Israeli Judges Express Frustration Over Netanyahu Trial Delays
Translated & summarized from Calcalist by baba
Israeli judges in Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial are pushing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to drop the bribery charge in Case 4000, citing significant delays. The court believes Baharav-Miara's direct involvement is necessary for productive dialogue, as current proceedings have stalled. Judges are concerned the trial will extend beyond the presiding judge's retirement in 2028 and feel unfairly blamed for the delays. They are seeking to share responsibility for the trial's length with the Attorney General's office.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israeli judges urged Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to drop a bribery charge against PM Netanyahu.
- The court expressed frustration over trial delays, calling for direct dialogue with the Attorney General.
- Judges fear the trial will not conclude before the presiding judge retires in March 2028.
- The Attorney General's office reportedly believes the bribery charge can still be pursued.
- Judges seek to share responsibility for the trial's extensive duration.
Israeli judges presiding over the corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have signaled their frustration with the protracted proceedings, particularly concerning the bribery charge in Case 4000. In an indirect dialogue, the court has repeatedly suggested that the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, consider dropping the bribery charge or exploring a criminal settlement. However, Baharav-Miara has thus far resisted, reportedly due to the significant implications of such a withdrawal on a major case against a senior political figure. Her advisors and prosecutors are said to believe the bribery charge can still be salvaged, or that any potential conviction might be overturned on appeal years later, by which time she will no longer be in office.
The court's recent decision explicitly stated the need for Baharav-Miara's direct involvement to foster a "purposeful bilateral dialogue," suggesting that current discussions with prosecutors and defense attorneys have devolved into a "dialogue of the deaf." The judges are concerned that the trial will not conclude before the presiding judge, Rivka Friedman-Feldman, retires in March 2028. They also feel unfairly blamed for the trial's length, noting that if the Attorney General had accepted their recommendation to drop the bribery charge in June 2023, the trial might have already concluded.
While acknowledging objective reasons for delays, such as the ongoing war, the judges also point to procedural leniency they extended to both sides, including allowing lengthy testimonies that could have been shortened. By summoning the Attorney General, the court aims not only to persuade her to reconsider the bribery charge but also to share responsibility for the trial's extensive duration. The judges appear weary of being solely held accountable for the delays, referencing a past instance where Acting Supreme Court President Uzi Fogelman emphasized the duty of state attorneys to seriously consider judicial remarks.
Mentioned
