Netanyahu at trial on business approvals: I didn't know what I was signing

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial testimony on Monday turned to focus on the benefit he allegedly provided to co-defendant Shaul Elovitch in a supposed media bribery scheme, with the prime minister saying he didn’t know what business approval documents he was signing and that he was focused on instituting sound reforms for the country – rather than aiding the former Walla and Bezeq owner.

When questioned about signing a 2014 document approving financial actions by Bezeq’s parent company B Communications, Netanyahu said, “At the time, I didn’t understand anything, I didn’t know what I was signing.”

When the prime minister confused the document with another he had signed, which approved the sale of Yad2 to Walla, Netanyahu added, “You can see I don’t even understand this today.”

Netanyahu explained to the judges that he couldn’t scrutinize every document given to him by the Communication Ministry or by aides to sign, that such a document came to his desk through the bureaucratic process and legal reviews it entailed. This included the Yad2 approval document.

No time to review what he had signed

He said that, sometimes, his aides or ministry representatives would draw his attention to important items, or, if he had time, he would read the document headlines, but sometimes he didn’t have time to review what he was signing.

Such documents were of special disinterest to Netanyahu, who explained that he didn’t want to interfere in the free market.

He further said he didn’t know that the document was important to Elovitch, and argued that allegations that he signed the document to benefit his co-defendant didn’t match up with the timeline, as during this period there was no positive coverage of Netanyahu on Walla.

It was, rather, a “regulatory absurdity,” Netanyahu repeated during the testimony, that “normative” business operations such as the 2014 Yad2 sale had to be approved by the government.

Netanyahu didn’t know that Elovitch would earn millions due to the sale of Yad2, and he did not have in mind either Walla or a supposed quid-pro-quo for positive coverage when he signed the approval, he said in his testimony.

The indictment alleged that Netanyahu expedited the Yad2 sale at the behest of ex-Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua. Netanyahu said the indictment demonstrated the absurdity of the claim by detailing a supposedly complicated series of intermediaries between him and Elovitch.

He explained that according to the indictment, Yeshua contacted Elovitch, Elovitch contacted Netanyahu’s former chief of staff Gil Sheffer, Sheffer contacted then-chief of staff Eyal Haimovsky, Haimovsky contacted Netanyahu’s secretary, who then passed on the message about the business deal to him.

The prime minister joked that the scenario was akin to the Passover holiday song “Had Gadya.” With all the people involved in reviewing and approving the deal, Netanyahu said the fact that he was targeted for indictment, rather than ex-communication minister Gilad Erdan, indicated false allegations.

“Why didn’t you indict Erdan?” said Netanyahu.

Presented with phone logs contemporaneous to Yad2, Netanyahu described the phone conversations he had with Elovitch as mostly being to consult with him about Japan, India, and China.

“If I called him it was about Japan; if he called me it was about Yad2,” said Netanyahu.

Netanyahu counted the entries of the call lag induced in the indictment one by one in front of the judges, noting that there were only about eight calls lasting more than a few minutes between him and Elovitch over an entire year.“There is nothing exceptional here,” said Netanyahu.

Other reforms that Netanyahu advanced, allegedly to Elovitch’s benefit, were, according to him, policies that were otherwise needed anyway, and did not favor Elovitch in particular.

“I advanced a very difficult reform – difficult but correct – to break up a monopoly,” said Netanyahu. He added that he didn’t want to benefit or damage Elovitch’s interests – these were not factors in his consideration.

“It is absolutely unbelievable,” Netanyahu said, repeating the word “unbelievable” in English, different from the rest of his testimony given in Hebrew.

Netanyahu also addressed the topic of advocacy for the sale of Walla to Australian tycoon James Packer. Packer was someone who shared similar interests in Chinese and Australian markets, said Netanyahu, and had been considering the purchase of an Israeli news outlet. Netanyahu said he suggested Packer establish his own.

The prime minister contended that the prosecution’s arguments that he advocated for the sale of Walla to Packer contradicted those that he maintained a media bribery scheme for positive coverage on the website. If there was a mutually beneficial relationship with Elovitch, there would have been no purpose in advocating for Packer to purchase the outlet, Netanyahu argued.

At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecution issued a statement addressing Haddad’s Wednesday arguments that the indictment did not adequately attribute how Netanyahu was aware or involved in demands made to Walla in an alleged media bribery scheme.

The defense said there were 82 items and coverage requests in the indictment in which direct involvement from Netanyahu was not detailed, and another 59 requests in which it was not explicitly detailed how he or his family were involved.

The prosecution said all demands cataloged in the indictment and its first appendix originated from Netanyahu or his family. Netanyahu had allegedly developed a coverage demand mechanism with Elovitch and his wife, in which it was generally known that demands were being made by family members.

The indictment and prosecution never claimed that Netanyahu knew of the specifics of each demand made by family members directly or through intermediaries, but knew that demands were being made.

Netanyahu and family members allegedly made demands of Walla, together and separately, and sometimes through intermediaries, the prosecution said. The supposed intermediaries did not act of their own initiative, the prosecution said in response to arguments made by Haddad and Netanyahu on Wednesday.

Netanyahu and Haddad continued to argue against the narrative that he had received positive coverage from Walla, reviewing article after article demonstrating poor or negative coverage of Netanyahu and his family.

Netanyahu said Walla caused “massive damage” by providing spin in favor of Iran, which he said much of Israeli media was guilty of. The defense highlighted Walla’s ostensible hostility to Netanyahu by noting that one article on the website contained a picture of the prime minister with a caption describing him as the “Israeli [former Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”

Netanyahu described Walla as “Walla Iran,” “Walla Hamas,” and in a repeated nickname for the site, “Walla Akbar.”Despite his animosity for the site, Netanyahu argued that he didn’t have the means to monitor the outlet to be able to maintain a bribery scheme – that he didn’t have a cellphone or laptop computer.

The prime minister also explained to the judges that he didn’t bother to contact Elovitch about negative articles like the ones presented by Haddad, because he viewed Walla as hostile and Elovitch as uninterested in correcting his outlet’s coverage.

Investigation 'improperly conducted'

Netanyahu also continued to advance the idea that the investigation into him was improperly conducted, with Haddad claiming that another of the allegations in the indictment was not presented to him. Netanyahu asserted that investigators did not question him about “97%” of the items in the indictment.

A handful of Netanyahu supporters stood outside the courthouse on Monday, echoing the narrative that the trial was part of a political hit job against him.

“Enough persecution!” read one sign, while another thanked Netanyahu for defending the country during a war.The war continued to creep into the courtroom as Netanyahu continued to receive notes from his aides.“I need to leave now,” said Netanyahu after receiving a note, before the judges approved a five-minute break in the testimony.

The testimony had started and ended an hour early to accommodate the prime minister’s schedule, but the Tuesday hearing was set to begin at its normal hours.