Mandelblit Testimony Raises Suspicions of Political Interference in Netanyahu Cases

Recent testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has brought renewed attention to alleged shortcomings in the investigations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, power dynamics within the prosecution, and questions about oversight within the law enforcement system. Mandelblit confirmed that not all investigative actions were brought to his approval and recounted an instance where he ordered the cancellation of wiretapping on Natan Eshel, an action that "incensed" him. He admitted that he did not personally review all 315 alleged incidents of coverage attributed to Netanyahu in Case 4000, relying instead on the State Prosecutor's Office's presentation.

Mandelblit also deemed an investigative tactic used against an associate of Nir Hefetz as improper and acknowledged preventing a further inquiry into the matter through witness testimony, fearing it would disrupt the investigation. These statements are considered highly significant coming from the individual responsible for overseeing sensitive investigations. The article questions how the Attorney General became so dependent on prosecution officials and why closer supervision was not exercised.

The piece draws parallels to the Harpaz affair, referencing a past investigation into Mandelblit's handling of a document leak. While that case was closed, the reason for closure remained contentious. Mandelblit reportedly desired a closure based on lack of guilt rather than lack of evidence, but State Attorney Shi Nitzen delayed the decision. Recordings suggest Mandelblit felt Nitzen had leverage over him, a situation the article posits could compromise independent oversight.

Furthermore, the article highlights the issue of prolonged open cases, citing the extended delay in deciding the case of former Netanyahu Chief of Staff Tzachi Braverman regarding protocol alterations and disciplinary proceedings against Roi Halon for misrepresenting his resume. The recent Knesset approval of a law separating the Police Internal Investigations Department (Mahash) from the State Prosecutor's Office is presented as a necessary step towards ensuring independent investigation, especially given Mandelblit's testimony about a flawed investigative tactic being allowed to proceed without full inquiry.

The author criticizes the prosecution's conduct in the Netanyahu cases as "appalling," suggesting a trajectory between negligence and malice, potentially aimed at undermining a popular right-wing prime minister. The piece concludes by framing the upcoming 2026 elections around the question of accountability for those in power, referencing past criticisms from retired judge Hila Gerstel regarding management and ethical issues within the prosecution.