Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resumed his testimony at the Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday morning as part of his ongoing trial. This marked his ninth day of testimony, following a delay the previous day due to the Security Cabinet’s emergency session after Hamas announced a pause in releasing hostages.
At the start of the session, multiple media outlets petitioned the court for permission to broadcast the testimony live. Netanyahu himself supported the request, but the judges ruled against it.
Security Consultation Interrupts Testimony
Netanyahu arrived late to the hearing, with his attorney, Amit Haddad, informing the judges that the prime minister had been delayed due to “a pre-scheduled security matter.” Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman remarked that any such delays should be communicated in advance. Haddad replied, “What I was aware of, your honors, I relay.” Shortly after, Netanyahu entered the courtroom and addressed the judges directly, stating, “There is a security matter that required my attention.”
During the proceedings, Netanyahu informed the judges that he would need to step out at 2:00 PM for a security consultation with Defense Minister Israel Katz. The discussion was expected to last approximately 15 minutes.
The hearing largely focused on allegations that Netanyahu received favorable media coverage from Walla in exchange for political favors, a central claim in the indictment. Defense attorney Amit Haddad systematically reviewed articles cited by the prosecution, arguing that they did not support the claim of bias in Netanyahu’s favor.
Tensions Flare Between Defense and Prosecution
A heated exchange erupted between Haddad and lead prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh after Netanyahu claimed that Walla had actually been “extremely hostile” toward him. Haddad asserted that objective research would confirm this assertion and suggested that such a study had been conducted but was withheld by the prosecution.
Tirosh categorically denied the claim, stating that all investigative materials had been made available to the defense and that no relevant study had been suppressed. She further accused Haddad of attempting to shape public perception beyond the courtroom, cautioning against spreading “falsehoods and nonsense.”
Haddad took offense at her remarks and demanded that she “show some shame.” Judge Friedman-Feldman promptly intervened, admonishing Tirosh and declaring that such language was inappropriate in court.
Haddad continued pressing his argument, insisting that it was unthinkable for an indictment against a sitting prime minister to have been filed without a thorough review of the evidence. He suggested that officials who attempted to investigate the matter faced resistance. Tirosh dismissed his claims as baseless, leading to a tense but decisive close to the exchange.
