Netanyahu Trial: Dispute Over Timing of State Witness Negotiations

A dispute over when negotiations began with state witness Ari Harow to testify erupted in Jerusalem's District Court on Thursday during the fifth day of testimony from former Attorney General Dr. Avichai Mandelblit in the Netanyahu trial. The prosecution argued that recorded statements presented by defense attorney Amit Haddad were made after negotiations for a deal had already commenced, and thus should be understood in that context. The defense, however, countered that these talks began months earlier, in March 2016, with the involvement of then-State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan.

Mandelblit struggled to recall the precise timeline, and the core of the disagreement centered on when the contacts began and what was authorized for police. Haddad presented transcripts of investigators' statements to Harow, including a police officer, Koresh Barnor, demanding a list of topics and stating, "I need a list of things from you." Another investigator, Momi Meshulam, was heard telling Harow, "Come consult with him, there's no problem. We would never harm a quarter of your rights."

The prosecution, represented by attorney Gildin, strongly objected to these quotes, claiming they were taken out of context. Gildin explained that Harow was initially questioned in an "open testimony" regarding Case 2000, and only later questioned under caution for matters related to Case 1000. A formal negotiation for him to become a state witness began only after he consulted his lawyer. The prosecution emphasized that the requests for a list of topics were made in the afternoon, after negotiations were underway, and that such requests are standard to assess the scope of information a potential witness possesses.

Haddad vehemently rejected the prosecution's claims, asserting that the contacts with Harow did not start during his July interrogation. He declared that preliminary and dramatic discussions with Shai Nitzan took place in March 2016, and that recordings and transcripts existed even before a critical meeting that month. Haddad argued that if negotiations began months prior to Harow's July questioning, the police's conduct that day should be viewed as part of a pre-arranged, ongoing process.

When questioned about the timeline and early approaches, Mandelblit recalled an initial contact with Shai Nitzan but admitted he could not remember all the precise details of the schedule or the terms of the deal offered to Harow. The judges, Moshe Bar-Am and Oded Shacham, directly asked Mandelblit if these extensive approaches were part of the original authorization he had given, to which he replied, "No." The defense contends that these quotes illustrate undue pressure, while the prosecution views them as legitimate negotiations. The dispute over March versus July, coupled with Mandelblit's admission of memory gaps, strengthens the defense's argument that early, broad negotiations occurred behind the scenes without close supervision from the top legal echelon, as part of a political witch hunt against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.