Former Israeli Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged on Monday that investigators exceeded the scope of approvals he had granted in the course of probing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but maintained that external pressures did not influence his decisions. Mandelblit was testifying in his capacity as a defense witness in Netanyahu’s corruption trial, now entering its fourth year.
During his second day of testimony, Mandelblit defended his authorization of the investigations and upheld the legal grounding for the bribery charge in Case 4000. The trial, which began in May 2020, consolidates three cases involving Netanyahu. Prosecutors allege that Netanyahu received illicit gifts from Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Aharonoth, in Case 2000, and in Case 4000, that he advanced favorable regulatory decisions benefiting Bezeq—a telecommunications giant—in exchange for influencing Walla news coverage under Bezeq’s control.
Netanyahu faces criminal charges of fraud and breach of trust across all three cases, with an additional bribery charge in Case 4000. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Other defendants in the trial include Shaul Elovitch, former controlling shareholder of Bezeq, Elovitch’s wife Iris, and Mozes.
A key point of contention during Mandelblit’s testimony involved the scope of investigative authorizations. Netanyahu’s defense attorney, Amit Hadad, questioned whether investigators commenced certain actions before receiving formal approval from Mandelblit and whether inquiries might have extended beyond the permitted parameters. Under Israeli Basic Law: The Government, the attorney-general’s consent is required to open an investigation against a sitting prime minister, ensuring a measure of legal oversight intended to safeguard executive functions.
Mandelblit conceded that some investigative steps went beyond the explicit permissions he had granted but rejected claims that such overreach was driven by undue pressure from prosecutors, police officials, or media influence. He insisted that the decisions to authorize the probes and the charges were made independently and based on the evidentiary merits of the case.
The ongoing trial has garnered significant public attention, given Netanyahu’s prominence as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister and the potential political ramifications of the proceedings. The court will continue to hear testimonies and arguments in the months ahead as the defense and prosecution present their cases.