Court Hears Heated Arguments Over Effort to Bar Jonathan Urich From Netanyahu’s Office

The Tel Aviv District Court held a heated hearing on Thursday on the State Prosecutor’s request to bar Jonathan Urich, the former adviser to the prime minister, from the Prime Minister’s Office and from any security facility.

Judge Masarwa sharply criticized the prosecution’s position, raising difficult questions about the timing and rationale behind the request. “It’s a bit strange,” Judge Masarwa began. “On 15.3.26, when there was still no indictment, you agreed that he would return to the Prime Minister’s Office. I assume there was concern about obstruction. If then, at the height of the critical moment, you agreed that he would return, why are you asking today to remove him?”

Adi Arad, representing the prosecution, tried to explain the State’s position: “Today the respondent is facing a significant indictment.” But Judge Masarwa was not satisfied with that answer and continued pressing: “So then there was concern about obstructing the investigation, and today about the trial. Then you agreed he would return, I’m exaggerating, to the lion’s den. And now you agree that he would return? After all, the concern about obstructing the investigation is far more immediate and extreme than a general concern about influencing the trial.”

Arad tried to explain why the earlier agreement had been made: “We were forced to agree then, out of necessity, because there was no basis to extend the conditions when there was no prospect of carrying out the next investigative step, taking the prime minister’s testimony, because of the war. The State understood that it was impossible to keep extending the conditions again and again when the investigation could not continue and testimony could not be taken from the prime minister because of an objective impediment.”

Defense attorney Amit Hadad, who represents Urich, sharply criticized the urgency of the request. “He is leading the campaign, he is in the Prime Minister’s Office, he is speaking with people involved. Last night at 10:30 p.m. they receive notice that they are requesting conditions,” Hadad said. “It was also leaked weeks earlier that there would be an indictment, so they will also request the conditions. And then we arrive in the morning with a different and strange request and a different and strange indictment, and with witnesses who did not give a version in the police investigation.”

Hadad added that Urich has already been without Netanyahu-related restriction conditions for 3.5 months, speaks with the prime minister and runs the Likud campaign, so he does not understand the urgency of the current request.

The prosecution clarified the concerns behind the request to remove him. “The prime minister is a witness in the case, his version focused on the Train at the Gate affair, and we found relevant matters also in the case,” Arad said. “We believe that given the close relationship between the prime minister and Urich, there is a potential for coordinated versions. We believe that the prime minister’s refusal to give testimony may indicate a desire to benefit the respondent.”

The prosecution also raised a serious ethical issue: “We would like to note that attorney Amit Hadad represents both the respondent and Prosecution Witness No. 80, the prime minister, in the submarine affair. We have not checked the ethical issue with the Bar Association, but we will address the Bar Association with an inquiry on the matter.”

As recalled, the State Prosecutor’s Office today filed an amended indictment against Urich in the “Bild” affair, in which he is charged with passing a secret document with intent to harm state security and destroying evidence. At the same time, a request was filed to bar him entirely from the Prime Minister’s Office and security facilities until the end of the legal proceedings. The court is expected to rule on the request in the coming days, as the heated hearing reflects the legal and political complexity of the case.