Professor Alleges Power Abuse and Negligence in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Srugim by baba
Professor Yuval Albashan criticized the prosecution in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial, calling the proceedings worse than expected. He alleged power intoxication, arrogance, and negligence within the State Attorney's Office, not limited to the Netanyahu case. Albashan expected a higher standard of examination given the trial's sensitivity and public dispute.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Professor Yuval Albashan criticized the prosecution in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial.
- Albashan stated the trial's revelations were worse than he had anticipated.
- He alleged power intoxication, arrogance, and negligence within the State Attorney's Office.
- The professor believes these issues are not confined solely to the Netanyahu case.
- Albashan expected a higher standard of examination due to the trial's sensitivity.
Professor Yuval Albashan has sharply criticized the prosecution's conduct in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Speaking on the program "Yoman Ha'erev," Albashan commented on the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, stating that the revelations emerging from the testimony were more serious than he had anticipated. "I think what we are seeing in the testimony of the former Attorney General Mandelblit is, in a sense, worse than we all thought," Albashan said.
Albashan extended his criticism beyond the Netanyahu case, addressing the general conduct of the State Attorney's Office. He asserted that the problems he identifies within the system are not confined to the prime minister's investigations. "We all know the State Attorney's Office, regardless of Mandelblit and the Netanyahu case, and we all know there is power intoxication, arrogance, and negligence stemming from this decay," he claimed.
Despite his broad critique, Albashan expressed a particular expectation for a different approach in the Netanyahu case due to its significant public and legal sensitivity. "But I had an expectation that in the case of a prime minister, whose implications are so heavy, and the public dispute even before an indictment was filed was so strong, that these matters would be examined," he explained. Albashan concluded by stating the minimum level of scrutiny he expected from those involved: "I won't say with seven eyes, but at least with two eyes."
