Netanyahu Trial Disrupted by Lawyer-Prosecutor Clash, Judges Exit
Translated & summarized from Calcalist by baba
Judges temporarily left the courtroom during the Netanyahu corruption trial due to a heated argument between defense lawyer Amit Haddad and prosecutor Judith Tirosh. The clash occurred during testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. Haddad accused the prosecution of misleading Mandelblit, while Tirosh demanded proof. The exchange highlighted a strategic shift by the defense to portray Netanyahu as the accuser ahead of elections.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Judges exited the courtroom during the Netanyahu corruption trial amid a heated clash between lawyers.
- The argument between Amit Haddad and Judith Tirosh occurred during former AG Avichai Mandelblit's testimony.
- Haddad accused prosecutors of misleading Mandelblit regarding evidence in Case 4000.
- Tirosh challenged Haddad to provide evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
- The defense strategy aims to portray Netanyahu as the accuser before upcoming elections.
- Case 4000 involves suspicions around the sale of Bezeq and alleged quid pro quo with Walla.
The second day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Benjamin Netanyahu corruption trial was marked by a dramatic interruption when judges temporarily left the courtroom. The judges' departure was a protest against a heated exchange between Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, and prosecutor Judith Tirosh, which escalated into shouting.
The confrontation occurred during Mandelblit's testimony. Haddad's questions to the former attorney general frequently drew objections from Tirosh, leading to the witness being temporarily removed from the room while the legal battle continued directly between the two lawyers.
Haddad accused the prosecution of misleading the Attorney General when filing the indictment, suggesting that senior Israel Securities Authority investigator Eli Levi concealed investigative actions related to Netanyahu that required the Attorney General's approval. Tirosh countered by demanding proof that Levi informed the prosecution of these actions, which they then allegedly hid from Mandelblit.
The argument intensified, with Haddad remarking on Tirosh's "distress" in the case, to which she retorted about her family and work, reminding him of the defendant's identity. The article suggests Haddad's strategy mirrors Netanyahu's approach of portraying himself as the accuser, aiming to rally his political base against the "legal deep state" two weeks before an election.
Earlier, Mandelblit stated he would be surprised if there was a deliberate order to seek material against the Prime Minister without approval. Haddad compared this to a "seismic event" in the regime, while Mandelblit downplayed it as "not right." Haddad retorted that running a red light is also "not right."
The discussion also touched on the origins of Case 4000, which began at the Israel Securities Authority concerning suspicions around the sale of the private company Yes to the public company Bezeq, both controlled by Shaul Elovitch. Haddad claimed a Haaretz article by Gidi Weitz was the turning point that shifted the focus from CEO Shlomo Filber to Netanyahu, who allegedly approved the merger as Communications Minister in exchange for "unusual compliance" and positive coverage from Walla.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Centre 2Right 4Other 1
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
