Professor Albasahan: Netanyahu Trial Now Focuses on Prosecution's Conduct
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Professor Yuval Albasahan stated that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's testimony has shifted his view on the Netanyahu investigation, now seeing it as a trial of the prosecution and media. Albasahan criticized alleged negligence and arrogance within the legal system, citing specific issues from Mandelblit's testimony. Despite these concerns, he believes the trial is unlikely to be dismissed, though the evidence's weight may be affected. He also criticized the media's coverage and influence on public discourse.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Professor Yuval Albasahan believes the Netanyahu trial has become a trial of the prosecution and media, not just the prime minister.
- Mandelblit's testimony revealed alleged investigative failures and lack of oversight in the Netanyahu case, according to Albasahan.
- Albasahan criticizes the prosecution's conduct and media coverage, citing arrogance and systemic decay.
- Despite significant flaws, Albasahan doubts the Netanyahu trial will be dismissed due to systemic implications.
- Albasahan accuses some media outlets of bias and influencing public discourse in the Netanyahu investigation.
- The professor believes the prosecution's actions may have been driven by a flawed sense of duty rather than malice.
Professor Yuval Albasahan has stated that testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Netanyahu trial has significantly altered his perception of the investigation's handling. Albasahan, who initially did not believe claims of negligence in the investigations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now acknowledges that some criticisms were justified. He expressed surprise at the revelations, suggesting the trial has largely become a trial of the prosecution and the media rather than solely of Netanyahu.
Albasahan criticized the prosecution's conduct and the media's coverage, noting that while he expected the legal system to exercise extreme professionalism and caution due to the case's implications for Israel's governance, certain aspects were not adequately examined. He pointed to judicial remarks and issues raised during testimonies as evidence of deep-seated problems within the system, attributing them to arrogance and systemic decay rather than mere negligence.
He highlighted specific points from Mandelblit's testimony, including investigative actions allegedly conducted without the former AG's approval, wiretaps involving Natan Eshel, a questionable interrogation tactic used with Nir Hefetz, and attempts to turn Shlomo Filber into a state witness. Albasahan also noted Mandelblit's statements about not being fully informed about certain meetings and the details of warnings given to Netanyahu, which he believes lend further weight to concerns about the investigation's integrity.
Despite his strong criticisms, Albasahan does not believe these revelations will necessarily lead to the dismissal of the case. He suggested that while the evidence's weight might be reduced and some individuals might face further scrutiny, a complete dismissal, or "defense from justice," is unlikely. He argued that such a decision would have devastating consequences for the prosecution system in Israel and that judges would carefully consider these systemic implications.
Albasahan also criticized the media's role, accusing some outlets of acting as interested parties rather than objective reporters by influencing public discourse and allegedly protecting senior law enforcement officials. He contrasted their current reduced coverage of the trial with their past extensive reporting on investigation materials, suggesting a lack of professionalism and potential bias.
Mentioned
