On February 22, 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the Security Cabinet, intending to have it approve the negotiating team’s departure for Qatar. He opened his remarks by saying that the Emir of Qatar had updated him that several hostages had received their medication. “I believe the Emir of Qatar, and therefore I recommend sending the delegation.” Was the puzzling haste with which he chose to believe the emir on such a highly charged issue simply Netanyahu’s manipulative way of persuading the extremist ministers to approve the delegation’s departure, or is there something more between Netanyahu and Qatar?
Yonatan Urich has recently changed his version of events, but for months, in response to reports in Haaretz, he claimed that he had never received any compensation from Qatar. That is an outright lie. Eli Feldstein likewise claimed for weeks, in response to a report by Channel 12 News, that he had “never worked for Qatar and never received money from Qatar.” That, too, is an outright lie, perhaps relying on the technicality that there were intermediaries between him and Qatar.
The false denials by Urich and Feldstein indicate that they knew just how tainted the money they received was. But to what extent was it also criminal?
Prime ministers, even before Netanyahu, accustomed the public to the existence of a dysfunctional system of confidants who were not part of the civil service. Ehud Barak made use of Yossi Ginossar. Around Ariel Sharon there were quite a few powerful figures who simultaneously ran successful businesses: the late Reuven Adler, Lior Horev, and Omri Sharon, who served as an envoy for diplomatic missions.
Netanyahu took this 500 steps further, particularly through his use of attorney Yitzhak Molcho. It exploded when it emerged that Molcho was handling negotiations with the Palestinian Authority with one hand while, with the other, meeting with Miki Ganor, ThyssenKrupp’s representative in Israel and a client of Molcho’s law firm, who needed information about what was happening in Israel’s relations with the Palestinian Authority in order to sell Israel a sixth submarine. Molcho avoided an indictment, but Netanyahu did not stop. Quite the opposite: his closest advisers on the issue that matters most to him — communications and the media — were paid substantial sums by Likud, while continuing to conduct business and advise him on sensitive matters.
On the criminal-law level, this is no simple matter. Urich will argue: How am I any different from Adler, who advised on the disengagement? That is why the police must gather evidence about what Urich did in Netanyahu’s service, which meetings he attended, and how many times he came to the Kirya after October 7.
According to two reports that reached me, Urich was seen there quite frequently, including in small, closed-door consultations with Netanyahu. That does not necessarily make him a “public servant,” and it will be no easy legal battle.
To what extent will Urich and Feldstein’s exposure to state secrets affect their standing? To what extent will the fact that they briefed journalists on Netanyahu’s behalf, or provided official responses in his name, bring them closer to criminal liability? It appears that Feldstein’s situation is more serious in this respect than Urich’s.
When Shlomo Filber was first suspended from his position as director-general of the Communications Ministry, before Case 4000, Nir Hefetz was still close to Netanyahu. During one of the holidays, Hefetz suggested that Netanyahu call Filber. “He’s very depressed. At least call to wish him a happy holiday,” he suggested. “You call him and wish him one on my behalf,” Netanyahu replied.
The Netanyahu of today would not recognize that Netanyahu. Today, he does not even blink, sending Urich a clear message in every possible way: I have your back. Both are convinced that it is possible to defeat the weakened legal system; they just need to hold on.
Netanyahu has directly and indirectly rewarded numerous prosecution witnesses against him during his trial. This passed without any response; the system is not strong enough. His lawyer represents conflicting interests with almost no interference. It is only because of the system’s weakness that Urich dares to behave in a way that no one involved in the Netanyahu trials has ever dared to behave before.