Mandelblit Testimony in Netanyahu Trial Aimed at Public, Not Judges

During testimony in the Jerusalem District Court, former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's statements, acknowledging "improper actions" and "serious actions that were not approved in retrospect" during the investigation into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were seen as directed towards the public rather than the judges. While these admissions could theoretically support the defense's claim for dismissal, legal analysts believe the court is unlikely to void the indictment, as doing so would severely undermine the prosecution system.

Mandelblit himself described an interrogation tactic used on Nir Hefetz as "improper and incorrect" but admitted he did not investigate the interrogators, prioritizing the "proper management of the case over full prosecution." This stance, the article suggests, mirrors the judges' likely position: to admonish and reduce the weight of evidence, but not to dismantle the case entirely.

The defense, recognizing the low probability of a dismissal from the court, is reportedly focusing its efforts on influencing public opinion ahead of the upcoming elections. Netanyahu's presence at Mandelblit's testimony, and his own past requests to postpone hearings, are seen as part of this strategy to sway voters.

This approach, the article argues, is a continuation of a pattern established when the prosecution chose to announce its intention to indict Netanyahu in February 2019, just weeks before an election. Their refusal to delay the announcement until after the vote, citing the public's right to know, was interpreted as an appeal to the electorate rather than a judicial process.

The trial is thus characterized as a "dual trial": one in the courtroom with legal proceedings, and another in the court of public opinion, where millions of voters act as judges. Both the prosecution and the defense are accused of politicizing the trial, with the ultimate verdict expected to come from the voters on October 27.