Israel's Attorney General Ordered to Appear in Netanyahu Trial

The judges presiding over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial have summoned Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to appear in court on Wednesday, November 18th, at 9:30 AM. The request is not for testimony or reprimand, but for a discussion regarding the continuation of the legal proceedings. Baharav-Miara initially responded through her representative, stating she was updated and trusted her team, implying her personal attendance was unnecessary.

However, the judges insisted on her presence, issuing a formal order. This move is considered unprecedented for an Attorney General in such a context. The article contrasts this with how a similar situation involving the Justice Minister would likely be handled, suggesting a more immediate and public outcry. The judges' decision to summon the Attorney General directly, rather than communicating through prosecutors, stems from the belief that her personal appearance holds added value, as they wish to speak with the ultimate decision-maker.

The judges' insistence may be linked to their concerns about the bribery charge in Case 4000, which they have reportedly found difficult to substantiate. They have previously expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution's handling of this aspect of the case, noting the perceived indifference of a system that has become overly invested in its own indictment. The article also references the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, whose evidence reportedly crumbled under cross-examination, with him claiming ignorance or lack of memory regarding key investigative actions and the presentation of bribery allegations to Netanyahu.

Furthermore, the article criticizes a perceived double standard, where the legal system is seen as a powerful tool against the government but an inconvenience when it turns its attention inward. The Attorney General's office, which frequently invokes the authority of the courts when dealing with the government, apparently required a binding court order to ensure her own appearance before the same judicial body. The judges explicitly rejected the argument that prosecutors adequately represent the Attorney General's office, emphasizing the significance of speaking directly with the authorized decision-maker.