By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has launched one of his most forceful public condemnations yet of the corruption case that has shadowed his political life for the last several years, asserting that prosecutors—unable to substantiate their most serious allegations—have now reduced the proceedings to what he called “absurd minutiae,” including a decades-old children’s toy and a handful of cigars.

The remarks, delivered in a video on Thursday, represent a dramatic escalation in Netanyahu’s claim that the case against him is politically motivated, structurally flawed, and increasingly detached from legal relevance. After years of hearings, testimony, internal clashes among law-enforcement officials, and judicial skepticism regarding key charges, the prime minister now portrays the prosecution’s remaining case as both symbolic of systemic overreach and corrosive to Israel’s democratic integrity.

The original indictment—comprising three separate cases popularly known as 1000, 2000, and 4000—once carried weighty allegations of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The most serious, Case 4000, was said to involve a quid pro quo arrangement in which Netanyahu allegedly supported regulatory benefits for the Bezeq telecommunications giant in exchange for favorable coverage by its Walla News site.

But Netanyahu pointed to a profound unraveling of the prosecution’s theory. According to the prime minister, internal documents now public in court show that Walla’s overall coverage of him across the years was predominantly negative—undercutting the central premise that he received preferential treatment. “They claimed I got favorable press coverage,” Netanyahu said, “but the documents show years of hostile media.” The contradiction, he argued, strikes at the core of the bribery hypothesis.

The claim is not new, but the prime minister’s renewed emphasis comes amid heightened judicial scrutiny. Judges on the Jerusalem District Court panel have already questioned whether the prosecution proved the basic elements of bribery, at various points urging state attorneys to consider withdrawing that component of the indictment. Their hesitation has been widely interpreted by analysts as a sign that the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation may be insufficient to sustain the charge.

Yet, prosecutors have refused to drop the bribery allegation, prompting Netanyahu to argue that the case continues not because of its legal merits but because withdrawing the charge would constitute an institutional admission of failure. “Judges told prosecutors to drop the bribery charges — they refused,” Netanyahu said. “What’s left? A Bugs Bunny doll my son got almost 30 years ago. Some cigars from a friend.”

Netanyahu described the legal process as a relentless burden that has forced him to divide his time between Israel’s highest-stakes national security portfolio and courtroom obligations that he says are increasingly farcical. “Three days a week. Eight hours a day. For years,” he said. “While Israel faces real threats and real opportunities.”

The remarks are a rare instance of the prime minister openly discussing the personal toll of the proceedings. Although he has long maintained his innocence and criticized the investigations, he has usually done so within the bounds of formal responses or brief public statements. The sharper tone now suggests a shift in strategy—a public narrative framing the case as almost fully collapsed, with only trivial remnants surviving.

The most symbolic of these remnants, Netanyahu said, was the Bugs Bunny figurine—reportedly a childhood gift for his son from a family friend nearly three decades ago, now examined as part of an alleged pattern of personal benefits. That such an object appears in court records, he argued, indicates a prosecutorial effort to preserve the semblance of wrongdoing after the core of the indictment disintegrated.

The cigars—another long-noted component of Case 1000—are similarly presented by Netanyahu as an innocuous gesture from longtime personal acquaintances rather than evidence of corruption. Prosecutors have maintained that gifts of cigars and champagne were excessive, systematic, and tied to political favors; the defense insists they stemmed from genuine friendships and lacked any transactional character.

Netanyahu’s remarks come at a moment when Israeli society is deeply polarized not only by the trial itself but by the broader debate over judicial reform and the balance of power between political and legal institutions. The prime minister’s supporters view the corruption case as emblematic of an entrenched judicial elite attempting to limit the democratic mandate of elected leaders. Opponents argue that Netanyahu’s attacks on the prosecution reflect a dangerous erosion of respect for the rule of law.

The timing of this latest denunciation is also significant. Israel continues to face existential security challenges—from Iran’s regional entrenchment and Hezbollah’s aggression to the ongoing ramifications of the October 7 Hamas massacre and the Gaza war. Netanyahu’s framing—that he has spent “three days a week” under cross-examination at precisely the moment the country requires uninterrupted strategic leadership—appeals to supporters who believe the prosecution has hindered national governance.

It is a narrative the prime minister has employed before, but rarely with such detail or force.

One of the most consequential dynamics has been the visible unease of the judicial panel itself. While maintaining formal neutrality, the judges have repeatedly pressed prosecutors on the evidentiary gaps in the bribery theory. Observers note that such intervention is unusual—judges typically reserve substantive critique for final rulings.

Why then does the prosecution persist? Legal scholars offer several theories. Some argue that state attorneys view withdrawal as a concession that would undermine public trust in the prosecutorial system. Others suggest that internal disagreements—long rumored within the Justice Ministry—have left the case in institutional limbo. A third possibility is that prosecutors believe that even if the bribery charge proves untenable, the remaining breach-of-trust allegations justify continuing.

Netanyahu rejected all these rationales, insisting that the prosecution has become determined to “salvage something—anything—no matter how small.”

What makes the moment so consequential is the sheer longevity and emotional weight of the case. It has spanned multiple election cycles, toppled coalitions, reshaped Israel’s political map, and repeatedly resurfaced in debates over judicial reform and the separation of powers. To Netanyahu, it represents not simply personal legal jeopardy but a structural struggle over who governs Israel: elected officials or unelected legal institutions.

The prime minister’s most recent critique suggests a belief that public opinion may now be shifting—both because the case appears narrowed, and because Israelis remain preoccupied with war, hostages, and regional dangers. “While Israel faces real threats and real opportunities,” he said, the justice system has consumed vast national resources on what he depicts as near-irrelevancies.

The trial continues, and the judges’ final judgment remains months—perhaps years—away. But Netanyahu’s latest statement signals a new phase: an attempt to place the prosecution, not himself, on trial in the court of public legitimacy.

If the bribery charge ultimately falls, as many analysts now believe possible, the case will continue under far narrower legal theories. Whether that becomes a vindication or merely a partial retreat will depend on the judges’ eventual ruling and the public’s assessment of a process that has defined an era.

For now, Netanyahu appears determined to seize the narrative. In his telling, a case once heralded as a watershed of political accountability has been reduced to a collection of cigars and a cartoon figurine—while Israel, facing extraordinary challenges, has been forced to bear the weight of what he portrays as one of the most protracted and misguided prosecutions in its history.