Even without a verdict, the trial serves a potent political purpose.

Shimon Sherman

(JNS)

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump reignited debate over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial, posting on Truth Social that “Bibi’s trial is a sham, another witch hunt by the deep state left to stop a strong leader who loves his country.”

Trump added, “Bibi Netanyahu’s trial should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero. … THIS TRAVESTY OF ‘JUSTICE’ CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!”

Over the weekend, the American president posted further comments in similar vein.

Trump’s pro-Netanyahu campaign, echoing his own legal battles, has drawn renewed attention to a case that continues to divide Israelis.

Netanyahu’s trial, now entering a critical phase, proceeds against the backdrop of an ongoing war in Gaza, with the prime minister simultaneously managing military operations and defending himself in court.

But beyond the charges themselves, the trial has come to symbolize a deeper institutional struggle: between a right-leaning elected leadership and an entrenched judiciary and state prosecution apparatus increasingly seen by many on the right as politically motivated.

Opposition leaders bashed the post as an unprecedented interference in domestic politics by the U.S. president. “Trump’s statement is an unacceptable interference in Israel’s internal affairs and judicial process. … no one is above the law,” opposition leader Yair Lapid said of the matter.

Netanyahu, for his part, thanked Trump for his public support. “Thank you, President Trump, for your emotional support of me and your tremendous support of Israel and the Jewish people. We will continue to work together to defeat our common enemies, free our hostages and quickly expand the circle of peace,” he wrote in a post on X.

The legal proceedings against Netanyahu began in earnest in 2019, when then-Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, himself a Netanyahu appointee, announced his intent to indict the prime minister in three separate cases.

Charges were filed in early 2020, marking the first time in Israeli history that a sitting prime minister stood trial while in office. Supporters of Netanyahu have long argued that the investigation was politically tainted from the start, pointing to a judiciary they say leans left and to what they see as a media-political ecosystem determined to remove him by legal means.

On the other hand, opposition figures have defended the prosecution as necessary to uphold the rule of law.

But as the trial drags on, critics warn it has morphed from a legal proceeding into a constitutional fault line, reflecting, and perhaps deepening, Israel’s broader crisis of governance.

Netanyahu has publicly stated that the trial is an unfortunate distraction from his governmental duties, but that he is still capable of carrying on in his administrative role. “I am leading the country through a seven‑front war and providing testimony. I think the two can be done in parallel,” Netanyahu said in a 2024 hearing.

Netanyahu’s trial is an amalgamation of three corruption cases, cases 1000, 2000 and 4000, each involving distinct allegations, co-defendants and legal complexities. While the details range from illicit gifts to media manipulation and regulatory favors, the only unifying thread across the cases is Netanyahu himself.

“The cases are not linked by anything except for one defendant, that being Netanyahu. They are all weak cases, which is why there are so many of them. I think the idea was to put something together that, in the aggregate, would make up for the weakness of the individual cases,” Professor Avi Bell, a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, and a senior fellow at Kohelet Policy Forum, told JNS.

The cases

Case 1000, often dubbed the “Gifts Affair,” centers on allegations that Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, received lavish gifts, primarily cigars, champagne and jewelry, worth hundreds of thousands of shekels from wealthy benefactors, most notably Israeli Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan.

In exchange, prosecutors allege that Netanyahu intervened on Milchan’s behalf in various regulatory matters, including visa issues and business interests. The case has advanced the furthest of the three, with the prosecution having already presented most of its witnesses.

However, defense attorneys have pushed back vigorously, arguing that the gifts were tokens of friendship, not bribes, and that no clear quid pro quo has been established.

Case 2000 centers on claims that Netanyahu attempted to strike a deal with Yediot Achronot newspaper publisher Arnon Mozes in exchange for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu allegedly offered to support legislation aimed at curbing the circulation of Israel Hayom, a free daily widely viewed as supportive of Netanyahu and a counterweight to Israel’s left-leaning press.

The bill in question would have banned the free distribution of newspapers with large circulation, effectively targeting Israel Hayom and protecting the commercial interests of paid papers such as Yediot.

But far from advancing the law, Netanyahu ultimately opposed it and went so far as to dissolve his government in 2014 when members of his coalition backed the measure, triggering early elections.

While prosecutors highlight taped conversations between Netanyahu and Mozes as evidence of a quid pro quo, the defense argues it was nothing more than political bluster, an aborted conversation that never translated into action.

Case 4000, considered the centerpiece of the Netanyahu trial, alleges that during his tenure as communications minister between 2014 and 2017, Netanyahu approved regulatory decisions that financially benefited telecom tycoon Shaul Elovitch, then-owner of both the Bezeq telecommunications company and the Walla news website, in exchange for positive media coverage.

The prosecution claims that Bezeq received benefits worth approximately 1.8 billion shekels ($530,000), while Netanyahu and his associates allegedly received favorable treatment on Walla in return.

Netanyahu has publicly dismissed the charges. “The prosecution barely managed to find 10 media requests from the prime minister to Walla in four years. … It’s absurd the prosecution defines these routine actions by spokespeople as criminal acts. … nowhere on earth has an indictment been filed against a public figure because of media coverage,” he said in a recent statement.

Legal issues

 At the heart of the Netanyahu trial lies a legal theory that is largely unprecedented in both Israeli and comparative democratic systems: the idea that favorable media coverage can constitute a bribe.

Central to this argument is the charge of “fraud and breach of trust,” a broadly defined offense under Israeli law typically used to prosecute public officials who exploit their position to benefit themselves or others in ways that, while not necessarily illegal in themselves, violate public expectations of integrity.

Unlike traditional bribery, which requires clear evidence of a quid pro quo involving material benefit, breach of trust allows prosecutors to pursue cases based on conduct deemed morally or ethically improper, even in the absence of direct enrichment.

In past cases, it has been applied to civil servants who concealed conflicts of interest or officials who favored close associates in public tenders. But in Netanyahu’s trial, the charge is being used in a novel way: to criminalize influence over media coverage as a form of non-material gain.

While the prosecution agrees that this case hinges on a novel legal theory, it nonetheless believes that the circumstances justify this departure from legal norms.

In a 2019 interview, former State Attorney Shai Nitzan, who once led the legal action against Netanyahu, was asked whether “the determination that positive media coverage should be considered ‘bribery’ is a legal precedent? Is it appropriate to set such a precedent for the first time in a case against a prime minister?”

Nitzan responded that “every legal precedent has to begin at some point. For example, in Case 4000, there was no disagreement, and everyone agreed that it was right to indict on bribery, even though it did not involve envelopes filled with cash, but influencing media coverage. So, just because it involves the prime minister, we should delay the precedent for another time? I do not think that this decision involves a widening of the charge of bribery or breach of trust.”

More broadly, the new legal theory raises serious concerns about freedom of the press. If editorial decisions, especially those shaped by political pressure, can now be construed as elements of a criminal conspiracy, the result may be newsroom self-censorship, undermining both press independence and the transparency such prosecutions claim to defend.

The trial of Netanyahu has been further plagued by reports of consistent police and prosecution misconduct. The Israel Police and the prosecution have come under fire for aggressive tactics used to secure testimony from former Netanyahu aides Nir Hefetz (spokesman), Ari Harow (chief of staff) and Shlomo Filber (Communications Ministry director general).

Hefetz described his interrogation as “draconian, horrific, monstrous,” alleging extended questioning, sleep deprivation and relentless pressure before reluctantly agreeing to testify.

Filber’s case is even more troubling: Israeli police reportedly accessed his phone via spyware, possibly without a warrant, draining its data, leading the attorney general to launch a formal inquiry into unauthorized state hacking.

Defense lawyers argue such practices amount to coerced testimony and flag them as indicative of prosecutorial overreach designed to generate politically favorable evidence.

Leaked interrogation materials have further complicated the matter. Parts of Netanyahu’s questioning, captured on video and explored in the documentary “The Bibi Files,” were circulated despite legal protections around privacy in official proceedings.

Unlike some Western legal systems, such as the U.S. “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, illegally obtained data in Israel is not automatically excluded. Judges have discretion, meaning that even improperly sourced material can sway public perception, undermine the presumption of innocence, and penalize defendants before and during trial.

The political neutrality of the judges adjudicating the case is a further cause of concern for Netanyahu’s defense team. The three-judge panel overseeing Netanyahu’s trial, headed by Jerusalem District Court Vice President Rivka Friedman‑Feldman alongside Judges Moshe Bar‑Am and Oded Shaham, has come under scrutiny due to its collective background and institutional ties.

All three judges climbed the ranks within a judiciary known for defending “judicial sovereignty,” an ideological stance associated with a left-leaning legal elite guided by the philosophy of figures such as former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak.

With Netanyahu’s government actively pursuing judicial reforms aimed at curbing that very independence, observers on the right say it is improbable this panel, formed by the same institutional forces now under attack, can remain neutral in the trial of a man leading the vanguard of that assault.

Convictions, pardons and global trends. 

A conviction in Netanyahu’s trial appears likely. Judges are already leaning on the extraordinary “breach of trust” theory, and the prosecution has strategically used the trial as leverage to force a political exit.

Indeed, back in January, a secret mediation effort surfaced in which Aharon Barak agreed to help broker a plea deal, on the condition that Netanyahu step down. Prosecutors reportedly aimed for a scenario in which Netanyahu would admit guilt in Case 1000, exit office and avoid prison time, but Netanyahu refused to relinquish his premiership.

Complicating matters further is the so-called “incapacitation option.” Under Israeli Basic Law, the attorney general holds the authority to declare a sitting prime minister “incapacitated,” temporarily unable to discharge duties due to a conflict of interest, thus triggering an automatic removal. Though never yet applied, the possibility looms if Netanyahu continues to defy the prosecution.

“If it subsequently becomes clear that the functioning of the prime minister does not allow the criminal investigations to be carried out properly, then there may be room for the attorney general to declare temporary incapacitation of the prime minister,” the Israel Democracy Institute wrote in a recent piece.

Even without a verdict, the trial serves a potent political purpose. It hovers over Netanyahu like a sword of Damocles, prompting whispers of resignation and offering a pretext for critics to claim governance is untenable while he remains in charge. The proceedings, conviction or not, have already succeeded in exerting political pressure on the prime minister.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog is empowered by law to pardon or commute sentences, even before conviction, under Basic Law: The President 11(b). While this broad discretion includes pre-conviction pardons, it has historically been exercised sparingly, invoking public interest or justice only in exceptional cases.

Importantly, the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, has assumed, without explicit statutory authority, the power to review and potentially nullify presidential pardons, asserting judicial oversight over acts by the largely ceremonial presidency.

Herzog has offered no signal he’d consider pardoning Netanyahu. “A pardon is not currently on the table …, no such request has been made,” Herzog’s office spokesman said last week.

Herzog was a long-time political rival of Netanyahu while serving in the Knesset and is publicly associated with the Israeli left, making a presidential pardon an unlikely escape route in case of conviction.

Another route under discussion is a retroactive immunity law for sitting prime ministers. Under Israel’s Knesset Members’ Immunity Law (1951), lawmakers can avoid prosecution for non-parliamentary crimes only if the Knesset votes to grant immunity before an indictment is filed.

Subsequent efforts by allies, such as MK Miki Zohar in 2019, to rewrite the law, making immunity automatic unless revoked, were widely viewed as tailored to Netanyahu. The proposal spurred massive protests, and legal experts warned that even as a Basic Law, such legislation would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Retroactivity remains the key stumbling block: Courts are likely to reject legislation shielding past actions, and public backlash suggests such a move could backfire politically.

Netanyahu’s legal saga does not exist in isolation. Across multiple democracies, prominent right-wing leaders have faced criminal prosecution, often at politically pivotal moments.

In the U.S., Trump has been indicted in multiple jurisdictions, including charges timed closely with the 2024 presidential campaign.

In France, Marine Le Pen has been convicted of misuse of E.U. funds. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi spent decades battling prosecutors over corruption and tax fraud charges, many of which were ultimately overturned.

Image: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is surrounded by Likud lawmakers as he speaks to reporters ahead of the start of his trial at the Jerusalem District Court, May 24, 2020. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.