Former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged on Monday that investigators took steps beyond the approvals he had given in the investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but rejected suggestions that pressure from prosecutors, police or the media dictated his decisions.
Testifying for a second day as a defense witness in Netanyahu’s corruption trial, Mandelblit defended his authorization of the investigations and the basis of the bribery charge in Case 4000. Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, pressed him on whether investigators had started gathering material against the prime minister before receiving permission, or pursued inquiries outside its scope.
The trial, which began in May 2020, combines three cases. Prosecutors allege that Netanyahu received gifts from wealthy businessmen in Case 1000; discussed a possible exchange of favorable coverage for steps against rival newspaper Israel Hayom with Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes in Case 2000; and advanced regulatory measures benefiting Bezeq in exchange for intervention in Walla! News' coverage in Case 4000.
Netanyahu faces charges of fraud and breach of trust in all three cases, and bribery in Case 4000. He denies wrongdoing. The other three defendants are former Bezeq controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch and his wife, Iris, and Mozes himself.
The dispute in Mandelblit’s testimony concerns how the investigations were authorized and whether investigators stayed within the bounds of those approvals. Basic Law: The Government requires the attorney-general’s consent to investigate a sitting prime minister. The prosecution maintains that Mandelblit authorized the investigations, including orally. He has distinguished that authorization from approving every individual investigative step.
Netanyahu lawyer accuses prosecutors of hiding information
Much of Monday’s questioning concerned the origins of Case 4000, which developed from an Israel Securities Authority investigation involving Bezeq.
Hadad pointed to a 2015 Haaretz article by journalist Gidi Weitz reporting allegations of favorable coverage for Netanyahu on Walla! News in return for regulatory benefits. Mandelblit described the article as a catalyst for the investigation, but said he had not known that an investigator had printed it and collected Walla! articles mentioned in it.
Hadad argued that this showed that investigators were gathering material connected to Netanyahu before Mandelblit’s authorization came in.
The questioning later turned to an October 2017 approval to examine the motives of Shlomo Filber, then director-general of the Communications Ministry, in his dealings with Bezeq. Hadad argued that investigators went beyond that limited permission by examining Walla’s coverage and material concerning Netanyahu.
He cited emails shown to former Walla! CEO Ilan Yeshua that predated Filber’s tenure. Mandelblit initially explained that examining someone’s motives could require looking at earlier events. When Hadad pressed him about material unrelated to Filber and outside the authorization, Mandelblit agreed that this was improper and had not been disclosed to him.
Mandelblit nevertheless maintained that investigative irregularities did not automatically invalidate evidence, saying that investigators should have sought an expanded court order for material discussed during the questioning, but that a failure to do so did not necessarily require excluding it.
Did pressure, leaks push Mandelblit towards investigation
Hadad also questioned whether pressure and leaks had pushed Mandelblit toward investigating Netanyahu.
“None of the decisions I made resulted from pressure,” Mandelblit said. He described investigators’ requests to pursue additional suspicions as part of their work, while insisting that the decisions remained his.
He acknowledged having been uncomfortable with the Jerusalem District prosecution team at an early stage and arranging for the matter to be transferred to the Taxation and Economics prosecution. He said disagreements over investigative directions contributed to that decision. He had also suspected possible leaks, but stressed that he had no evidence to substantiate that suspicion.
Later, Mandelblit explained that the alleged benefit to Netanyahu in Case 4000 extended beyond individual favorable articles. It concerned the ability to influence a major news outlet through its owner, who could receive regulatory benefits from Netanyahu as communications minister.
That influence could include reducing the prominence of a damaging article or keeping another prominently displayed, he said. When Hadad described the bribery case as having collapsed, Mandelblit rejected that characterization.
Earlier, Hadad accused prosecutors of withholding information from Mandelblit, saying he believed the former attorney-general had been “set up.”
“I have full trust in the prosecution, including the people sitting here,” Mandelblit replied. He said he would be very surprised if information had deliberately been concealed from him.
The exchange escalated when Hadad accused prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh and her colleagues of misleading Mandelblit. Tirosh objected to the personal accusations. After Hadad described the prosecution as the case of her life, she responded that her family was her life and that the prosecutors were doing their jobs.
The judges halted the hearing and called the lawyers into their chambers before proceedings resumed.
His testimony is due to resume on Tuesday.
The trial continues alongside Netanyahu’s request for a presidential pardon, submitted in November 2025 without an admission of wrongdoing. The Justice Ministry’s Pardons Department opposed granting the request, while Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, handling it in place of Justice Minister Yariv Levin, recommended approval.
President Isaac Herzog has sought mediation between the parties. In September, he said Netanyahu had not answered his proposal and that the door remained open.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.