Lawyer Attacks Former AG's Role in Netanyahu Indictment

A sharp legal dispute erupted in the Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday concerning the personal responsibility for the indictment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lawyer the lawyer representing Shaul and Iris Elovitch, representing Shaul and Iris Elovitch, vehemently rejected the prosecution's argument that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was part of a broad institutional system acting through professional teams. The lawyer representing Shaul and Iris Elovitch emphasized that Section 17(c) of the Basic Law: The Government vests the exclusive and personal authority to indict a prime minister solely in the Attorney General, not an anonymous body.

The legal debate arose in response to the prosecution's explanation that the Attorney General should not be expected to personally review every raw document, transcript, or protocol from the investigation files. Deputy State Attorney Judith Tirosh argued that the system operates through professional teams tasked with analyzing evidence, preparing summaries, and submitting them to the authorized official. The lawyer representing Shaul and Iris Elovitch countered this by stating that the law grants personal authority and full responsibility directly to the Attorney General regarding the prosecution of a sitting prime minister, without empowering anonymous system elements to act in his stead.

Tirosh maintained that there is no fundamental difference in the basic work structure between the Attorney General and any other senior prosecutor, as all must make critical decisions based on vast investigation materials. She argued that Mandelblit's position within a complex professional system allows his staff to examine documents and prepare focused summaries, thus making the formal approval process not subject to open investigation. The lawyer representing Shaul and Iris Elovitch, however, dismissed the comparison, insisting it ignores the unique constitutional framework established by the Basic Law: The Government for investigating and indicting a prime minister, which includes strict conditions and checks and balances.

The core of the dispute centers on the extent to which the defense can cross-examine Mandelblit. Netanyahu's lawyers assert their right to ascertain what factual information was presented to the Attorney General, what exculpatory evidence was withheld, and his actual level of involvement in investigative decisions. The prosecution opposes this, warning that it would lead to an invasive and improper inquiry into the internal work procedures of the Attorney General's office and the professional discretion of the prosecutors involved in the case. The hearing concluded without a formal judicial ruling on the defense's request to expand Mandelblit's examination.