Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday morning arrived at the Tel Aviv District Court, where the trial was moved from Jerusalem for security reasons, to testify at his corruption trial, the first time in Israeli history that a sitting prime minister testified at his own trial. At a press conference on Monday evening, Netanyahu addressed claims that he wants to evade a trial. “Do I want to evade a trial? Nonsense. I have been waiting for this day for 8 years, to blow up the baseless accusations. There was no offense, so they searched for an offense.” He repeated the same sentiment on Tuesday morning, saying: “I waited 8 years for this moment, to tell the truth. The truth as I remember it. which is also important for justice. There is no justice without truth.” “This is the opportunity to refute the ridiculous charges against me,” Netanyahu continued, calling the charges “an ocean of absurdity” and saying that if he was part of the leftist establishment, he wouldn’t be there. He specifically addressed the claim that he received bribes as a “complete lie,” saying that he hates champagne and never drinks it and although he sometimes smokes cigars,  his schedule of 17-18 hour work days, often until 2 a.m, leaves him little time to indulge in food, drink or cigars. “I eat my meals at my desk and I never get to finish a cigar because I’m always interrupted,” he said, emphasizing that since October 7, he runs from meeting to meeting. “If only I could steal away five minutes to spend some time with my wife,” he said, adding that he never has time to see his children. Netanyahu also slammed the fact that he is being forced to testify all day three times a week, an unprecedented demand, while Israel is at war and facing recent new security challenges in the wake of the fall of the Syrian regime. Netanyahu is taking the stand after his defense attorney Amit Hadad significantly undermined the foundations on which most of the prosecution’s claims rested in the past year, yielding positive results for Netanyahu. Hadad and his team’s main success was challenging the credibility of the key witnesses as the state witnesses’ testimonies formed a central part of the prosecution’s evidence. However, during the cross-examinations, the defense succeeded in portraying the witnesses as unreliable, whether due to contradictions in their testimonies, pressures exerted on them during the signing of state witness agreements, or due to the exposure of personal interests or conflicts with Netanyahu. This move created doubts regarding the strength of the evidence based on their testimonies. In addition, the defense raised claims about substantive flaws in the investigation process, including the use of improper pressure on witnesses and inadequate documentation of the investigations. These claims raised questions among the judges and caused some of the evidence to be called into question. Another successful move by the defense was reinterpreting circumstantial evidence. Netanyahu is accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, but the defense succeeded in presenting an alternative interpretation of the correspondence and recordings presented by the prosecution. In many cases, the broader context was shown, indicating that the actions attributed to Netanyahu could have been completely legal or at least ambiguous in terms of proving criminal intent. […]