BySARAH BEN-NUN

JULY 22, 2026 14:10

Updated: JULY 22, 2026 17:40

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu together with Shaul and Iris Elovitch petitioned Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara on Wednesday to declare whether the prosecution plans to withdraw the bribery charge in Case 4000. They maintain that unresolved questions prevent them from properly organizing the rest of their defense strategy.

This request follows the Jerusalem District Court clarification issued on June 29, which stated that its earlier view remained unchanged even after hearing Netanyahu testimony and cross-examination.

Back in June 2023 the panel of Judges Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Moshe Bar-Am, and Oded Shaham highlighted difficulties in establishing the bribery offense listed in the first count of the indictment and recommended that the state consider dropping the charge.

At that time prosecutors dismissed the suggestion, asserting that the judges had reviewed only a portion of the evidence and that additional matters would surface once the defense presented its case.

Netanyahu and the Elovitches legal team contended on Wednesday that the court renewed statement reinforced its original stance, since it came after the prosecution finished its evidence and after Netanyahu completed both direct examination and cross-examination.

Baharav-Miara decision carries immediate effects for defense planning, attorneys say

The judges remarks did not constitute an order to drop the charge or a ruling that Netanyahu should be acquitted. Absent a prosecution withdrawal the bribery allegation stays before the court and will be resolved only in the final verdict.

Nevertheless attorneys Amit Hadad and Jacques Chen stressed that the attorney-general choice will immediately shape which witnesses and materials the defense must prepare.

In a joint filing submitted to the court the lawyers explained that withdrawing the bribery allegation would greatly influence the schedule for the remaining proceedings, especially as the court readies an expansion to five hearing days per week starting in October. Hadad represents Netanyahu while Chen represents Shaul and Iris Elovitch.

Should the bribery charge persist Hadad has informed the court that the defense might need to summon hundreds of witnesses. Removing the charge could considerably reduce the scope of the remaining proceedings although Netanyahu would still face fraud and breach of trust counts in Case 4000 along with the accusations in Cases 1000 and 2000.

Because the defendants have already entered formal pleas a prosecution decision to withdraw the bribery charge at this point would lead to acquittal on that specific allegation while the other charges would continue.

The notice was lodged ahead of a case-management hearing set for September 6 during which the parties are expected to discuss how the defense phase will unfold.

On July 20 the court observed that the parties had not yet supplied an adequate plan for continuing the trial in its present format and confirmed that hearings would run five days a week beginning in October.

Hadad and Chen maintained that the lack of a prosecution response to the judges position blocks them from drafting such a plan.

That assessment reflects the defense reading of the scheduling order. The judges did not explicitly tie the five-day schedule to a decision by Baharav-Miara on the bribery charge.

Without a prompt answer from the attorney-general the lawyers warned it will become very difficult for the parties to prepare efficiently and effectively for the continuation of the proceedings.

They also referenced the late Supreme Court president Miriam Naor writings on prosecutorial duties noting her view that a prosecutor goal is not to secure a conviction at any cost and must include reassessing a case when courtroom evidence fails to support the original assessment.

The call for an answer from Baharav-Miara arrives while Netanyahu defense has yet to reply to a separate proposal from President Isaac Herzog aimed at exploring an agreed resolution to the trial.

Herzog legal adviser invited the defense and prosecution on April 28 to begin preliminary discussions toward a possible agreement before the president rules on Netanyahu pending pardon request. Both sides were asked to reply by May 3.

Baharav-Miara and State Attorney Amit Aisman met the deadline stating that the prosecution stood ready to enter talks without preconditions and without halting the criminal proceedings.

The Jerusalem Post understands that Netanyahu defense has still not submitted a response more than 80 days after the deadline and nearly three months after the invitation was extended.

Herzog publicly encouraged the defense in May to join the process noting that once one side agreed to participate he expected the other side to follow suit.

What is the Bezeq-Walla affair known officially as Case 4000?

Case 4000 also referred to as the Bezeq-Walla affair involves allegations that Netanyahu promoted regulatory steps favorable to Bezeq then controlled by Shaul Elovitch in return for unusually positive and responsive coverage on the Walla news site also owned by Elovitch.

Netanyahu and the Elovitches deny any wrongdoing.

The bribery allegation the most serious charge Netanyahu faces applies solely to Case 4000. Netanyahu also faces fraud and breach of trust charges in Cases 1000 2000 and 4000.