Netanyahu's Defense Claims Secret Wiretap Was 'Attack on Democracy'

During the sixth day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Jerusalem District Court, Netanyahu's defense team presented evidence suggesting a secret wiretap on Natan Eshel yielded significant intelligence but was abruptly halted. Defense attorney Amit Haddad confronted Mandelblit with testimony from former National Fraud Unit chief Koresh Bar-Nor, who stated the wiretap produced conversations raising "real suspicion" but was dismantled by a "hasty order from above."

Mandelblit testified that he was angered upon learning of the operation and demanded its immediate cessation. He also admitted that the dramatic decision to remove the wiretap was never officially documented. Bar-Nor's testimony, as presented by Haddad, indicated that while field investigators believed the wiretap was crucial and yielding important results, a sudden order to stop it was issued.

Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the rationale behind dismantling such a significant surveillance operation, with Bar-Nor stating he could not explain the reason and received the directive indirectly. Haddad pressed Mandelblit on whether he ordered the removal, but Mandelblit maintained that the operation was never brought to his prior approval. He reiterated that upon discovering it, he demanded its immediate halt, emphasizing that sensitive operations concerning the Prime Minister's circle require his personal approval.

Further testimony revealed that the wiretap captured conversations of a distinctly political and public nature concerning the Public Broadcasting Corporation, including discussions about its potential closure and related protests. Mandelblit stated he could not confirm if Meni Yitzhaki, former Head of Investigations and Intelligence, initially authorized the wiretap. Haddad strongly criticized the police operation, calling it an "attack on democracy" and questioning the lack of documented actions taken after the incident was exposed.

The defense argued that the absence of written documentation surrounding the wiretap's termination creates deliberate ambiguity, hindering the court and defense from fully ascertaining who authorized its installation, who ordered its removal, and the factual or legal basis for these decisions. They contend this procedural failure supports their claim that the operation was stopped because police were caught conducting wiretaps without proper authority or the Attorney General's approval, potentially forming grounds for dismissing charges under the "defense from justice" argument.