Sources within Israel's political system believe that the recent statement by judges in Netanyahu's trial, casting difficulties to prove the bribery charge in Case 4000, could expedite the push for judicial overhaul legislation.

Coalition members, in response to the judges' announcement, argue that it underscores the need for systemic changes in the justice system, specifically supporting the advancement of the overhaul.

MK Simcha Rothman, Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, took to Twitter to emphasize the perceived lack of impartiality within the politically biased judiciary. He stressed the urgency of addressing these issues and pledged decisive action.

Minister of Public Diplomacy Galit Distel-Atbaryan similarly described the trial as "the darkest chapter in Israel's history" and called for accountability on the "conspirators, the persecutors and the incriminators."

Economy Minister Nir Barkat responded too and emphasized the importance of supervising the state prosecutor's office. In an interview with Channel 13 News, he expressed that "it is a matter of consensus," saying that "Israel has paid heavy prices" because the state prosecutors' work on the cases.

>> Netanyahu on Trial: Everything You Need to Know

According to sources, Netanyahu has not yet made a decision regarding the coup legislation. In fact, he preferred to keep the legislation "on the back burner," meaning that the laws would not be advanced for about a year, while still remaining on the Knesset's agenda.

Despite his recurring and changing denials, Netanyahu believes that promoting the judicial overhaul may extricate him from the charges in the ongoing cases against him. Therefore, he expressed support for the legislation, despite his past reservations and disclaimers regarding similar measures.

According to sources, it is claimed that Netanyahu intended to delay the decision regarding the coup for about a year until his trial concludes. At this stage, Netanyahu would have more information that would allow him to assess whether he would be convicted in court.

Based on this, Netanyahu would decide whether to negotiate with the prosecution for a plea deal that could lead to his departure from the political scene or to push for the advancement of the judicial overhaul, which could help him evade indictment, especially regarding charges of bribery and breach of trust.

However, the judges' statement could disrupt the plans and change the timeline. If Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, decides to change her position and support the defense's request for a criminal resolution process, Netanyahu would need to make a decision earlier than expected. Additionally, if the prosecution decides not to pursue a criminal resolution process or plea agreement, Netanyahu may expedite his decision on the coup legislation even further than planned.

Nevertheless, opposition sources argue that the judges' statement has increased the chances of advancing the coup legislation. In the political arena, it is claimed that the judges' statement could not only affect the advancement of the coup legislation but also other important political decisions, such as whether to form a unity government.

On Thursday, MK Matan Kahana (National Unity Party) addressed the possibility of his party joining a unity government with Netanyahu. In an interview on Ynet, Kahana stated, "Our veto against Netanyahu was not personal — it stemmed from the fact that Gantz was the only one who gave him a chance to form a unity government and reconcile. In my eyes, at least, we understood the message. From now on, what is legal is legitimate."

Gideon Sa'ar, who belongs to the same faction as Kahana, expressed his belief that the public interest lies in a plea deal for the prime minister in the corruption cases. He wrote on Twitter, "During my term as justice minister, I refrained from addressing the possibility of a plea bargain process in Netanyahu's trial out of respect for the independence of the general prosecution in matters entrusted to its professional judgment. All things considered, it is appropriate to conclude Netanyahu's trial with a plea deal. The prosecution should be attentive to the court's messages and demonstrate willingness to engage in such negotiations. The broader public interest is to end this saga in a plea bargain."

According to a report by Channel 13 News, during a routine hearing at the Jerusalem District Court on Tuesday, the judges had a discussion lasting about 15 minutes with the representatives of the prosecution and the defense teams of Netanyahu and the additional defendants, Shaul and Iris Elovich. According to the report, the judges told the prosecution representatives that they would struggle to prove the bribery charges in Case 4000 and called on the parties to reach a settlement.

In light of the judges' comments, Baharav-Miara is expected to hold further meetings with the defense team and senior prosecution officials regarding the progress in the case and the possibility of engaging in plea negotiations. However, both the state persecutor and the attorney general believe that Netanyahu can be convicted for bribery in Case 4000.

Baharav-Miara and State Attorney Amit Isman believe that the public interest is to conclude the legal process as quickly as possible, but both stand behind the charges.

According to their approach, the evidence in Case 4000 is complex and consists not only of testimonies but also of exhibits such as WhatsApp messages, email confirmations, and recordings. Until these pieces of evidence are extensively examined in court, definitive conclusions regarding the charges in the case cannot be reached. These pieces of evidence are expected to be extensively discussed during the defense's presentation, which will begin after the prosecutor finishes hearing the witnesses next year.