enter the courtroom or during recesses will only be admitted into the room after Netanyahu himself arrives on Wednesday.
This rule is based on a prior court directive prohibiting journalists from addressing Netanyahu at those moments. Many reporters were outraged by the announcement, arguing it further restricts their already limited access to the prime minister, who rarely grants interviews to major news outlets.
Generally, attendees in court—journalists or not—are forbidden from speaking once the judges are seated. However, it’s common for members of the press to attempt to ask questions of high-profile individuals upon arrival at the courthouse, before proceedings begin.
Given the highly publicized nature of this trial, media attempts to engage Netanyahu at the outset of hearings have become routine, often accompanied by chants of support from his followers.
{Matzav.com Israel}