Netanyahu spars with prosecution over 2015 Walla interview, Election Day video, in trial hearing

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced intense questioning in court on Wednesday, as his trial for corruption continued. The proceedings zeroed in on his alleged involvement in demands to delay and edit a March 2015 interview with Walla journalist Dov Gil-Har, as well as the controversial video he released on Election Day that same year, warning about "Arab voters" heading to the polls.

“

The interview was hostile and had violated understandings reached between his spokesman and Walla.

Netanyahu vehemently rejected the prosecution's characterization of these events, asserting that the interview was hostile and that he had not sought improper intervention. He also pushed back against the reliance on former spokesman Nir Hefetz, a key state witness. Regarding the Election Day video, Netanyahu maintained it was intended to mobilize Likud voters and argued that its placement on Walla, which was allegedly responsive to his requests, was not solely monitored by him during his campaign travels.

“

He said he had not sought improper intervention in the interview and pushed back against reliance on former spokesman Nir Hefetz, a state witness in the case.

The Jerusalem Post, as an Israeli publication, recognizes the deep significance of these hearings for the nation's political landscape. The trial of a sitting prime minister is a momentous event, and the details emerging, particularly concerning media manipulation and election tactics, resonate strongly within Israel. Unlike some international coverage that might focus on the legal intricacies, our reporting emphasizes the impact on Israeli democracy and public trust. The focus on the 2015 election, a pivotal moment, highlights the ongoing scrutiny of leadership and the public's right to a fair electoral process. This trial is not just about legal guilt or innocence; it's about accountability and the integrity of the democratic system in Israel.

“

the video was meant to mobilize Likud voters and argued that the wording would have been more precise had it referred to voters for Arab parties.