Netanyahu Trial Collapses After Key Witness Testimony

The trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu experienced a significant setback during a day of hearings in the Jerusalem District Court, primarily due to the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. His testimony revealed a series of failures and contradictions in the prosecution's case across multiple indictments.

The first major blow came in Case 4000, concerning bribery allegations. Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Haddad, presented the official warning notice given to the Prime Minister, which Mandelblit admitted did not explicitly mention bribery. Instead, Netanyahu was warned only of suspicion for "receiving benefits from Shaul Elovitch in connection with his public role," a definition that aligns with a breach of trust offense, not bribery. Mandelblit acknowledged this wording might have been "convoluted" and that the Prime Minister was not properly informed of the bribery suspicion, potentially harming his right to legal counsel. Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the appropriateness of such "convoluted" wording in a case involving the Prime Minister.

In Case 1000, involving allegations related to billionaire James Packer, it emerged that investigative actions were allegedly conducted without the required approval for a sitting Prime Minister. Mandelblit conceded that he believed at the time that Case 1000 was at most a violation of the Gifts Law, not a bribery model. He also admitted that critical investigative steps were concealed from him, including a secret meeting between an investigator and a journalist, and claims by a former police chief that he was being pursued by the Prime Minister's associates. Mandelblit stated that investigative units are not permitted to proactively seek evidence against a Prime Minister without prior approval, deeming such actions "not proper."

The most dramatic revelation occurred in Case 2000, concerning alleged dealings between Netanyahu and Noni Mozes. Mandelblit disclosed for the first time that this case originated from discussions with the lawyer of former Netanyahu aide Ari Harow regarding a state witness deal. Harow's lawyer had provided transcripts and recordings of Netanyahu-Mozes conversations that raised suspicions of criminal activity. This contradicts the prosecution's official stance that the materials were not provided as part of a state witness negotiation, a claim used to withhold documents from the defense. Following this disclosure, the prosecution's representative, Alon Gildin, admitted that the witness had testified to points differing from the state's previous statements and requested time to re-evaluate the state's position.