The criminal trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to the Tel Aviv District Court on Tuesday with prosecutors sharpening what has become one of the central fault lines in Case 4000: not merely whether Netanyahu acted under a conflict of interest, but whether he retrospectively reshaped the story of his relationship with media tycoon Shaul Elovich to neutralize its legal significance.
Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh, leading the cross-examination, accused Netanyahu of advancing shifting narratives about his interactions with Elovich, the former controlling shareholder of Bezeq and the Walla news site, depending on legal and public pressure at the time.
“You say things according to the narrative you want to create,” Tirosh told Netanyahu, arguing that his courtroom testimony diverged from how the relationship was described in legal filings submitted to the court years earlier.
Case 4000 centers on allegations that Netanyahu, while simultaneously serving as prime minister and communications minister in 2013-2015, advanced regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of shekels to Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage on Walla.
Netanyahu is charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust; he denies all wrongdoing.
Netanyahu denies conflict of interest as Case 4000 testimony continues
On Tuesday, Netanyahu contended that his relationship with Elovich amounted to a personal acquaintance devoid of ministerial relevance, insisting that the friendship did not rise to the level of a conflict of interest, and that their meetings did not concern media coverage.
“This wasn’t the kind of friendship that creates a conflict of interest,” Netanyahu testified. He described the relationship as cordial but limited, saying their conversations focused on “changing the concept” of the website or, later, why Elovich had not sold it, not on coverage demands.
Tirosh countered that this framing glosses over material inconsistencies. She pointed to a 2016 petition seeking disclosure of Netanyahu’s meetings with Elovich, which Netanyahu resisted at the time, and to his written response to that petition, which portrayed the relationship as a two-decade friendship without addressing its relevance to media and communications.
“We’re not arguing about the quality of your friendship,” Tirosh said. “We’re arguing that meetings which dealt primarily with coverage were presented differently in your response.”
As the exchange grew sharper, Netanyahu accused the prosecution of ignoring documents from the Justice Ministry and the State Comptroller that, he claimed, showed no impropriety in regulatory decisions touching Bezeq. Tirosh replied that those documents would be addressed in due course, cautioning Netanyahu against repeating the claim that “no flaw was found.”
Throughout the hearing, Tirosh returned to what prosecutors see as a pattern: Netanyahu’s evolving characterization of events as scrutiny intensified. Whereas earlier statements emphasized discussions about media coverage and editorial orientation, Netanyahu now describes the relationship as routine and apolitical, she argued.
The court also revisited Netanyahu’s awareness of contacts between his wife, Sara Netanyahu, and Iris Elovich. Netanyahu reiterated that he knew the two women were in touch but denied involvement in or detailed knowledge of their communications.
Asked whether requests to improve coverage were made in his presence, Netanyahu said he could not recall and stressed that he did not involve himself in those conversations.
At one point, Tirosh read aloud from Netanyahu’s earlier statements describing complaints raised to the Elovichs about Walla’s editorial line. Netanyahu responded that such criticism reflected a general political stance shared by those around him, not a coordinated effort or quid pro quo.
The hearing was shortened to four hours, concluding at 1 p.m., marking the third consecutive session to end early without explanation from the judges. Netanyahu has repeatedly sought reductions in testimony days, citing the demands of his office.