Talk:Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu

Requested move 3 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page to be moved to Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu 2016–present per MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:AT.(non-admin closure) Geogene (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

---

2016–2018 investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu → 2016–18 investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu – consistent wp style X1\ (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the proposed title is consistent with MOS:DATERANGE. Am I missing something? Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  No opinion on the MOS aspect, but if you move it - change the 2018 (or 18) to 2019 - as it is quite obvious by the time this RM is closes that it will be live in 2019 as well.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and this should probably be speedy closed as it fails MOS:DATERANGE and nom is incorrect that his proposal is consistent with any current style. --Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment per MOS:DATERANGE the proposed move is wrong as it is more than 2 years the correct move would be to Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu 2016–Present עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article does not appear to cover real legal matters - it is just abusive.

The article does not appear to cover a real trial (rather than a political propaganda exercise, that happens to be conducted by lawyers ) - it is just abusive, indeed the article ends with the words "shame and disgrace" rather than a verdict on criminal charges.2A02:C7E:1CC3:8A00:F8EF:AB21:E705:DA1C (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is the verdict?

The "investigation" has been going on since 2016 and the "trial" has been going on for three years. Where is the verdict? Is this a real trial or political theatre?2.127.28.72 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The trial is ongoing. Israel's courts tend to be slow, and similar corruption cases have gone on for years. This is a complicated case with more than 300 witnesses, of which not even half appeared yet, and tens of thousands of pages of written testimonies and documents. 2A00:A040:1A3:E5EF:3136:6277:D477:5EBA (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A "trial" that started in 2020 still "ongoing" in 2023? That is not "slow" - that is a farce. The article also gives no clear account of what the charges may have been, or what the prosecution and defence arguments were - it even states that there will be more "witnesses" in 2024 (four years after the "trial" started). This is not an account of a trial or any sort of legitimate legal proceeding - it is an account of some sort of political theatre. 2A02:C7C:E124:800:9519:F0A:B4EB:AFE7 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is a mess.

The article states that the "trial" started in 2020, but there is no clear account of what the charges were, or what the prosecution and defence arguments were, or what the verdict was. The article even says there will be more "prosecution witnesses" in 2024 (2024? in a trial that started in 2020?) and that the trial is "ongoing" - more than three years after it started. Where is the account of the defence witnesses? Indeed what was the trial even about - again there is no clear description of what the charges may have been. Overall the article is a mess - it does not make any sense. The article seems to be an account of some sort of political theatre rather than a legal proceeding.2A02:C7C:E124:800:9519:F0A:B4EB:AFE7 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

First sentence confusing and does not summarize the topic

Why would the first sentence begin with when Netanyahu was NOT Prime Minister, instead of starting with the trial? It would be more helpful to say when he WAS Prime Minister and then give the years he was in office. CarlSerafino (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusing wording

"There was a vote the next day establishing a House Committee that would debate immunity for Netanyahu; it was approved 16 votes in favour to five against. The committee included 30 members, with a majority from parties opposed to Netanyahu.

As a result, Netanyahu withdrew his bid for immunity on 28 January 2020; the charges against him were thus officially confirmed and filed in Jerusalem District Court on the same day."

What was approved? Why did he withdraw his bid?

75.142.254.3 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the wording is confusing. Rewrote that part. There's no need to go into the details of how many votes were there to form the committee. 2A00:A040:199:49C7:89AF:50B:57C1:D959 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about Title

Shouldn't the title use "Trials" instead of "Trial"? Starlighsky (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is one trial, with several charges. 2A00:A040:199:49C7:89AF:50B:57C1:D959 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A "trial" that has been going on for more than four years?

According to the article the "trial" started on the 24th of May 2020 - the "investigation" having started in 2017 (some seven years ago).

The "process is the punishment" - this is clearly not a trial in any normal sense of that word, in a rational legal system a trial does not go on for year after year, this is clearly a form of political theatre, harassment, and the article should make that clear. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:6CD0:D3C2:86E3:400E (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)