Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara will not appear before the panel hearing the criminal trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a proposed discussion, prosecutors told the Jerusalem District Court on Wednesday morning, despite the judges’ suggestion last week that she attend.
Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh, conveying the attorney-general’s position, said the senior prosecution team was authorized to represent her and regularly reported on developments in the courtroom. She nevertheless reiterated that Baharav-Miara and State Attorney Amit Aisman remained open to direct talks toward an agreed resolution of the case.
“Having the attorney-general come to court when the prosecution team and senior prosecution officials are here is not the right way to proceed under the working procedures of Israel’s prosecution service,” Tirosh said.
“If the court is looking toward resolving the proceedings through agreement or a settlement, this is an opportunity to reiterate that the attorney-general’s and state attorney’s doors remain open to direct dialogue,” she added.
Tirosh said the prosecution had responded positively to President Isaac Herzog’s initiative to bring the sides into talks, but Netanyahu had not responded, leaving its willingness to engage unanswered.
Talks must be conducted with A-G
Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, argued that the judges could summon Baharav-Miara regardless of her position.
“Even if the attorney-general does not want to come here, she can certainly be summoned. I think the authority certainly exists,” he said. Hadad cited a recent Supreme Court summons to the state attorney and argued that matters raised in Netanyahu’s trial were no less important.
The proposal arose last Thursday after Jacques Chen, who represents co-defendant and former Bezeq controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch, sought a closed-door discussion with Baharav-Miara. Hadad supported the request.
Judge Oded Shaham said the panel had already considered such a step, explaining that Baharav-Miara was ultimately responsible for the prosecution’s handling of the case.
“If we want to conduct a dialogue, then it needs to be conducted with her,” Shaham said. He added that the defense might have been “pushing at an open door.”
When prosecutors questioned the basis for bringing the attorney-general to court, presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman replied: “There are many things in this trial that are unusual.”
The judges sought a direct discussion with Baharav-Miara as the official ultimately responsible for the prosecution’s handling of the case. Although they did not specify what they wanted to discuss, they have previously urged prosecutors to reconsider the bribery charge in Case 4000 and proposed mediation to explore an agreed resolution.
In June 2023, the panel said there were difficulties in establishing the bribery offense and suggested that prosecutors consider withdrawing the charge. The judges reiterated that assessment in June this year, but the prosecution has maintained the charge.
The latest exchanges follow testimony by former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit, whom the defense called to question the authorization of the investigations and whether police remained within the limits he approved. Mandelblit has acknowledged that some investigative actions were not brought to him, while maintaining that he authorized the investigations and the filing of the indictment.
The dispute over talks also comes with Netanyahu’s pardon request still unresolved. Herzog proposed discussions between the parties before deciding on the request, an initiative separate from the trial judges’ proposal to meet Baharav-Miara.
Herzog charges Eisenkot with forming coalition
Meanwhile, efforts to form a government following the October 27 election are continuing. Herzog on Sunday tasked Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot with forming a coalition, leaving Netanyahu’s political future unsettled alongside the continuing trial.
The trial, which began in May 2020, concerns three cases. In Case 4000, Netanyahu is accused of advancing regulatory benefits for Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage on the Walla news website. Case 1000 concerns gifts from wealthy benefactors and alleged actions to advance their interests, while Case 2000 concerns discussions with publisher Arnon Mozes about favorable coverage in Yediot Aharonot in exchange for steps against rival newspaper Israel Hayom.
Netanyahu faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in all three cases and bribery in Case 4000. He denies wrongdoing.
