Ex-AG Mandelblit Accused of Blocking Adelson Probe, Israel Hayom Investigation

A defense attorney representing Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, alleged in court that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit blocked a police investigation under caution of businessman Sheldon Adelson and dismissed lines of inquiry concerning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's relationship with the newspaper "Israel Hayom." The defense argues this demonstrates Mandelblit's direct management of investigations, not mere oversight.

During a hearing at the Jerusalem District Court, defense attorney Noit Negev Sharon presented the claim, citing testimony from senior police investigator Koresh Bernor. Sharon asserted that Mandelblit was actively involved in directing investigation paths and making decisions, going beyond distant legal accompaniment. She claimed Mandelblit completely rejected lines of inquiry related to the relationship between Netanyahu and "Israel Hayom," despite what the defense considers substantial data justifying a deeper examination of the connection between favorable media coverage and the Prime Minister's governmental actions.

Specifically, Sharon stated Mandelblit refused to authorize an investigation under caution of Sheldon Adelson. The defense team, including attorney Amit Haddad, is pushing to question Mandelblit directly about these decisions and the factual basis behind them, arguing that if senior police officers testify that crucial investigative decisions were made in the Attorney General's office, the defense has the right to question the responsible party.

Prosecutor Judith Tirosh strongly refuted these claims, arguing that Mandelblit's involvement stemmed from a need for caution due to the sensitivity of the cases and the status of the suspects, not direct management. She stated Mandelblit never saw himself as head of the investigation team and was not required to approve every decision. Tirosh added that the defense is free to present arguments about the legal implications of not investigating a witness under caution, but questioning the former Attorney General about his internal discretion is unnecessary.

The defense contends that if they can prove Mandelblit applied double standards, investigating one media figure under caution while refraining from investigating another politically aligned media owner, it would bolster their claim of selective enforcement and undermine the validity of the "Case 2000" indictment.