High-profile case10/23/2026

Mandelblit and Netanyahu’s Trial: The Opinion of a Ynet Columnist

Ynet columnist Gil Bringer argues that former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit relied on the State Attorney’s Office’s conclusions when preparing the indictment against Benjamin Netanyahu. This is the writer’s interpretation of testimony and political-legal events, not a judicial decision.

Key facts

•Source: Opinion column in Ynet News
•Writer: Gil Bringer
•First published: October 23, 2026
•Case 4000 is mentioned
•The list includes 315 coverage incidents
•Basic Law: The Government is discussed

What the Writer Claims

According to Bringer’s account, Mandelblit’s testimony casts doubt on the extent of his personal control over the investigation. The writer notes that Mandelblit did not personally review the list of 315 alleged favorable-coverage incidents in Case 4000 and did not know that Netanyahu had not been questioned about 95% of them. The source presents this information as the columnist’s conclusions from the testimony, not as facts established by the court.

The Question of Authority

The column raises the question of whether the attorney general personally made decisions that fell within his authority. Bringer claims that several investigative actions were carried out without Mandelblit’s approval and criticizes the transfer of effective control to employees of the State Attorney’s Office. The source does not provide the court’s position on these claims.

The Dispute Over the “Defendant Law”

The second part of the column is devoted to Avigdor Liberman’s declaration that he intends to advance, after the elections, a provision that would prevent a defendant in criminal proceedings from serving as prime minister. The writer believes that such a mechanism would excessively strengthen the State Attorney’s Office’s influence over the political process. He also discusses the possibility of amending Basic Law: The Government and Mandelblit’s previous position that such a provision would be general and forward-looking.

No Decision in the Case

The article does not report a new judgment, the termination of the criminal proceedings, or any other judicial decision in the Netanyahu cases. It also does not specify the case number, the particular court, or the date of the hearing in question. Claims that the indictments are “collapsing” are the columnist’s assessment.

What this means for you

The column itself does not alter the rights or obligations of Israeli residents and does not create a legal precedent. Possible restrictions on a candidate who is criminally indicted from serving as prime minister would apply only if the Knesset enacted an appropriate provision, and they would depend on its wording and on subsequent judicial review. The source does not report that such a law has already been enacted.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings