![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.reunion68.com\/Biuletyn\/img\/jns-1.png\")
<\/a>Netanyahu on trial: Case 4000 unravels as witness exposes alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nAlex Traiman<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Case 4000\u2014the most serious and consequential of the criminal cases against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2014has long been portrayed by prosecutors as the centerpiece of their corruption allegations. Yet testimony heard this week in the Jerusalem District Court has intensified claims by Netanyahu\u2019s allies that the case is not merely weak, but compromised by investigative misconduct.<\/span><\/p>\n According to Likud spokesman Guy Levy, testimony delivered on Tuesday by Ron Solomon, a serving senior investigator in the Israel Police\u2019s signals intelligence (SIGINT) unit, revealed evidence of intentional suppression of exculpatory material, alteration of professional findings and continued investigative activity even after indictments were filed\u2014all in service of sustaining a narrative that was unraveling under its own weight.<\/span><\/p>\n Among the three cases against Netanyahu\u2014Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000\u2014Case 4000 has always been regarded by prosecutors as the most severe. Unlike the others, it alleged a direct quid pro quo: that Netanyahu, while serving as communications minister, advanced regulatory decisions favorable to Bezeq, Israel\u2019s largest telecom company, owned by Shaul Elovitch, in exchange for favorable coverage on the Walla news site.<\/span><\/p>\n Central to that theory is an alleged meeting between Netanyahu and Shlomo Filber, the former director general of the communications ministry, who signed a deal to become a state\u2019s witness in 2018, during his first week in office. The prime minister has consistently denied that such a conversation ever took place.<\/span><\/p>\n On the witness stand, Solomon testified that cell phone location data never placed Filber together with Netanyahu at the time of the alleged meeting. According to his testimony, the police had assembled a detailed chronology early in the investigation, demonstrating that the meeting did not occur.<\/span><\/p>\n That data, Solomon said, was transferred to the prosecution.<\/span><\/p>\n According to Levy, the significance is unmistakable: The prosecution allegedly knew that the foundational claim of the meeting was false, yet indicted Netanyahu anyway while withholding the contradictory location evidence from the defense and the court.<\/span><\/p>\n If correct, this would amount to concealment of exculpatory material, misrepresentation to the court and the filing of indictments based on claims known to be untrue.<\/span><\/p>\n Solomon\u2019s testimony also addressed the prosecution\u2019s shifting theory regarding media coverage.<\/span><\/p>\n Initially, prosecutors alleged that Netanyahu received positive coverage from Walla<\/em>. During pre-indictment hearings before then\u2013Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, the defense demonstrated that the coverage was frequently hostile, inconsistent and often negative.<\/span><\/p>\n Faced with that reality, the prosecution rebranded the allegation as \u201cexceptional responsiveness\u201d or unusually preferential treatment.<\/span><\/p>\n Solomon testified that he was tasked with reviewing Walla<\/em>\u2019s coverage of Netanyahu\u2019s controversial Election Day 2015 statement warning that Arab voters were turning out \u201cin droves.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n His findings contradicted the prosecution\u2019s narrative. Walla<\/em> was the third outlet to report the statement, later published a follow-up article debunking Netanyahu\u2019s claim, and framed its coverage in a sharply hostile tone, including accusations of racism from opposition leaders.<\/span><\/p>\n Solomon testified that he had submitted these findings to the commander of the police\u2019s financial crimes unit\u2014only to be instructed to delete the information supporting Netanyahu\u2019s position.<\/span><\/p>\n According to Solomon, the directive came from above, under guidance from the prosecution.<\/span><\/p>\n The developments in Case 4000 come against the backdrop of the other cases against Netanyahu, each of which the defense and Likud officials describe as increasingly tenuous.<\/span><\/p>\n In Case 1000, prosecutors allege that Netanyahu and his family received gifts, such as cigars, champagne and even a Bugs Bunny doll, valued at approximately $230,000 over many years from wealthy acquaintances. The prosecution concedes there was no specific quid pro quo, arguing instead that accepting gifts constituted a breach of trust because it might have compromised Netanyahu at some undefined future point.<\/span><\/p>\n In Case 2000, Netanyahu is accused of discussing a possible quid pro quo with Arnon (\u201cNoni\u201d) Mozes, publisher of Yediot Achronot<\/em>, under which Netanyahu would advance legislation restricting the free distribution of the pro-Netanyahu daily Israel Hayom<\/em> in exchange for more favorable coverage. The prosecution openly acknowledges that the quid pro quo never occurred, yet argues that the mere conversation constitutes a criminal breach of trust.<\/span><\/p>\n Likud spokesman Levy argues that when viewed together, the cases reflect an unprecedented legal theory: criminal liability without demonstrated corruption, benefit or outcome. The picture that emerges is not of an investigation following evidence, but of evidence being reshaped to fit a predetermined conclusion.<\/span><\/p>\n Likud officials further allege that evidence in the cases was illegally collected and then selectively leaked to the media during consecutive election cycles, shaping public opinion and influencing electoral outcomes. They also point to the use of state witnesses who, they claim, were subjected to intense pressure and threatened with severe consequences unless they provided testimony aligning with the prosecution\u2019s theory.<\/span><\/p>\n These claims remain contested, but Solomon\u2019s testimony, Levy argues, lends new credibility to longstanding allegations of investigative overreach.<\/span><\/p>\n Against this backdrop, Netanyahu recently requested a presidential pardon from Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who possesses the constitutional authority to bring the proceedings to an end.<\/span><\/p>\n Supporters of the move argue that after years of political paralysis, repeated elections and deep social division, a pardon would serve the national interest regardless of one\u2019s view of Netanyahu himself.<\/span><\/p>\n The issue gained international attention after U.S. President Donald Trump sent a letter to Herzog urging him to grant a pardon, describing the case as politically driven and destabilizing.<\/span><\/p>\n Whether Herzog will act remains unclear. But after Solomon\u2019s testimony, pressure on the prosecution\u2014and on Israel\u2019s political leadership\u2014to address the legitimacy of the proceedings is likely to intensify.<\/span><\/p>\n Ultimately, the court will determine the weight of Solomon\u2019s testimony and the credibility of the allegations surrounding it. Yet one conclusion is already evident: The case once billed as the prosecution\u2019s strongest is now the one most visibly unraveling.<\/span><\/p>\n As Levy put it, Case 4000 is no longer merely a trial of a prime minister. It has become a trial of the system that brought him to the dock.<\/span><\/p>\n Zawarto\u015b\u0107 publikowanych artyku\u0142\u00f3w i materia\u0142\u00f3w nie reprezentuje pogl\u0105d\u00f3w ani opinii Reunion’68,<\/em> Netanyahu on trial: Case 4000 unravels as witness exposes alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence Alex Traiman This is no longer merely a trial of a prime minister. It has become a trial of the system that brought him to the dock. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Tel Aviv District Court, before the start […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[33,24],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126892"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=126892"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":126974,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126892\/revisions\/126974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=126892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=126892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=126892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThis is no longer merely a trial of a prime minister. It has become a trial of the system that brought him to the dock.<\/strong><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n
![](\"https:\/\/me.jnsi.org\/uploads\/2025\/12\/F251028MA05-1320x880.jpg\")
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Tel Aviv District Court, before the start of his testimony in the trial against him, Oct. 28, 2025. Photo by Miriam Alster\/Flash90.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nThe flagship case and why it mattered most<\/strong><\/h4>\n
From \u2018favorable coverage\u2019 to \u2018exceptional responsiveness\u2019<\/strong><\/h4>\n
The big picture<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
A broader pattern of alleged misconduct<\/strong><\/h4>\n
The pardon question<\/strong><\/h4>\n
A case on trial<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n![](\"https:\/\/me.jnsi.org\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Alex-Traiman-Updated-Photo-cropped-480x480.jpg\")
Alex Traiman<\/strong> is the CEO and Jerusalem bureau chief of the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) and host of \u201cJerusalem Minute.\u201d A seasoned Israeli journalist, documentary filmmaker and startup consultant, he is an expert on Israeli politics and U.S.-Israel relations. He has interviewed top political figures, including Israeli leaders, U.S. senators and national security officials with insights featured on major networks like BBC, Bloomberg, CBS, NBC, Fox and Newsmax. A former NCAA champion fencer and Yeshiva University Sports Hall of Fame member, he made aliyah in 2004, and lives in Jerusalem with his wife and five children.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nani te\u017c webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyra\u017anie zaznaczone.
\nTwoje uwagi, linki, w\u0142asne artyku\u0142y lub wiadomo\u015bci prze\u015blij na adres:
\n<\/em>webmaster@reunion68.com<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"