Talk:Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu

Requested move 3 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page to be moved to Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu 2016–present per MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:AT.(non-admin closure) Geogene (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

---

2016–2018 investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu → 2016–18 investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu – consistent wp style X1\ (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the proposed title is consistent with MOS:DATERANGE. Am I missing something? Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  No opinion on the MOS aspect, but if you move it - change the 2018 (or 18) to 2019 - as it is quite obvious by the time this RM is closes that it will be live in 2019 as well.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and this should probably be speedy closed as it fails MOS:DATERANGE and nom is incorrect that his proposal is consistent with any current style. --Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment per MOS:DATERANGE the proposed move is wrong as it is more than 2 years the correct move would be to Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu 2016–Present עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article does not appear to cover real legal matters - it is just abusive.

The article does not appear to cover a real trial (rather than a political propaganda exercise, that happens to be conducted by lawyers ) - it is just abusive, indeed the article ends with the words "shame and disgrace" rather than a verdict on criminal charges.2A02:C7E:1CC3:8A00:F8EF:AB21:E705:DA1C (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is the verdict?

The "investigation" has been going on since 2016 and the "trial" has been going on for three years. Where is the verdict? Is this a real trial or political theatre?2.127.28.72 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The trial is ongoing. Israel's courts tend to be slow, and similar corruption cases have gone on for years. This is a complicated case with more than 300 witnesses, of which not even half appeared yet, and tens of thousands of pages of written testimonies and documents. 2A00:A040:1A3:E5EF:3136:6277:D477:5EBA (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A "trial" that started in 2020 still "ongoing" in 2023? That is not "slow" - that is a farce. The article also gives no clear account of what the charges may have been, or what the prosecution and defence arguments were - it even states that there will be more "witnesses" in 2024 (four years after the "trial" started). This is not an account of a trial or any sort of legitimate legal proceeding - it is an account of some sort of political theatre. 2A02:C7C:E124:800:9519:F0A:B4EB:AFE7 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is a mess.

The article states that the "trial" started in 2020, but there is no clear account of what the charges were, or what the prosecution and defence arguments were, or what the verdict was. The article even says there will be more "prosecution witnesses" in 2024 (2024? in a trial that started in 2020?) and that the trial is "ongoing" - more than three years after it started. Where is the account of the defence witnesses? Indeed what was the trial even about - again there is no clear description of what the charges may have been. Overall the article is a mess - it does not make any sense. The article seems to be an account of some sort of political theatre rather than a legal proceeding.2A02:C7C:E124:800:9519:F0A:B4EB:AFE7 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

First sentence confusing and does not summarize the topic

Why would the first sentence begin with when Netanyahu was NOT Prime Minister, instead of starting with the trial? It would be more helpful to say when he WAS Prime Minister and then give the years he was in office. CarlSerafino (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusing wording

"There was a vote the next day establishing a House Committee that would debate immunity for Netanyahu; it was approved 16 votes in favour to five against. The committee included 30 members, with a majority from parties opposed to Netanyahu.

As a result, Netanyahu withdrew his bid for immunity on 28 January 2020; the charges against him were thus officially confirmed and filed in Jerusalem District Court on the same day."

What was approved? Why did he withdraw his bid?

75.142.254.3 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the wording is confusing. Rewrote that part. There's no need to go into the details of how many votes were there to form the committee. 2A00:A040:199:49C7:89AF:50B:57C1:D959 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about Title

Shouldn't the title use "Trials" instead of "Trial"? Starlighsky (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is one trial, with several charges. 2A00:A040:199:49C7:89AF:50B:57C1:D959 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A "trial" that has been going on for more than four years?

According to the article the "trial" started on the 24th of May 2020 - the "investigation" having started in 2017 (some seven years ago).

The "process is the punishment" - this is clearly not a trial in any normal sense of that word, in a rational legal system a trial does not go on for year after year, this is clearly a form of political theatre, harassment, and the article should make that clear. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:6CD0:D3C2:86E3:400E (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Witness intimidation by prosecutors and police

There is no reference in this article to the witness testimonies in court detailing gross intimidation by prosecutors and police, while prospective witnesses were arraigned, held in jail and interrogated. Dozens of potential witnesses were subjected to threats, e.g., to arrest family members if anti-Netanyahu testimony was not given, with sleep deprivation, solitary confinement in very uncomfortable cells, and general treatment more appropriate for handling terrorists characterizing these cases. Netanyahu made a very strong protest about this in a press conference following his first day of defense testimony on 10 December, 2024, and he was merely telling the truth. (Jeremy Sharon, "Netanyahu, 1st PM to testify as criminal defendant, ridicules charges, denies illicit media ties," The Times of Israel, Dec. 10, 2024 - see its concluding paragraphs ). There have been several articles in the Israeli press about this consistent use of witness intimidation regarding Netanyahu aides over the years, even appearing on strongly leftist news websites.

For example, the Wikipedia article prominently mentions three key witnesses for the prosecution who were formerly aides to Netanyahu, Shlomo Filber, Nir Hefetz and Ari Harow. All three of them have testified publicly, two of them in court hearings, about the brutal intimidation they suffered under police and prosecutors' interrogations, to force them to turn against Netanyahu and testify against him. Any claims or evidence presented by these witnesses, regardless of whatever else they say, therefore must be treated as extorted under duress, and voided, according to Israeli law. However, according to an editorial in The Jerusalem Post for January 12, 2022, entitled "Court ruling giving police access to phone data sets dangerous precedent - editorial," () under Israeli law, this disqualification of such evidence is itself significantly qualified: it is true that in order to disqualify evidence, it must be obtained in a way that harms public interest and the right to a fair trial, but those interests and rights are not actually harmed "as long as it appears [otherwise] that the defendant is guilty." The editorial stated that according to the judicial principle enunciated in the 2006 court decision known as "Yisacharov," dealing with judicial application of the "reasonableness" standard for Court procedures and even Knesset (parliamentary) law, it is up to the Court to determine how such problematic evidence is to be treated. (This very broad and far-reaching principle justifying the use of "reasonableness" -- as defined solely by the court judges -- is one of the key issues addressed in the "judicial reforms" currently being urged by the Likud Coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. See Amichai Cohen, Yuval Shany, “The HCJ Strikes Back: Israel’s Supreme Court Pulls the Plug on ‘Judicial Reform,’“ Lawfare Media, January 11, 2024 ().

On Heifetz's court testimony detailing these intimidations, see for example the article in The Jerusalem Post by Herb Keinon, "Did Israeli police interrogating Nir Hefetz cross the line? - analysis," December 1, 2021 (). There are other articles in the Israeli media reporting on the same testimony but they all repeat the same details and do not need to be added here.

On Harow's court testimony detailing his intimidation by police and prosecutors, see for example the article in The Times of Israel by Michael Bachner, "Ex-Netanyahu aide says police intimidated him into turning state witness against PM," May 10, 2023 (). Here again there are numerous other articles in the Israeli media that could be added. However, these may be sufficient by themselves.

As regards the third, Shlomo Filber, several accounts refer to his being intimidated too, but only partly caving to that pressure, ending up with him being declared a "hostile witness" and losing all assurances from the prosecution that they had offered him, so that threats of further court cases against him are back on the table. See, on this, Ophir Falk, "Was Prof. Ruth Gavison right about Netanyahu's trial?," Jerusalem Post, August 25, 2022 (), and Herb Keinon, "Regaining credibility in Netanyahu corruption case - analysis," Jerusalem Post, April 9, 2024 ()

The intimidation charge has also been made by other key witnesses testifying publicly in court, so it is indeed a pattern and a problem as claimed by Netanyahu in the above-mentioned press conference. For example, Yifat Ben Hai Segev, the former head of the Cable Broadcast Council, as the sub-title of the TOI article on this event states, "claims police intimidated and 'gaslit' her during her interrogation,": see TOI Staff, "Court rejects state's request to declare key Netanyahu trial witness hostile," Dec. 19, 2022 () and Yonah Jeremy Bob and Jerusalem Post staff, "Netanyahu trial: Court allows prosecution to treat key withess as hostile," December 13, 2022 (). It also applies to the treatment of Eli Feldstein, a former spokesman for Netanyahu, recently apprehended and interrogated about alleged leaks of classified documents, according to The Times of Israel article by Lazar Berman, Jeremy Sharon and TOI staff, "PM claims suspects in leaks case treated as terrorists; says vital intel is kept from him," Nov 24, 2024 (). Another case relates to David Sharan, former director of the PM's Office. He too reported devastating intimidations and threats that continue to haunt him and his family. See Matan Wasserman, "Former PMO official at Netanyahu trial: Prosecutors are abusing me," Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2022 ().

So there is plenty of evidence available from sources treated as reliable by Wikipedia regarding an issue of the first importance in understanding these trials. It is puzzling that this matter remains invisible in the article itself. Please rectify this immediately. If you like, you can adapt the above paragraphs into the article.106.71.99.35 (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)