Former Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit testified Monday at the Jerusalem District Court regarding the police questioning of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in two corruption investigations, Case 1000 and Case 2000. His testimony addressed whether the interrogations exceeded the original legal warnings given to Netanyahu and examined the timing and scope of approvals for questioning the prime minister.
Netanyahu faces charges in multiple cases, including fraud, breach of trust, and bribery. Case 1000 involves allegations that Netanyahu received expensive gifts from business figures in exchange for actions against the rival newspaper Israel Hayom. Case 2000 centers on suspicions that Netanyahu negotiated with the publisher of Israel Hayom for favorable coverage, potentially involving improper benefits.
Mandelblit, who authorized the investigations and later approved Netanyahu’s indictment, appeared as a defense witness, answering questions posed by Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad. The defense sought to challenge the procedural aspects of the investigations, particularly the timing and legality of the authority granted to question Netanyahu as a suspect rather than a witness.
During the inquiry, Mandelblit acknowledged that the police questioning in Case 1000 went beyond the original warning provided to Netanyahu. He explained that recordings of conversations had established reasonable suspicion against Arnon Mozes, the publisher involved, and that testimony from Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, Ari Harow, influenced his decision to approve suspect questioning of the prime minister.
The court pressed Mandelblit on the precise moment he authorized Netanyahu’s questioning in Case 2000. Mandelblit stated that while he had contemplated authorizing such questioning as early as late December 2016, formal approval was ultimately documented on January 5, 2017, the same day Netanyahu was first questioned in that case. He noted that prior discussions occurred but lacked formal documentation. Mandelblit also suggested that final approval may have been contingent on questioning Mozes on January 4.
Hadad contended that Netanyahu was initially summoned for questioning in Case 2000 without proper authorization and that there was indication Netanyahu was interrogated only as a witness. Mandelblit rejected this claim, affirming his intention for Netanyahu to be questioned as a suspect. However, Mandelblit conceded that the wording of the warning in Case 2000 did not precisely align with the suspicions being investigated, which concerned the receipt and solicitation of improper benefits related to Netanyahu’s official capacity.
Monday’s testimony followed remarks Mandelblit made on Sunday regarding wiretapping in the cases. He revealed that although police had obtained a court warrant to surveil Netanyahu’s confidant Natan Eshel, he had ordered the operation to be halted because it had not been brought to him for prior approval.
Netanyahu’s trial began in May 2020. In addition to Case 1000 and Case 2000, he faces charges in Case 4000, which involves allegations of regulatory favors granted to the telecommunications company Bezeq in exchange for positive coverage from the news site Walla. Netanyahu denies all allegations of wrongdoing.