Opinion | Legal digging Israel today

It is already possible to officially diagnose as a masochist who decided to follow every day evidence and after every detail in Netanyahu's files, which began with a celebration of leaks and transcripts about four years ago and will end, according to estimates, in about eight years at best.

The testimony of the first witness, former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua, lasted twice as long as the initial assessments and lasted six months, and we have a long buffet of witnesses who will contribute their part to the story. The media, and especially with the reporters who report (sometimes from the courtroom itself) on the networks.

The debates over the sewing of cases in the State Attorney's Office and the precedent-setting charge at the historical world level have already been grinded, but is there a legal stitching process for former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? At least according to the reporting patterns we saw around Ilan Yeshua's testimony - most likely. Some of the court letters - some of which built their names on the publication of transcripts and the opening of editions in dramatic headlines - have a clear division: a lawsuit? Surveys; protection? Brooms. And so we discovered, in the testimony of Salvation, that when the State Attorney's Office investigates and when the blackmailer acts in favor of the prosecution - the stream of tweets live is published at the pace of the typist's dictation in the courtroom. But not only that, the volume and reference on websites, on screen and in newspapers did not disappoint: bold headlines and dramatic transcripts all shouting "Ilan Yeshua handed over Walla to the Netanyahu family."

As the first to receive the right to interrogate, the lawsuit was extorted from the approaching Walla CEO, with the impression that it was a celebration of extraordinary influence on the site's content. Went up to conduct the cross-examination - a limited and slow drip was obtained from the witness's, reports from the trial found themselves in the back pages of the newspapers, and the general atmosphere was one of court recess.

This is how Judge Moshe Bar-Am's dramatic reference to the witness, on which the prosecution built the "give" relationship in the form of positive coverage, was hidden from public view: .. How do we know from the Scriptures when my lord thinks the things he has written for himself are true, when are they not true? "

It is necessary to dwell on the meaning: from the beginning of the investigation, that is - during half a year of appearances in court, a judge fails to understand whether a key witness, perhaps the most central on the issue of "consideration", is a man whose truth is a candle to his feet, a professional liar or something in between.

It is not clear how the earth did not tremble at such a statement.

But she is not.

Anyone who says that it is difficult to determine media conduct based solely on one witness is invited to find out how in the testimony of the second witness in the case, the former editor-in-chief of the Walla website, Aviram Elad, the tweets and dramas produced by the prosecution returned to the previous flow.

Look surprised.