Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu
Based on Wikipedia: Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu
A sitting prime minister stands accused of trading political favors for positive press coverage and luxury gifts. The trial has stretched across five years, survived a pandemic, weathered a war, and now faces an extraordinary twist: the defendant has asked Israel's president for a pardon before any verdict has been reached.
This is the trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, and it represents something unprecedented in Israeli history.
The Charges: Three Cases, One Pattern
To understand what Netanyahu faces, you need to grasp three separate cases, each with its own cast of characters and alleged scheme. But they share a common thread: a prime minister allegedly leveraging his office for personal benefit.
Case 1000 is perhaps the most straightforward. Over roughly two decades, Netanyahu and his wife Sara allegedly received gifts worth nearly two hundred thousand dollars from wealthy businessmen. We're talking about expensive cigars, champagne, and jewelry. The gifts came primarily from Arnon Milchan, an Israeli billionaire perhaps best known internationally as a Hollywood producer behind films like "Pretty Woman" and "Fight Club." His friend, Australian billionaire James Packer, also contributed.
The prosecution's theory is simple: these weren't just gifts between friends. They were bribes.
In exchange, Netanyahu allegedly helped Milchan in three specific ways. First, he advocated for extending tax exemptions for returning Israeli residents, a change that would have saved Milchan substantial money. The Ministry of Finance blocked this, calling it contrary to national interests. Second, Netanyahu reportedly asked then-United States Secretary of State John Kerry on three separate occasions to help Milchan obtain a visa. Third, Netanyahu allegedly instructed officials to assist Milchan with regulatory matters related to a media company merger.
Case 2000 involves recorded conversations that sound like something from a political thriller. Netanyahu was caught on tape discussing a quid pro quo with Arnon Mozes, the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, one of Israel's largest newspapers.
The alleged deal went like this: Mozes would ensure more favorable coverage of Netanyahu and harsher coverage of his political rivals. In exchange, Netanyahu would push legislation to hobble Israel Hayom, a free daily newspaper that competes directly with Yedioth Ahronoth. Israel Hayom, owned by the late American casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, had been cutting into Yedioth's market share by being distributed for free.
The deal apparently never materialized. Netanyahu is charged with fraud and breach of trust in this case, while Mozes faces charges of attempted bribery. The distinction matters legally: Netanyahu allegedly entertained the corrupt bargain even if he didn't ultimately follow through.
Case 4000 is considered the most serious because it includes bribery charges, not just fraud and breach of trust.
This case centers on Bezeq, Israel's telecommunications giant. Shaul Elovitch controlled Bezeq and also owned Walla!, a major Israeli news website. The prosecution alleges that Netanyahu, while simultaneously serving as Minister of Communications, pushed regulatory changes worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Elovitch's business interests. In return, Walla! allegedly provided favorable coverage of Netanyahu and his family.
Think about that for a moment. The person regulating the telecommunications industry was allegedly accepting bribes from a telecommunications company in the form of positive news coverage. The conflict of interest is breathtaking in its brazenness.
The Judges: A Panel With History
Three judges preside over this trial in the Jerusalem District Court: Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Moshe Bar-Am, and Oded Shaham. Friedman-Feldman leads the panel.
Her background is significant. She previously sat on the judicial panel that convicted former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of bribery. Olmert received a six-year prison sentence. This is not a judge who has shown reluctance to hold powerful figures accountable.
Israel's judicial system differs from American courts in several ways. There are no juries in criminal cases. Professional judges determine both guilt and sentencing. This means these three individuals carry the full weight of deciding Netanyahu's fate.
The Long Road to Trial
The investigation began in December 2016, during Netanyahu's fourth term as prime minister. Israeli police spent years gathering evidence before recommending indictments.
The formal indictment came on November 21, 2019. Netanyahu was charged with breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud. Under Israeli law, this meant he had to give up his other ministerial positions. He could remain prime minister, but he couldn't simultaneously hold cabinet portfolios like the communications ministry.
Netanyahu tried to avoid trial through parliamentary immunity. In January 2020, he submitted a request to the Knesset speaker, seeking protection from prosecution. The move sparked immediate backlash. Politicians across the spectrum criticized the attempt. Avigdor Lieberman, a former ally turned critic, made clear his party would vote against immunity.
The political calculus became stark. Netanyahu needed to control enough seats in the Knesset to secure immunity. The March 2020 election essentially became a referendum on whether Netanyahu could escape trial.
He couldn't secure the votes. On January 28, 2020, Netanyahu withdrew his immunity bid. The charges were officially filed in Jerusalem District Court that same day.
Pandemic Delays and Political Protests
The trial was supposed to begin on March 17, 2020. Then a global pandemic intervened.
COVID-19 restrictions pushed the start date to May 24, 2020. Netanyahu appeared in person for that first hearing, as the court required. The scene was surreal: a sitting prime minister standing in the defendant's dock while simultaneously managing his country's pandemic response.
Meanwhile, protests had been building since 2017. Weekly rallies began in Petah Tikva, targeting Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, whom protesters accused of dragging his feet on the investigation. Forty-one consecutive Sundays, demonstrators gathered to demand action.
As Netanyahu remained in office despite the charges, protests grew substantially through 2020 and 2021. These demonstrations would eventually merge with the massive 2023 protests against Netanyahu's proposed judicial reforms, creating one of the largest sustained protest movements in Israeli history.
The connection between the trial and the judicial reforms isn't coincidental. Critics argue that weakening the judiciary would help Netanyahu escape conviction. Supporters counter that the reforms address legitimate concerns about judicial overreach. Whatever the motivation, the perception of self-interest has hung over the reform effort.
Inside the Courtroom
The prosecution listed an astonishing 333 potential witnesses. Through negotiations, this was eventually reduced to around 60 who actually testified.
Three witnesses proved particularly damaging: former confidants who turned state's evidence. Shlomo Filber, the former director of the Ministry of Communications, had been Netanyahu's trusted bureaucrat at the very ministry involved in Case 4000. Nir Hefetz served as a media advisor, intimately familiar with Netanyahu's obsession with press coverage. Ari Harow was Netanyahu's former chief of staff.
All three agreed to testify against their former boss in exchange for plea deals. Their insider knowledge gave prosecutors access to conversations and decisions that would otherwise have remained hidden.
Other key witnesses included Ilan Yeshua, the former chief executive officer of Walla! News, who could speak to editorial pressure, and Hadas Klein, Milchan's personal assistant who actually purchased and delivered the alleged illegal gifts.
Arnon Milchan himself testified in late June and early July 2023, appearing via video from Brighton in the United Kingdom. The 79-year-old producer was allowed to testify remotely due to health concerns. His testimony was crucial because he was the source of most of the gifts in Case 1000.
Before Milchan took the virtual stand, something remarkable happened in a private meeting. The judges suggested to both sides that the bribery charges might be difficult to prove. They urged both prosecution and defense to consider a plea bargain "for the sake of the country."
No deal was reached.
Netanyahu Takes the Stand
The prosecution rested in July 2024. Then came the moment observers had long anticipated: Netanyahu's own testimony.
Defense attorneys requested delays, first to give Netanyahu time to prepare, then seeking an additional ten weeks. The court granted a partial delay, with testimony beginning on December 10, 2024.
Further delays followed. A minor surgery in late 2024 canceled hearings scheduled for January 2025. Netanyahu's cross-examination, where prosecutors would question him directly, finally began on June 3, 2025.
For a prime minister to be cross-examined about alleged crimes while still in office is extraordinary anywhere in the world. In Israel's relatively short history as a nation, nothing quite like this has happened before.
The Pardon Request
On November 30, 2025, Netanyahu made a move that stunned many observers. He formally asked President Isaac Herzog for a pardon.
The timing matters enormously. The trial isn't over. No verdict has been rendered. Netanyahu is essentially asking to be excused from a process that hasn't reached its conclusion.
In most legal systems, pardons come after conviction. A pardon acknowledges wrongdoing while forgiving the punishment. Requesting one before any finding of guilt is unusual and, critics argue, an implicit admission that acquittal seems unlikely.
The Substack article this essay accompanies calls the request "staggering hypocrisy." The characterization reflects a widespread view that Netanyahu has spent years attacking the legitimacy of the investigation, the prosecutors, and the judiciary itself, only to now seek an escape hatch through presidential mercy.
Trump Weighs In
International attention to the trial intensified in June 2025 when United States President Donald Trump publicly called for the trial to be cancelled or for Netanyahu to receive a pardon. Trump referred to Netanyahu as "a Great Hero" and made his statement following military conflict between Israel and Iran.
The Jerusalem District Court responded the next day. It rejected Netanyahu's latest request to delay testimony, pointedly noting that the request "does not present a detailed basis or reason that might justify canceling evidentiary hearings."
The court's response was notable for what it didn't say. It didn't address Trump's comments directly. It simply proceeded with the law as written, indifferent to pressure from the most powerful politician on earth.
The Broader Context
Netanyahu's trial exists within a particular Israeli context that's worth understanding. This is not a country unfamiliar with corruption scandals at the highest levels.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to prison for bribery. President Moshe Katsav was convicted of rape. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin resigned over a financial scandal. The current case actually echoes an earlier Netanyahu scandal from his first term: the 1997 "Bar-On Hebron affair," which involved allegations of an improper attorney general appointment.
Israel's aggressive prosecution of its leaders reflects both the strengths and tensions within its democracy. The judiciary has historically been willing to pursue powerful figures. But that willingness has created intense political conflict, with some viewing the courts as guardians of the rule of law and others seeing them as unelected elites undermining popular will.
Netanyahu has positioned himself firmly in the latter camp, attacking what he calls a "deep state" conspiracy against him. His supporters see the charges as political persecution. His critics see a corrupt leader using political power to escape accountability.
What Comes Next
As of late 2025, the trial continues. Netanyahu testifies while serving as prime minister, an arrangement that would seem implausible if it weren't actually happening.
Several outcomes remain possible. The judges could convict on some or all charges, potentially sentencing a sitting prime minister to prison. They could acquit, vindicating Netanyahu's claims of persecution. They could reach a mixed verdict. Or the whole matter could be resolved through a pardon or plea deal that never reaches a final judgment.
Whatever happens, the trial has already transformed Israeli politics. It has fueled protests, shaped elections, and prompted judicial reform proposals that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets. It has forced Israelis to grapple with fundamental questions about accountability, the rule of law, and whether their democracy's institutions can constrain even its most powerful leaders.
The trial of Benjamin Netanyahu isn't just about one man's alleged crimes. It's a test of whether the legal system can function when the defendant controls significant levers of power and has millions of loyal supporters who view any prosecution as illegitimate.
The answer to that question matters far beyond Israel's borders.