Attempt to balance bias and “Netanyahu does not like champagne”

Netanyahu’s response to the amended indictment begins with a principled reference to the relationship between the prime minister and the media, which form the basis of the charges in the 4000 case (Bezeq-Walla case) and the 2000 case (Bibi-Noni talks).

According to Netanyahu, most of the media in Israel and around the world have a left-wing worldview, and he sought to influence this by legitimate means. “The main explanation in the indictment is this – the media are objective and impartial. Well, a fundamental mistake was made in this position. In Israel, most of the media are infected with a bias towards the left side of the political map, despite the consistent election results.”

This is the reason, according to Netanyahu, who also strives to improve his coverage in the media, as much as a politician and public figure. Netanyahu’s defense attorneys, Boaz Ben Tzur and Amit Hadad, emphasized that not only politicians strive for positive coverage, but also the heads of the State Attorney’s Office.

For example, former State Attorney Shai Nitzan spoke with journalists 32 times in the years 2017-2019, including Walla and Yedioth Ahronoth, while Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit met with journalists 71 times between February 2016 and the end of February 2019.

Netanyahu and his defense attorneys argued that the prosecution did not bother to conduct a comparative examination with respect to the question of how the media routinely operates vis-à-vis senior politicians. Hence, according to them, she made a mistake according to which there is an “acceptable media scale” and therefore the prosecution’s definition as “abnormal response” to Netanyahu’s requests is detached from reality.

Netanyahu’s defense attorneys filed an updated motion to quash the indictment because the prosecution did not pass on to them the attorney general’s approval to open investigations against the prime minister, as required by law. They claim the prosecution provided them with mostly confidential documents. Than to interrogate Netanyahu.

“The indictment was filed on the basis of evidence obtained illegally and without authority,” the petition said. “Note: Since this is a defect that goes to the root of the matter, it must be determined that the indictment filed against the prime minister is null and void.”

The prime minister and his defense attorneys attacked the Walla website in response to the indictment, claiming that “the website system was made up of leftists. The proportion of leftists in this system was above and beyond their relative share of the population. Not just the left – a real hostility to the prime minister.”

In contrast to the system, Netanyahu says in response to the indictment that the controlling shareholders of Bezeq and Walla, Shaul Alovich and his wife Iris, presented themselves to the prime minister as belonging to the national camp that identifies with the right.

“The prime minister addressed Alovich directly a few times and in a way that is no different from appeals made to other senior figures in other media,” the indictment said in response. “Regarding the family members’ inquiries – the Prime Minister was not aware of most of these inquiries, beyond the very general knowledge of the existence of a connection between Mrs. Elovich and Mrs. Netanyahu,” he denied the prosecution’s claims that he was involved in about 150 different inquiries to the Walla website.

Netanyahu’s defense attorneys cited examples of many negative headlines against him that appeared on the site. The allegations are supported by tests conducted by the Seventh Eye website and other media outlets that reviewed the publications on the Walla website and found that most of them were negative.

“The few times the prime minister made his inquiries were nothing more than an attempt to balance the severe bias of the Walla website. The staining of these inquiries as part of a bribery relationship, and the attempt to claim that these inquiries created in the prime minister an ‘understanding’ and mental element that form the bribery offense. “Unacceptable,” it read. “The Prime Minister did not link between inquiries in matters of coverage or response to such inquiries, as it were, and regulatory actions.”

Netanyahu’s line of defense regarding the testimonies of Nir Hefetz and others about his involvement in inquiries related to the prime minister’s coverage claims that even if Hefetz and others claimed that they were acting on Netanyahu’s behalf, they only bragged, and the references were only to Netanyahu’s knowledge.

In response to the indictment, Netanyahu refers to dozens of examples cited in the appendix to the indictment as a gift from the bribery deal. Netanyahu emphasized that in many cases these are press releases that have been distributed to other media outlets and cite examples of publications that have appeared simultaneously in other media outlets without claiming any special relationship between him and the publishers.

Netanyahu’s defense attorneys warn that the indictment, which refers to sympathetic coverage as bribery, will have implications for freedom of expression, freedom of the press and basic democratic principles. “According to the approach that seeks to incriminate an interaction of this type – a positive article given in exchange for leaking exclusive information, is like bribery, since a leak (on internal discussions in a government office, for example) is equivalent to taking action by public authority.”

The Prime Minister denies that the references to Walla were related to regulatory actions related to Elowitz’s business. Regarding the “Be Com” deal and the sale of “Yad2”, it was claimed that they were “incidents in which the prime minister’s alleged involvement was negligible, and in any case required, proper and completely legal.”

Netanyahu denied the prosecution’s allegations that he fired Avi Berger, director general of the Ministry of Communications, and appointed Shlomo Pilber in his place because of Berger’s treatment of Alovich. For the Bezeq-Yes transaction. “

Defense attorneys mentioned that according to the indictment method, the bribery deal was formed as early as 2012. “It turns out that the Ministry of Communications harmed Bezeq and delayed issuing a permit that would yield significant profits to the Bezeq Group. This takes place during the indictment. “Bribery deal,” the Ministry of Communications began to promote the wholesale reform that harmed Bezeq and reduced its power. “

In response to the indictment, the prime minister accuses the prosecution that in the 1000 case she bound the gifts given to him together with his wife Sarah. “Even though they are a married couple, it is not possible to create such a merger between them and ignore the fact that they are separate legal entities. This is all the more true since the prime minister’s wife is not charged in the process.”

“The prime minister does not like champagne. In general, the prime minister did not know when and if champagne is accepted,” it said. “As much as Mrs. Netanyahu received or demanded champagne, it is her business.”

Netanyahu describes the connection between him and Arnon Milchen as a close friendship and that the prime minister saw Milchen as his closest friend, “perhaps the closest.” The two talked on the phone once in a few days and used to meet occasionally with their spouses for shared meals.

He acknowledged receiving the cigars as a gift from Milchen and stressed “the cigars given as a gift to the Prime Minister are a natural part of the close relationship with Milchen – when these were given to the Prime Minister in no connection to public office or any other vested interest.” He denied that he acted to promote the granting of the American visa to Milchen because of the gifts “but acted in accordance with his moral and national obligations.”

Netanyahu described the relationship with billionaire James Packer as “almost paternal.” Packer appreciated the prime minister and the prime minister expressed deep concern for him. The friendship formed with Packer was not only of the prime minister, but also of his family. Packer often spent time with The son of Prime Minister Yair Netanyahu. “

“The Prime Minister did not demand cigars, these gifts were given of the good and free will of Milchen and Packer, as part of the way they expressed the deep friendship between them,” the indictment read. It was also noted that Adv. Yaakov Weinroth gave Netanyahu an opinion according to which he could receive gifts from friends.

Defense attorneys likened the receipt of Netanyahu’s gifts to the prestigious pens by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and to the closing of the criminal case against Ruth David, who as a Tel Aviv district attorney received a veteran planter from attorney Ronel Fischer. ” A public figure is also allowed to receive gifts from friends and acquaintances. “

Regarding the 2000 case, Netanyahu claims that he could not be convicted of breach of trust just because he did not immediately refuse Moses’ alleged bribe offer and continued to meet and record the conversations between them.

“This is a legal thesis that has not been seen before. It has not been argued in the past, and not in vain, that a refusal that is not quick enough to an alleged bribery offer amounts to a breach of trust offense,” it read. “The claim that the prime minister had to refuse a bribe offer is made in one particular way, which is not enshrined in legislation or case law, and since he did not refuse to do so, he violated trust – it is a claim without a legal basis.”

Netanyahu claims that Mozes was involved in the “Israel Today” bill submitted by MK Eitan Kabel. After realizing that there is a majority in the bill that could lead to the closure of “Israel Today”, he and his advisers examined the possibility of passing a softer law – which would help him defend On “Israel Today,” if it fails to completely thwart the bill.