At the end of one of the hearings of Case 4000, when I was on my way back to my house, I saw Attorney Beaz Ben Tzur smoking a cigarette as usual at the end of each hearing and next to him was the infamous trio: Raviv Drucker (whom Ben Tzur previously represented) Baruch Kara and Aviad Glickman, who happened to be present that day for a short time In the discussion, as usual.
I felt great discomfort from his and their body language, from the giggles and smiles. Ben Tzur, of course, is allowed to talk to whoever he wants and whenever he wants, but the visibility, oh the visibility; The Prime Minister’s attorney is talking to three who were partners in the construction of the case against him and the blatant attempt to impeach him.
Ben Tzur knows this well, once, when we went down the steps of the District Court in Jerusalem together, he even told me in his way that it was a coup, but outwardly he was careful about the “dignity” of the tishkurot.
He knows perfectly well that the media was a significant player in the sewing of the cases, but all along he insisted on not saying it in a rash manner.
My feeling was, and I wrote this in real time, that Ben Zur’s political identification with the left, according to publications, seeps into his representation of Netanyahu and affects him negatively.
Of course, I wish a full recovery to Ben Tzur’s family member, the official reason for which he withdrew from representing Netanyahu. Health is always above all; But, I think there is a set of reasons that led Ben Tzur to his late decision.
Ultimatum to Netanyahu
Why do I write “his late decision”? Because Ben Tzur should have parted ways with the representation immediately when he issued an ultimatum to Netanyahu in March 2023 about the continuation of the representation if he continued to drive the legal reform.
It is something as serious as it is, absolutely forbidden, and according to several senior lawyers in Israel with whom I spoke, it also seemingly conflicts with the rules of ethics for lawyers.
To issue an ultimatum to the prime minister on a controversial issue unrelated to the case? This is something that a senior lawyer like Ben Tzur cannot do. And if he did – he should have immediately resigned from representing Netanyahu.
interests
I have been in the media for about 40 years and easily recognize media interests as well. Guy Peleg said yesterday that Ben Tzur told him in the past that a great injustice was done to Netanyahu in the 4000 case.
I immediately asked myself why Ben Tzur didn’t say this himself and why he doesn’t say the obvious: Sagi Peleg is one of the causes of the great injustice to Netanyahu, with dozens of false and biased leaks in the thousands of files that served the prosecutor’s office.
Gidi Weitz, the great tailor of the 4000 case and one of the prominent journalistic crooks in Israel, wrote yesterday about Ben Tzur that “after October 7, several colleagues heard from him that he could no longer, that the responsibility of the government and its leader for the bloodbath made it very difficult for him to continue the work of representation. He said For me, all the warning bells rang loudly,” one of them told Haaretz today, Weitz wrote, and continued: “Even in his immediate environment and his reference environment, they did not understand how he continues to represent such a person after the catastrophe.”
We cannot rule out the possibility that Ben Zur or one of his close associates briefed Weitz, and if that is the case and if it is true that Ben Zur sees Netanyahu as responsible for the massacre on October 7, it is very serious and good that he left. Too late, but better late than never.
I have a strong feeling that Ben Zur preferred the applause of his milieu, of those “journalists” from his milieu over representing Netanyahu.
Let there be no doubt: Ben Tzur is an excellent lawyer, very talented and not just considered one of the top lawyers in Israel. His investigations, at their best, are a legal spectacle. He is cynical, he is sharp, he knows how to get the job done.
But already in real time I noticed that he has a tendency to make concessions to the people of the left from Walla, that there is something tired about him, that he does not fully control the details.
Investigation after investigation, the leftists in Walla got off relatively cheap, even though it was clear that they were acting with political and vengeful motives.
A serious mistake was avoided
After that I learned that Ben Tzur was about to make a very grave mistake. He wanted to come to an agreement with the prosecution that dispensed with the testimony of Dr. Ben Chai Segev. His reasoning was that her testimony might harm the defense.
It was a puzzling excuse, in light of Ben Chai Segev’s past statements, from which it was clear that Ben Chai Segev did not understand what the investigation was all about and also said that there was no pressure to approve the Bezek-Yiss merger.
This grave mistake was avoided (and one day I will tell you how), Yifat ben Hai Segev testified and caused serious damage to the prosecution, not the defense. As I recall, Tirosh wanted to declare her a hostile witness.
Who pushed for a plea deal?
It was Ben Tzur who also pushed Netanyahu to plea bargain at the time and to criminal mediation, despite the reservations of some of his lawyers. My feeling has always been that Ben Tzur wants to close the story as quickly as possible, even at the cost of Netanyahu’s retirement and even disgrace.
I’m not saying that you should occasionally weigh the risks against the chances and leave the door open to a plea deal, but the timing is important.
The plea settlement talks were even before Filber’s testimony, when Ben Tzur knew for sure that Filber’s testimony would prove that there was no guidance meeting. So why not wait and use this trump card after Filber’s testimony? Very puzzling.
Ben Tzur arrived late to Netanyahu’s files
I accept what quite a few experienced lawyers tell me that in the result test Ben Tzur did an excellent job. This is true, but also very misleading.
If he did an excellent job, why retire precisely now, at the very end of the prosecution case in case 4000, with only relatively marginal witnesses remaining, and more so after the judges’ recommendation to withdraw from the bribery section? Why not wait until the request for protection from justice?
And in general, it is important to emphasize that Ben Tzur was not at the beginning of the case. The person who was there for Netanyahu was always attorney Amit Haddad, also in case 4000. The person who prepared the excellent infrastructure work for the case before the hearing was the Herzog Fox Na’aman firm – lawyers Yossi Ashkenazi, Israel Wallnerman and Or Diskin. Ben Tzur arrived only after, only after Miltz He released Ben Tzur in favor of Netanyahu.
Attorney Volnerman has many shares in the case, even more than Ben Tzur. He was there before, he continued to work on the case during the trial with Ben Tzur, and he was the one who whispered in his ear all the time during the investigations.
Wallnerman works at the same time with Adv. Hadad also on the 1000 and 2000 case, together with the wonderful Adv. Noa Milstein. He is not known to the public, but he is a very central pivot in the defense team.
Full Belly
And another important matter: Ben Tzur represented Arnon Milchan and Hadas Klein in the 1000 case for a long time, before case 4000.
Hadas Klein has a stomach full of him and she removed the confidentiality between the client and the attorney in her testimony in court, while defaming Ben Tzur.
From the moment the secrecy was lifted, Ben Tzur could share what he knows about the 1000 case and he knows. He chose not to, and it’s a shame, because it would have shed light on what happened behind the scenes in the 4000 case.
Apparently the huge fee he received from Milchan, the amount of which is given under a gag order, was in the background.
***
To conclude: Ben Zur’s retirement from representing Netanyahu is very welcome – Netanyahu gets an excellent attorney in the 4000 case (Amit Haddad) who has a good and early familiarity with the case and above all a soul actor, instead of an excellent attorney (Ben Zur), but with a tendency for a political game, as in the case of the ultimatum on legal reform.