Mandelblit tells Netanyahu trial he does not recall approving Israel Hayom probe

Former Israeli attorney general Avichai Mandelblit told the court hearing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial that he had not authorised an investigation into Netanyahu's relationship with the newspaper Israel Hayom. Ynet reported in a news alert that Mandelblit said he did not approve questioning Shlomo Filber on the matter of the link between Netanyahu and the paper.

N12's legal correspondent Yael Yaffe gave a slightly different framing of the same exchange. According to N12, Mandelblit was asked whether, within Case 2000, he had approved either a preliminary check or a full investigation into the prime minister's ties with Israel Hayom, and replied: "I don't think there was approval for that." He added, N12 reported, that examining relations between politicians and the media is a complicated matter.

Who Mandelblit is and why his testimony matters

As attorney general, Mandelblit was the official who decided to put Netanyahu on trial. In Israel the attorney general heads the state's legal system, advises the government, and must approve any criminal investigation of a sitting prime minister and any indictment against one. That makes his account of what he did and did not sign off on central to the defence's case, which argues that parts of the investigation went ahead without proper authorisation.

Netanyahu faces three separate cases, known in Israel by their police file numbers and often referred to collectively as the "thousands" cases. Case 2000 concerns alleged contacts between Netanyahu and the publisher of a rival newspaper, with Israel Hayom, a free-distribution Hebrew daily, at the centre of the alleged arrangement. Case 4000 concerns alleged regulatory benefits for a telecommunications company in exchange for favourable news coverage. Filber, a former senior official in the Communications Ministry, is a figure in Case 4000. Netanyahu denies wrongdoing in all the cases.

The defence presses on authorisation

News.co.il described the cross-examination as having exposed sharp disputes over how approvals were granted in the cases. It reported that Mandelblit acknowledged that some investigative steps had been carried out without his approval. According to the same report, the defence argues that this casts serious doubt on whether the investigation was conducted properly, while Mandelblit insisted that he stood behind the key decisions in the cases and that he had approved questioning Netanyahu under caution, the Israeli legal term for interviewing someone as a suspect rather than as a witness.

The signature on the amended indictment

A second line of questioning concerned the indictment itself. N12 reported that Hadad, the lawyer conducting the cross-examination for the defence, focused on the fact that Mandelblit's signature appeared identical on the original indictment and on a later amended version. The defence contends that this shows Mandelblit neither read the amended indictment nor signed it himself.

Mandelblit's answer, as reported by N12, was that he does not remember whether he physically signed the amended document, but he does remember approving it. He said he had read quickly through the list of what the indictment calls the "elements of the bribe" attributed to Netanyahu in Case 4000.

Amendments to an indictment are not unusual in long criminal proceedings, and the question raised by the defence is procedural: whether the attorney general personally reviewed and authorised the revised text, as required, or whether an earlier signature was carried over. Mandelblit's position, as reported, is that the approval was his even if he cannot recall the act of signing.

How the reports differ

The three outlets agree on the core of Mandelblit's testimony but emphasise different parts. Ynet's alert presents the exchange as being about investigating Filber specifically. N12's account describes the question as concerning a check or investigation of Netanyahu's own ties to Israel Hayom within Case 2000, and quotes a more hedged answer ("I don't think"). News.co.il characterises the testimony as dramatic and stresses Mandelblit's admission that unapproved steps took place, while also recording his insistence that he backed the main decisions. Readers should note that the reports come from short live updates during the hearing rather than full transcripts.

What the reports do not say

None of the reports specifies which investigative steps Mandelblit said were taken without his approval, who carried them out, or when. They do not explain what relevance, if any, the Israel Hayom line of inquiry has to the charges as filed. The reports do not say how the prosecution responded to the defence's argument about the identical signatures, or whether the court made any ruling on the issue. They also do not indicate how much longer Mandelblit's cross-examination is expected to continue, or what the defence intends to argue follows from his answers.