Mandelblit defends approval of Netanyahu probe after clash halts hearing

Update, 12 October, 15:07 Israel time

Mandelblit gave a fuller reason for moving the Netanyahu investigation out of the Jerusalem district prosecution. According to Amit Segal, he said he transferred it to the taxation and economic prosecution because the Jerusalem prosecutors were acting against his position. He described them arguing in meetings for directions he had told them not to pursue, said he felt they were trying to steer the case where he did not want it to go, and said this made him uncomfortable. N12 had earlier linked the same move to concern about leaks.

Hadad also raised the judges' recommendation that the bribery charge be withdrawn. N12 correspondent Yael Yaffe reported that Hadad asked whether Mandelblit was unaware that the court had said the bribery case had collapsed, and that Mandelblit replied only that he knew what the court had said.

The questioning then turned to the document authorising the investigation. N12 reported that Mandelblit accepted criticism of the way the authorisation had been given, but said the document clearly showed he had approved questioning the prime minister under caution, meaning as a suspect. Hadad agreed but asked whether that was what an authorisation should look like, pointing out that it did not specify the matter or the suspicion involved.

The reports do not say whether the hearing had resumed in open court before these exchanges or how long the suspension lasted.

The story as first reported

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit took the witness stand in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial on October 12, 2026, called not by the prosecution but by Netanyahu's own lawyers. Haaretz reported that Mandelblit, who approved the police investigation into Netanyahu and went on to indict him in three separate cases on counts including bribery, fraud and breach of trust, will be giving evidence over the course of this week at the defence's request. A photograph published by The Jerusalem Post shows him arriving at the Jerusalem District Court.

The session was interrupted after an exchange between defence attorney Hadad and prosecutor Tirosh. According to a post by journalist Amit Segal, Hadad told the court that an attorney general had been taken and "set up", Tirosh replied that the prosecution was not on trial, and the presiding judge stopped the hearing and called both sides into her chambers. News.co.il quoted Tirosh as shouting that the prosecution "is not the defendant here" and calling the remark chutzpah, a Hebrew and Yiddish word for insolence.

The defence's argument about the prosecution

The questioning focused on whether the State Attorney's Office, the body of state prosecutors that handled the Netanyahu files, kept information from Mandelblit while he was attorney general. Hadad suggested to the witness that things had been withheld from him. Mandelblit answered that he would be very surprised if it emerged that prosecutors had deliberately concealed information, that he knew of no such case, and that he had not been persuaded of it, according to Amit Segal's account. News.co.il reported him describing the prosecution as his "long arm", saying he had full confidence in it, including in the prosecutors present in the courtroom, and adding that if such conduct had taken place, it would be serious.

The Filber question

Ynet reported that Mandelblit confirmed he had not known in 2017 of the intention to turn Filber into a state's witness. A state's witness is a suspect who agrees to testify for the prosecution, usually in exchange for leniency, and such deals generally require senior approval.

News.co.il went considerably further, describing the moment as a breakdown and reporting that Mandelblit admitted that dozens of central investigative steps were carried out without authorisation and unlawfully. It also reported that a memo shown in court indicated that Liat Ben Ari had discussed the terms of recruiting Filber with an investigator without Mandelblit's knowledge, quoting the phrase "the price derived from the content", and that Mandelblit said he had neither known about nor approved it. These claims appear only in the News.co.il report; the other organisations in this material do not describe such an admission, and Ynet's version is limited to his lack of knowledge about the Filber plan.

Pressure and leaks

Later in the day, Mandelblit addressed whether he had acted under pressure. Ynet reported him saying that law enforcement bodies and the media did not influence him and that he had not taken decisions because of pressure. N12 reported that Judge Bar-Am put it to him that there was nonetheless pressure, and that Mandelblit replied there was pressure from the media and approaches from enforcement officials, but that he decided according to his own judgement.

Asked by Hadad whether he had remarked on the pressure prosecutors were applying, Mandelblit said he may have thought they were exaggerating and that he had believed a single prosecutor was leaking, according to both Amit Segal and News.co.il. N12 also reported that when Hadad asked whether he had told anyone that leaks by a prosecutor were meant to pressure him, Mandelblit answered that he may have said so.

N12 linked this line of questioning to Mandelblit's decision to move Case 1000 from the Jerusalem district prosecution to the unit dealing with taxation and economic offences, a move it said came on his instructions amid concern about leaks.

Why this testimony matters

The attorney general in Israel is both the government's chief legal adviser and the head of the public prosecution system, with final say over indictments of senior officials. Mandelblit held that post when the Netanyahu cases were investigated and filed, which makes him an unusual witness for the defence. Netanyahu's lawyers have sought to show that the investigation was flawed, and questioning the man who signed the indictment about what he knew is part of that effort.

What the reports do not say

The reports do not say how long the hearing was suspended or what was said in the judge's chambers; one report breaks off mid-sentence after noting the parties were called in. They do not identify the full name or role of Liat Ben Ari or the investigator mentioned in the memo, or explain what Filber's role in the case was. The significant claim that Mandelblit admitted to unauthorised and unlawful investigative actions rests on a single outlet. None of the reports includes a response from the State Attorney's Office.