Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Witness Lied Amid Wiretap Dispute

A sharp confrontation erupted in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, when defense attorney Amit Haddad presented a perceived contradiction between the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and statements made by police investigator Koresh Bar-Nor. The dispute centers on a wiretap conducted on the phone of Natan Eshel, an associate of the Prime Minister. Mandelblit testified that he was unaware of the operation beforehand and opposed it once he learned of it. However, Bar-Nor stated in prior testimony that Eshel's matter was discussed in a meeting with the Attorney General.

Haddad argued that the accounts are irreconcilable, stating, "Either Bar-Nor is lying or the Attorney General is not telling the truth." He presented a protocol from Bar-Nor's testimony, where the former head of the National Fraud Investigations Unit explicitly stated, "Unequivocally, in the Attorney General's meeting, Eshel's matter came up." This directly contrasts with Mandelblit's assertion that he was never asked to approve the wiretap on Eshel's phone in advance.

The defense attorney emphasized that this is not a minor inaccuracy but a fundamental dispute regarding the Attorney General's knowledge of a sensitive police operation targeting the Prime Minister's circle. Haddad also noted that other witnesses, including police officers Shmuel Sharvit and Assaf Tzarfati, provided accounts supporting the defense's position. He accused Bar-Nor of not telling the truth.

Prosecutors objected to Haddad's presentation, arguing that he was reading an isolated excerpt and that further parts of Bar-Nor's testimony should be considered. They suggested that operational approvals were conveyed through the then-head of the Police Investigations and Intelligence Department, Meni Yitzhaki. The prosecution requested the court distinguish between mentioning Eshel's name in a general discussion and providing explicit legal approval for a wiretap.

Haddad countered that he intended to present the full context but maintained that Bar-Nor unequivocally stated the matter was brought before the Attorney General. When questioned again by Haddad after Mandelblit returned to the stand, Mandelblit reiterated, "It did not come up." Judge Oded Shacham noted that the issue had already been addressed. Mandelblit confirmed that Yitzhaki and Bar-Nor were present at his work meetings where past operations and future investigation plans were discussed. He stated he did not recall 100% if he spoke with Bar-Nor or Yitzhaki about Natan Eshel, but believed it came up in a discussion. Haddad clarified his question pertained to discussions after the wiretap was revealed, not prior approval.

The core of the dispute lies in whether mentioning an associate's name in a discussion with the Attorney General constitutes legal authorization for intrusive surveillance. The defense argues Mandelblit did not grant legal permission and that Bar-Nor's testimony created a false impression. The prosecution seeks to differentiate between internal directives and formal approval, and general discussion versus specific wiretap authorization. Mandelblit consistently maintained he was unaware of the wiretap beforehand and ordered its immediate cessation upon learning of it. The defense's highlighting of this contradiction aims to undermine the credibility of investigators and the legality of actions in the "Files 1000" case, supporting their claim of "defense from justice" due to alleged lack of authority and misleading court reports.