High-profile case10/12/2026

Analysis: Mandelblit’s Testimony Is Not Expected to Change the Evidence in Netanyahu’s Cases

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is testifying for the defense in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial in Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000. According to the assessment of Zman.co.il’s legal analyst, his testimony may support claims concerning procedural flaws, but it does not refute the evidence related to the substance of the charges.

Key facts

•Cases: 1000, 2000 and 4000
•Court: Jerusalem District Court
•Testimony begins: October 11, 2026
•Previous ruling concerning the authorization: February 2021
•Law: Basic Law: The Government
•The judicial proceeding number is not stated in the source

Why the Defense Called Mandelblit

The defense is seeking to use Mandelblit’s testimony on two levels. The first is a claim of “defense of justice”: it is alleged that the indictment was filed in violation of the principles of justice and due process. The second concerns whether authorization to open a criminal investigation against a serving prime minister was issued in accordance with the law.

What Basic Law: The Government Requires

Under Basic Law: The Government, only the Attorney General may decide to open a criminal investigation against the prime minister or file an indictment against him. As the article indicates, in 2016 Mandelblit gave oral authorization to move from a preliminary inquiry to a full investigation, but no separate, reasoned written decision was prepared, nor was there a record documenting the authorization. The defense argues that, for this reason, the charges should not be considered at all.

What the Court Has Already Said About the Authorization

The judges previously considered this claim at the preliminary-arguments stage. In February 2021, they ruled that it was a procedural flaw that did not affect the substance of the case. Nevertheless, the court left the door open to revisit the issue after examining the evidence, and the defense is therefore raising it again through Mandelblit’s testimony.

Why the Evidence Concerning the Charges Remains Separate

Mandelblit’s testimony does not directly concern the events underlying the alleged acts of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000. Rather, it concerns the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the indictment filed, not whether the alleged acts were actually committed. The author of the analysis also believes that dismissing the indictment on grounds related to an unfair trial is unlikely, although the source does not present a final court ruling on these claims.

What this means for you

For the average person, this dispute illustrates that a procedural flaw does not always automatically result in the termination of criminal proceedings; the court examines its severity and its effect on the fairness of the trial. Even if the authorization was not documented as required by law, that alone is not sufficient to invalidate the evidence concerning the substance of the charges. No final assessment of Mandelblit’s testimony has yet been issued in this proceeding.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings