Netanyahu Trial's Lack of Documentation Echoes Israeli Comedy
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
The legal handling of investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cases is criticized for a lack of clear written documentation, drawing parallels to an Israeli comedy film. While the Attorney General's consent is legally required, the article argues that approvals were not properly recorded in writing, leading to heavily redacted documents for the defense. This "balagan" or mess is attributed to typical Israeli shortcuts rather than deliberate sabotage. The author suggests the court will likely consider it a technical error, not sufficient grounds to dismiss the charges.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- The Netanyahu investigation's documentation issues are compared to an Israeli comedy, questioning the lack of written approvals.
- Basic Law: The Government requires Attorney General consent for PM investigations, but the form of consent is debated.
- The prosecution claims approvals exist in internal meeting protocols, which are heavily redacted and not disclosed to the defense.
- The article attributes the lack of documentation to a typical Israeli "balagan" or mess, not intentional sabotage.
- Judges are unlikely to dismiss the charges due to this technical oversight, viewing it as a minor error.
The legal proceedings in the cases against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are being compared to a scene from the Israeli comedy "Giv'at Halfon Einah Ona," where a character searches for the sea and laments the lack of a sign. The article argues that a simple written "approval" for investigations could have saved significant time and legal complexities.
According to Basic Law: The Government, a criminal investigation against the prime minister can only be initiated with the Attorney General's consent. While the law doesn't specify the form of consent, and Avichai Mandelblit interpreted it as potentially oral, the author contends this is a weak interpretation, suggesting such a critical step should be documented in writing.
The prosecution claims Mandelblit was meticulous, not only approving investigations but also requiring central investigative actions to be brought to his attention. However, the article highlights that this rigor is not reflected in the technical documentation of decisions and approvals. The prosecution's assertion is that approvals are found within the internal protocols of nine meetings out of over 100 Mandelblit held regarding the Netanyahu investigations. These protocols are considered internal, not investigative material, and thus not subject to disclosure to the defense.
As a result, the defense received heavily redacted documents, with only a few words or phrases visible. The article likens this to a joke where one must assemble scattered pieces to see a hidden view, questioning why a straightforward written record wasn't kept for such a high-profile case.
The author suggests this situation reflects a typical Israeli "balagan" (mess), characterized by shortcuts and a "'it'll be fine' attitude," rather than intentional sabotage. Despite the potential legal ramifications, the article posits that judges are unlikely to dismiss the charges solely based on this technical oversight, given the trial's duration and Mandelblit's deep involvement. The court will likely view it as a technical error, not grounds for dropping the case against the prime minister.
