Full Breakdown
Netanyahu Defense Challenges Attorney-General’s Approvals in Corruption Trial
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Court Proceedings
During hearings at the Jerusalem District Court, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense pressed former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit for a complete record of his approvals of police investigations. Defense lawyer Amit Hadad demanded full disclosure or, alternatively, that no further material be provided, leaving the defense to rely on existing documents. Mandelblit testified that he had authorized the preliminary inquiries that later became full criminal investigations in Cases 2000, 1000 and 4000, but could not recall specific details of each approval.
Presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman told Hadad to first review the prosecution’s written response before deciding on further action. Judge Oded Shaham added that the court would not dictate the content of that response, and Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned whether the wording of the warning given to Netanyahu before questioning in Case 4000 was appropriate. The defense indicated it would need additional hearing days to complete Mandelblit’s testimony.
Background & Context
The trial covers three corruption investigations:
- Case 2000 – Recordings of conversations between Netanyahu and Yedioth Aharonoth publisher Arnon Mozes, alleged to involve favorable media coverage for political actions against rival Israel Hayom.
- Case 1000 – Claims that Netanyahu received cigars, champagne and a suit from businessman Arnon Milchan and aide Hadas Klein, suggesting a regular supply of gifts.
- Case 4000 – Accuses Netanyahu of advancing regulatory measures that benefited telecom company Bezeq in return for favorable coverage of the Walla news website, controlled by Shaul Elovitch.
Under Israel’s Basic Law: The Government, opening a criminal investigation of a sitting prime minister requires the attorney-general’s consent. Mandelblit authorized the initial checks and later approved the full indictments.
Official Statements & Responses
- Avichai Mandelblit said early material in Cases 2000 and 1000 did not initially justify a full investigation, but later testimony—particularly Klein’s description of a regular gift supply—changed his assessment. He could not recall whether he had read the summary of Harow’s questioning before a July 17, 2016 meeting or explicitly approved the term “bribery” in the warning for Case 4000.
- Amit Hadad argued that Mandelblit’s approvals were broader than the defense had been shown, citing a document that described the approved investigation in Case 4000 as concerning “public-integrity offenses” while referencing bribery.
- Judges instructed the defense to await the prosecution’s response and expressed concern over the “convoluted” wording of the warning given to Netanyahu.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Mandelblit expressed uncertainty about whether he had read the Harow summary before the July 2016 meeting, whether police accessed recordings before his formal approval, and whether he had explicitly approved the term “bribery” in the Case 4000 warning. The prosecution’s response, not yet filed, has not clarified these points, leaving a gap the defense seeks to fill.
Why It Matters
The scope of Mandelblit’s approvals determines whether the investigations stayed within the limits set by the attorney-general, a key factor in assessing the legality of the indictments and their impact on Netanyahu’s political standing ahead of the October 14, 2026 general-election campaign visit to Haifa.
What’s Next
The defense has requested additional hearing days to complete Mandelblit’s testimony and to review the prosecution’s written response. Further rulings on the disclosure of approval records are expected before the trial proceeds to its next phase.