Netanyahu trial judges order Attorney-General Baharav-Miara to appear in court next week

The judges said the hearing would examine different options for managing and advancing the proceedings with the parties’ authorized representatives.

“After considering this position, we reached the conclusion that there is nevertheless added value in the attorney-general herself appearing,” presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman and Judges Moshe Bar-Am and Oded Shaham wrote. “The reason is that in order to conduct a purposeful two-way dialogue, we believe it is necessary for the person responsible for making decisions to be able to hear matters directly and address them as needed.”

If necessary, the panel would consider holding the hearing behind closed doors in the courtroom, they wrote.

The proposal arose last Thursday, when Jacques Chen, who represents codefendant Shaul Elovitch, sought a discussion with Baharav-Miara. Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, supported the request.

The panel had already considered such a step, Shaham said, adding that a dialogue should involve the attorney-general, who was ultimately responsible for the prosecution’s handling of the case.

When prosecutors questioned the unusual step of bringing her to court, Friedman-Feldman replied: “There are many things in this trial that are unusual.”

On Wednesday, prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh told the court Baharav-Miara had considered the proposal but believed the senior prosecution team could represent her and convey the judges’ messages.

The prosecutors regularly reported on developments, she said, adding that bringing the attorney-general to court in those circumstances was inconsistent with their working procedures.

Tirosh reiterated that Baharav-Miara and State Attorney Amit Aisman remained open to direct discussions toward an agreed resolution.

The prosecution had responded positively to President Isaac Herzog’s initiative to bring the two sides into talks, while Netanyahu had not responded, she said.

The exchanges followed testimony by former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit, whom the defense called to question his authorization of the investigations and whether investigators remained within the limits he had approved.

Mandelblit acknowledged that some investigative actions had not been brought to him for approval but said he had authorized the investigations, and each of the three cases justified an indictment.

The prosecution disputes the defense’s account of the authorization process.

Separately, the judges have previously raised concerns about proving bribery in Case 4000. In June 2023, they told the parties there were difficulties in establishing that offense and suggested that prosecutors consider withdrawing the charge. They reiterated their assessment this past June.

In June, the judicial panel decided to expand hearings to five days a week starting on October 4 to accelerate the proceedings. Friedman-Feldman is due to retire in March 2028.

The deliberations come against the background of Netanyahu’s request for a presidential pardon, which was submitted last November while his trial was under way.

In April, Herzog’s office said efforts to reach an agreement should be exhausted before the president addressed the pardon request itself.

The trial, which began in May 2020, concerns three cases.

Case 1000 involves gifts from wealthy businessmen and alleged actions to advance their interests.

Netanyahu faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in all three cases and bribery in Case 4000. He denies all wrongdoing.