How will Netanyahu's dramatic cross-examination affect his criminal trials? - analysis

At the end of the day, the future of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, therefore, the State of Israel will be decided based on how three Jerusalem District Court judges size up his memory and truthfulness.

If they find that his six months of testimony since December 2024 was compelling, or at least leaves them any reasonable doubt about the charges against him, he will emerge with an acquittal and validation for the years he claimed he was innocent.

If they find he remembered well facts that helped him and forgot facts that did not, or if they otherwise doubt his truthfulness, he will likely be convicted. Then the only question will be whether his sentence will include jail time and disqualify him from public office, or will it be a minor conviction with a slap on the wrist.

Into this mix, the state prosecution started its expected months-long cross-examination of Netanyahu on Tuesday, presenting the data point that in his multiple interrogations with police, he replied 1,788 times that he “doesn’t remember” whether a given event happened or what a given witness said to him some years ago regarding issues in the case that are in dispute.

Of course, Netanyahu rightly pointed out that what and why he said he did not remember something matters, and he flagged examples where he had not remembered favorable factual points, which he only learned later from research by his lawyers.

But the prosecution started to score some points on this "I don't remember" issue already on Tuesday.

While Netanyahu said he did recall having time to do much preparation for his rounds of being questioned by police, Tadmor presented him with his own testimony to police or in court in which he discussed remembering preparing for issues related to Shaul Elovitch, Arnon Milchin, and other key witnesses in his public corruption trial.Once again, Netanyahu had portrayed the expensive cigars and Champagne that he received from Milchin as mere gifts from a billionaire tycoon whom he only befriended during his time out of politics after 1999.

But Tadmor presented highly detailed testimony from Milchin about their first meeting taking place in 1996, when Netanyahu was prime minister.

If true, this would boost the prosecution’s claim that Milchin sought to befriend Netanyahu and provide him with gifts to achieve certain quid pro quos from him in his capacity as prime minister.

That could likewise help prove their case that Milchin’s gifts to Netanyahu were illegal and involved a breach of the public trust.

A more complex case discussed by the prosecution was the “Bugs Bunny” incident.

According to Milchin, he and his staff gave Yair Netanyahu a large Bugs Bunny doll, leading Sara Netanyahu to ask for an even larger Bugs Bunny doll, which she had heard about.

Milchin complied and managed to get her the mega-large Bugs Bunny doll as well.

Netanyahu recalled Sara receiving the mega-huge Bugs Bunny doll but not the circumstances – and certainly not Milchin’s and Tadmor’s accounts that his wife had pressured Milchin into it.

This incident could also be important, because it shows that Netanyahu knew Sara had received an unusual and major gift, even if he denies that he knew all the circumstances, such as Sara pressuring Milchin into it.

A major defense of Netanyahu has been that he did not know about many of the gifts that Milchin was giving to Sara. But Hadas Klein, Milchin’s former secretary, and some of Milchin’s testimony indicate the opposite.

As hysterical as some of the moments proved to be in court about a Bugs Bunny doll, the example could be convincing to the judges about what Netanyahu knew, regardless of what he says he remembers or does not remember.

All of this also goes to a broader issue in which Netanyahu has shown a tremendous mastery of a large volume of details in the case, while sometimes claiming he is ignorant of so much of what his various aides do on his behalf.Another piece of color from Tuesday’s hearing was how Tadmor transformed “Bibi” from “the prime minister,” as he was addressed by his lawyers for the last six months, to “Mr. Netanyahu” – as the prosecution will address him for the next several months.

As far as Tadmor is concerned, once Netanyahu enters the courtroom, he has the same rights and obligations as any other witness – no more and no less.

That means if Netanyahu tries to avoid answering a question, Tadmor will demand that he answer it. If there is a moment when Tadmor can break the prime minister’s credibility before the judges, he will go for it without hesitation.

But after all of those tactical achievements, Tadmor and the prosecution’s start was somewhat fumbling and weaker than expected.

Large amounts of the hearing were spent needlessly looking for copies of prior Netanyahu interrogations to show him what he had said. These copies could have been made ready beforehand, and none of this would have been necessary if the court computers had worked properly.

Other parts were spent fighting with the defense lawyers and the court about a variety of procedural niceties, which will likely have no bearing on the final verdict.

This was a weaker way to start, given that the prosecution could have tried to strike at Netanyahu’s confidence with some substantive charges.

And the very choice of the prosecution to start cross-examination with Case 1000, the “Illegal Gifts Affair,” as opposed to Case 4000, the “Bezeq-Walla Media Bribery Affair,” the way they started the prosecution portion of the case in 2021, shows that they are licking some tactical “legal wounds” from setbacks during the trial.

If Case 4000 was their knockout punch for Netanyahu in 2021, because it carried a sure-fire prison sentence based on the grave charge of bribery, in June 2025, they started cross-examination with the less flamboyant minor “breach of trust” charge regarding expensive cigars, viewing it as a more solidly based charge, even if it is far less serious.In that sense, it seems the prosecution is proceeding very conservatively to score any points it can on Netanyahu, concerned that otherwise, he could outfox them on the witness stand and further bludgeon an already damaged case.

Still, these were only the opening shots of a grand legal conflagration that will leave its mark on the history books and the country.