A stranger who happened to be on Saladin Street in Jerusalem on Wednesday this week could not have guessed the drama unfolding in the district court building housed there. He stood in front of the court alone, demonstrating with a handmade sign that read, “Netanyahu, you will never walk alone,” with the Israeli flag in his other hand. The demonstrator’s shirt, which stood heroically even when it suddenly began to hail, was decorated with the caption “The Netanyahu Trial – The Dreyfus Trial.” The rest of the public, right and left, decided to stay home.
It was very cold outside, but on the third floor of the courthouse, the 4000 affair reached a boiling point. The defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutors, journalists and the general public have been waiting to hear what former Communications Director General Shlomo Pilber has to say in court. And to a political crisis that has never been seen before in the Jewish state.
The suspense in this reality show was not built slowly and carefully until the grand finale. Prosecutor Adv. Yehudit Tirosh did not wait long and already on the morning of the first day of the hearing, she reached the cardinal question, one of the two legs on which the indictment against former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands. Different for Shaul Elowitz, the then owner of the Bezeq Group, in light of Elowitz’s request from Netanyahu.
The difference between the two state witnesses is large
Pilber’s testimony was accompanied by great tension. Surprisingly, however, the defense attorneys for the defendants maintained exceptional restraint for this case. While Ilan Yeshua’s main investigation was characterized by accusations against the plaintiff, here the defense attorneys chose to reduce their objections to the minimum possible.
The legal logic is often in conflict with the logic of Twitter users. In the 4000 case, there are two state witnesses, communications consultant Nir Hefetz and Communications Ministry Director General Shlomo Pilber. The two witnesses chose one after the other to become state witnesses. While Hefetz made an effort to bring evidence and cases from the winery and from the threshing floor against the Netanyahu couple, so that they would agree to sign a state witness agreement with him, Pilber provided incriminating versions in a measured manner and as a frozen demon.
State Witness Shlomo Pilber in the Jerusalem District Court / Photo: Yonatan Zindel / Flash 90
As they exited the interrogation rooms, they each went their separate ways. Hefetz made no effort to hide his distaste for Netanyahu, his son Yair, and the Likud party through tweets on Twitter. He also filed a lawsuit against Minister Amir Ohana, and also against Yair Netanyahu. On the other hand, Pilber also developed a popular Twitter account that is followed by close to 40,000 people. But Pilber on his Twitter account is attacking exactly the second camp, the Israeli government that left Netanyahu in opposition. The State Attorney’s Office, the police, the Attorney General, the officials of the Ministry of Communications, the State Comptroller and the courts. Pilber’s terminology is that of a staunch supporter of Bibi, and it is not for nothing that he has become a favorite of proponents of the “tailor-made” theory.
If that was not enough, Pilber and former Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advisers informed the prosecution of their intention to become business partners. And the troublemakers, according to the suspicion, and the “troubled” become business partners for life.Who said the romance died?
Compliments abound on the former Prime Minister
Even at the beginning of his testimony, Pilber complimented Netanyahu, who himself came to court to see Pilber with the whites of his eyes. “He is an object of admiration. From a young age. He is one of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people, the people of Israel and the State of Israel and the Israeli right. Thanks to him, the right is where it is, I am an ideologue. We have known each other for 20 years. Added: “I love the man.”
The truth must be told. This opening sounds pleasant to Netanyahu’s supporters, but it is an attack on Netanyahu’s legal interest as a defendant. The former prime minister should have hoped that Pilber would curse him, and pour fire and brimstone on him. After all, the main difficulty of the prosecution with state witnesses is to convince the court of their credibility. Who are in charge of the 4000 case, and even while he is a business partner of Netanyahu’s close advisers – he strengthens the credibility of his testimony, which does not serve Netanyahu, but the State Attorney’s Office.
Pilber makes a great effort to quarter the circle
Pilber set himself a challenge that might turn out to be simply impossible. Pilber tries to quarter the circle, but the circle refuses to become four-sided. At the beginning of his testimony in court, Pilber claimed that every word he said in his interrogations was true. Just did not interpret. But this statement in itself is particularly complex, given the fact that his version before signing the agreement until the state is not the same version he submitted after signing the agreement. Even at the interrogation stage, after signing an agreement until the state, he claimed that everything he had said in the past was true – and settled the gaps by saying that he did tell the truth, but not the whole truth.
The problem is that there are cardinal factual discrepancies between his versions in the Securities Authority and his versions in the police before signing a state witness agreement, and also between one investigation and another after signing a state witness agreement. Regarding the “directive call”, the factual description took another turn in the refresher of his testimony, which was given to him about two months ago by the State Attorney’s Office.
If that wasn’t enough, on the first day of his testimony in court, Pilber gave a new version regarding a few points. Prosecutor Advocate Tirosh showed Pilber from the first moment that she would not peacefully accept a deviation from the versions he submitted after signing a state witness agreement.
Pilber tried several times to deviate from what he said, claiming that although he was behind the facts he provided to the police, the feelings and understanding of the processes he provided to the police – are dependent on circumstances, when questioned by the police. To the right of Adv. Tirosh stood Judge Rivka Friedman Feldman, who said that she did not understand the division, and that the description of feelings and the description of the girls were also facts. Different, or as he put it: a broader description with the correct context than his gloomy version in the police.
The defense has no interest in Spielber becoming a hostile witness
It should be noted that the defense has no interest in Pilber denying in court his testimony to the police. They have no interest in him becoming a hostile witness and thus his versions of the police will be presented to the court, and in particular the prosecution will be allowed to cross-examine him. It is clear to both sides that if Pilber withdraws from Netanyahu’s indictment, the court will not believe him and will choose his incriminating version. Therefore the course of action in the cross-examination from the point of view of the defense attorneys of the defendants will not be to persuade Pilber to retract his testimony, but to show that his versions are contradictory and are completely false and tainted by foreign interests.
Pleasant it is not going to be for anyone. This cross-examination will not be pleasant, to say the least, for state witness Pilber, prosecutor Adv. Tirosh, defendant Netanyahu, defense attorneys and certainly not Pilber’s business partner, Mr. Ofer Golan, who still serves as Netanyahu’s communications adviser and is responsible for spreading the messages from the courtroom. Golan will have to find himself in a conflict of interest between the partner and the boss.