Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Indictment Driven by Foreign Motives

During the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense attorney Amit Haddad argued that the indictment was filed due to extraneous motives. Haddad suggested Mandelblit feared political ramifications and potential diplomatic moves if Netanyahu remained in office. He attempted to question Mandelblit about a statement allegedly made to prosecutor Judith Tirosh, asking if she preferred prosecuting a case that would "save democracy" or live in a dictatorship.

Tirosh strongly objected to exploring Mandelblit's motives, leading to a heated exchange. Judge Bar-Am intervened, posing a fundamental question to the prosecution: "If there is a foreign consideration, is that a relevant fact?" He clarified he was not stating such a consideration existed but used an extreme hypothetical of hating Netanyahu to illustrate the principle.

Haddad asserted that the prosecution's decision to indict was influenced by concerns over Netanyahu's potential political actions and that the criminal proceedings were used to achieve a political outcome. He claimed Mandelblit feared a "regime change" and that Israel might become like Hungary or Poland, linking this to the "save democracy" statement. Haddad also contended that the indictment was pursued despite significant evidentiary challenges.

The defense invoked Section 149(10) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which allows for a defense against prosecution based on fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Haddad argued that the court precedent does not prevent defendants from presenting factual grounds for such claims. Tirosh countered that accepting the defense's position would create a dangerous precedent, allowing prosecutors to be interrogated on personal views in any criminal case against a political figure.

Further complicating matters, Haddad presented warning notices given to Netanyahu during the investigation into Case 4000, noting they did not explicitly mention bribery. Mandelblit confirmed the word "bribery" was absent from these notices and stated he did not recall being presented with the difficulty of Netanyahu not being explicitly warned of this offense before the indictment decision. The defense highlighted a 2019 charge sheet stating Netanyahu received benefits "for actions," which implies bribery, a formulation absent from the warnings shown to Mandelblit.