On November 21, 2019, then-attorney-general of Israel Dr. Avichai Mandelblit announced his decision to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery and breach of trust in three cases.
This came four years after the Eran Kamin-Ben Caspit café meeting in late November 2015, which supposedly set things on their way.
The announcement came a day after the Abraham Accords were signed at the White House, where Netanyahu had shared a dais with US President Donald Trump and the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
Mandelblit was quite the party-pooper.
His performance only repeated a previous one, on February 28 that year, when he announced his intention to indict the prime minister just a month and a half before the April elections.
State Attorney Shai Nitzan was still seeking criminal charges in all three cases instead of just one.
Last week, called by the defense, Mandelblit came to the courtroom and provided testimony that is being continued this week.
If Netanyahu has been undergoing trials, it is obvious now that Mandelblit is undergoing severe tribulations, as are the members of the prosecuting team and police investigators. The public itself is still troubled.
Israelis bothered by the trials
The vast majority of Israel’s citizens have been agitated, bothered, disturbed, and angry. Netanyahu’s admirers and the Likud faithful viewed the entire matter as an attempt to bring down their hero. His opponents led a campaign under the theme “Crime Minister.”
The ongoing street protests began in November 2016, initially involving only a few dozen people, with weekly Saturday-night demonstrations in Petah Tikva, near Mandelblit’s home, and have since increased in number.
A “March of Shame” to protest “government corruption” and delays in the investigations took place on December 2, 2017. A Washington Post headline on February 5, 2018 read, “Israelis have been protesting government corruption for 61 weeks.”
Last week we witnessed an apparent collapse of the prosecution’s professional ethics. Already, in late June 2023, the judges privately told the prosecution and defense that there were difficulties in establishing the bribery offense.
They suggested that the prosecution consider withdrawing it, and three years (!) later, after Netanyahu completed his testimony and cross-examination, the judges repeated that their assessment was unchanged.
Yet, the trial continues.
First, Mandelblit indicated that the police acted behind his back and that specific investigative actions had not been authorized by him, an illegal act. This contradicted previous testimony of police investigators Koresh Barnor and Momi Meshulam, and Mandelblit called their statements “inaccurate.”
He further revealed that he demanded that Barnor remove a wiretap of Nathan Eshel as it was illegally intercepting conversations with Netanyahu.
Moreover, Mandelblit admitted he was kept in the dark concerning the use of Pegasus spyware in the Netanyahu cases and that it angered him.
Furthermore, the improper pressure exerted on the state’s witness Nir Hefetz, the “confidante ruse,” was anathema to him.
Nevertheless, he declared that he did not refer the matter to the Police Internal Investigations Department as that would have stalled the Netanyahu cases. He clarified, “You have to decide which interest you prioritize.”
The priority, of course, was Netanyahu, not justice, as Mandleblit admitted he had not read all the charge sheet items before signing it.
Lastly, Mandelblit admitted that the State Attorney’s Office team (Liat Ben-Ari, Yehudit Tirosh, and Tzipi Gez) concealed from him that they had been privy to the “confidante ruse” while simultaneously participating in a discussion regarding the review of that ruse.
That was apparently a serious conflict of interest: “One would expect them to have updated me,” he testified. “I wasn’t told they had approved the ruse.”
Admittedly, this is but Mandelblit’s version of events. He has yet to be questioned by the prosecution, and a verdict has not been handed down.
Yet, if there has been a public outcry over morals and decency by public officials, one in particular, which for a decade has been based on rumors and unsubstantiated news reports, one would expect some stocktaking and reassessment.
But on October 10, Ben Caspit appeared on Channel 12 and said, “Mandelblit twisted the reality 180 degrees.”
Guy Peleg, justice affairs reporter for Channel 12, informed his viewers that the court sessions with Mandelblit are but a “political happening” and that Netanyahu believes they will serve his election campaign.
Both Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Knesset Constitution and Law Committee chairman MK Simcha Rothman said at the Sovereignty Movement conference in Jerusalem last week that they are undeterred in their plans to continue reforming the judiciary in light of Mandelblit’s statements as a witness.
Former head of the Israel Bar Association, Effi Nave, was blunt in his reaction: “I hoped with all my heart that he would reveal the truth he had shared with me more than once: that he did not believe in the cases against the prime minister that had been forced upon him, and that, in fact, the cases against Netanyahu were trumped-up charges forming part of the persecution of the Right.”
I would entertain the thought that since the trials have not ended, the tribulations of Netanyahu, the prosecution, and the public are far from coming to a conclusion and a resolution. Even when the court delivers judgment, they will not be over.
Adi Ben-Hur, a Likud candidate for the Knesset, was harsh, writing on Facebook, “Mandelblit’s testimony today is nothing short of an earthquake … He [was] unfamiliar with basic details regarding that very indictment …
“We must now enact legal standards that allow for the prosecution of figures like Avichai Mandelblit, Shai Nitzan, Dina Zilber.”
That belief in one camp that Netanyahu is a “crime minister” and the opposing camp’s conviction that those prosecuting him are sinister slime has become such a part of the political performance here in Israel that it is an unfortunate development in our political discourse.
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.