Netanyahu rejects prosecution's 'absurd' Case 2000 thesis during defense questioning in court

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday described the prosecution's central argument in Case 2000 as "absolutely absurd" during his defense questioning at the Tel Aviv District Court. The ongoing hearing is focused on the media-related cases within Netanyahu's broader criminal trial.

Sharon Kleinman, attorney for Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon "Noni" Mozes, questioned Netanyahu about the prosecution's claim that alleged understandings between the two men resulted in less negative coverage of the prime minister in Yediot Aharonot and Ynet following their sixth meeting in December 2014. The prosecution contends that Mozes offered to improve coverage of Netanyahu and worsen coverage of his rivals in exchange for Netanyahu using his influence to restrict the distribution of Israel Hayom, a free daily newspaper that posed a significant economic threat to Yediot Aharonot.

Netanyahu consistently argued that the Yediot group maintained a hostile stance towards him. He asserted that his conversations with Mozes were not a corrupt exchange but rather an effort to prevent or mitigate legislation that would harm Israel Hayom. Kleinman's questioning aimed to challenge the prosecution's narrative by examining whether the coverage by Yediot and Ynet truly shifted after the December 2014 meetings and whether it could be considered part of the alleged benefit offered to Netanyahu.

Kleinman presented examples of negative coverage and asked Netanyahu to respond, suggesting that the coverage did not fully align with the prosecution's theory. The defense attorney also noted that communication between Netanyahu and Mozes continued for about a month after their December 2014 meeting before deteriorating, implying that the alleged shift in coverage might not have been as straightforward as the prosecution suggested. Netanyahu's defense strategy appears to focus on demonstrating that the media landscape remained adversarial and that his interactions with Mozes were driven by political and legislative concerns rather than a quid pro quo for favorable press.

“

This thesis by the prosecution is absolutely absurd.