Between Negligence and Malice: Mandelblit's Testimony Raises Suspicion of Blocking a Right-Wing Prime Minister | Prof. Moshe Cohen-Eliya
The testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in court reveals serious failures in the management of Netanyahu's cases: he confirmed that not all investigative actions were brought to his approval, admitted he did not review all materials in Case 4000 and relied on the prosecution's presentation, ruled that an investigative ploy against an associate of Nir Hefetz was invalid, and admitted he prevented an inquiry through witness testimony for fear of disrupting the investigation. The article argues that the prosecution's conduct ranges between negligence and malice and constitutes an attempt to block a right-wing prime minister.
The testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in court reveals serious failures in the management of Netanyahu's cases. Mandelblit confirmed that not all investigative actions were brought to his approval, and recounted a wiretap on Natan Eshel that angered him and which he ordered canceled. He admitted he did not personally review all 315 coverage incidents in Case 4000, but relied on what the prosecution presented to him. He also ruled that the investigative ploy used against an associate of Nir Hefetz was invalid, and admitted he prevented an inquiry into the incident through witness testimony, fearing it would disrupt the investigation. The article argues that the original sin of the Netanyahu cases lies in the Harpaz affair, and that Mandelblit felt State Attorney Shai Nitzan held a personal leverage against him. The author notes that retired Judge Hila Gerstel harshly criticized the prosecution's conduct. The article concludes by arguing that the prosecution's conduct ranges between negligence and malice and constitutes a clear attempt to block a popular right-wing prime minister.