Israel's Attorney General Avoids Court Appearance in Netanyahu Trial

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has opted not to appear personally before the court hearing the corruption case against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a decision that has raised questions about her legal expertise and confidence. The prosecution team informed the judges that the Attorney General would not attend, a move that reportedly surprised no one.

The judges had suggested Baharav-Miara's presence following remarks by the defense attorney for the Elovitch couple, Jacques Chen, who cited "irregularities" in the investigation of the "File 4000" case and proposed a closed-door hearing with the Attorney General. Judge Oded Shacham indicated that the judicial panel had already considered summoning the Attorney General for direct discussions on trial proceedings, though this proposal had caused discomfort within the prosecution team.

Prosecutor Nitzan Valkan initially questioned the judges' authority to summon the Attorney General, calling the request "unacceptable." Despite the presiding judge, Rivka Friedman-Feldman, noting the case's unusual nature, Valkan stated she would relay the request to relevant parties. Subsequently, prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh, leading the prosecution in "File 4000," announced that Baharav-Miara would not appear, asserting that the prosecution team, led by the Deputy State Attorney, manages the case according to standard procedures. Tirosh argued that the Attorney General's personal appearance, with the prosecution team present, would be an "incorrect work process" for the prosecution system.

Tirosh also reminded the judges that Baharav-Miara had agreed to President Yitzhak Herzog's proposal to explore a plea deal, a path Prime Minister Netanyahu had ignored. The judges ultimately rejected the prosecution's stance and insisted on the Attorney General's personal appearance. The article suggests that while procedural arguments might hold some weight in other cases, the unique nature of the Netanyahu trial, where judges have repeatedly indicated the main charge might result in acquittal, makes Baharav-Miara's absence notable.

The author speculates that the Attorney General's reluctance stems not from procedural concerns or setting a precedent, but from a lack of confidence in her criminal law abilities, as noted in her appointment committee's findings. Appearing before experienced judges, the article posits, could expose her reliance on subordinates for significant decisions, including those in the Netanyahu trial.