Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies in Netanyahu Trial, Sparks Debate

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit began testifying in the Jerusalem District Court as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial. Mandelblit was called by the defense, and Netanyahu himself attended the hearing to listen. His testimony addressed his stance on the cases against the Prime Minister and investigative actions taken during the probes.

Mandelblit stated that he views the cases against Netanyahu as serious, asserting that "each of the cases justifies an indictment." He also admitted that while he had hoped the investigations would not lead to an indictment, the accumulated evidence necessitated a different decision. However, under cross-examination by Netanyahu's defense attorneys, Mandelblit confirmed that the police conducted significant investigative actions without his timely approval. He recounted an incident that angered him, where he ordered the cancellation of wiretapping on Natan Eshel, and described an investigative tactic used on an associate of Nir Hefetz as improper.

Netanyahu's lawyers aim to use Mandelblit's testimony to argue that police investigators exceeded their authorizations and that some investigative actions began before receiving official approval from the Attorney General, as they contend is required. Following the testimony, Likud party sources called for the immediate closure of the cases against the Prime Minister.

Channel 13 news anchor Raviv Drucker commented on the testimony, cautioning against interpretations by Netanyahu's supporters. He described the event not as a legal development likely to affect the trial's outcome, but as a politically and personally motivated move. "This is half a revenge event by Netanyahu on Mandelblit, and half a campaign event by the court," Drucker stated, suggesting the court showed "usual weakness" by allowing extensive hearings on a narrow legal question that could have been resolved much faster. Drucker added that even if the Attorney General's approval came after initial evidence was gathered, it does not necessarily justify acquittal or a reduced sentence, questioning if such a procedural issue should excuse Netanyahu from accepting hundreds of thousands of shekels in benefits.