Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the Jerusalem District Court today, Monday, to postpone his testimony in the corruption cases in which he is accused until next February, after the court had postponed, last July, the start of his testimony until December 2.

Netanyahu's lawyers justified the request for postponement by saying that "a series of extraordinary events occurred that made it impossible for the prime minister to prepare to testify in the case at the present time."

Among the events mentioned by Netanyahu's lawyers were the assassination of Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, contacts regarding a prisoner exchange deal, the war in Lebanon and the direct confrontation with Iran. They claimed that "in recent months, information has accumulated in the security apparatus, the details of which will be able to be presented in a closed court session, and which will affect the form of the prime minister's testimony."

People close to Netanyahu have recently said that Netanyahu's testimony cannot take place on time because the War Department did not allow him to prepare to present it, and because his constant presence in court during this period poses a danger to his life and the lives of the rest of those present in the courtroom.

Last June, Netanyahu's lawyers requested that his testimony be postponed until next March, but the court rejected that. The judges said in their decision at the time that "there is a fundamental public interest in advancing the proceedings as much as possible."

The judges also rejected Netanyahu's request not to begin hearing his testimony until they consider a request to drop the charges against him, alleging investigative failures and selective law enforcement.

Netanyahu's trial began in January 2020. He is accused in Cases 2000 and 4000 of fraud and breach of trust due to suspicious deals with the publishers of the Walla website and the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. He is accused in Case 1000 of receiving gifts from wealthy people. This case is also described as the "personal benefits case."