On October 11 Avichai Mandelblit, the former attorney general, took the witness stand at the Jerusalem District Court as a defense witness. According to Israel Hayom seven days of testimony are expected, and Netanyahu came to the courtroom despite the security situation. The defense claims that investigative actions in the Netanyahu cases began before approval was given as required by law, and the prosecution replies that Mandelblit approved them orally (Globes). In his testimony he said, according to Haaretz, that in his view there was no need for written documentation. He admitted, according to Israel Hayom and Ynet, that there were serious actions he did not approve, and that he got angry about one of them and canceled it. Asked by attorney Hadad whether he had said the police acted behind his back, he replied “It could be.” In the Likud they called to close the trial, and Amir Ohana asked President Herzog to pardon Netanyahu.
The testimony touches the defense’s central claim, that the investigations were opened unlawfully, and it takes place 16 days before the October 27 election. If the court accepts the claim, parts of the evidence may be harmed; if not, the trial will continue as planned.
If you are undecided how to vote, it is worth distinguishing between what is said in the courtroom and what politicians say about it. The verdict will come only at the end of the process, not during the days of testimony.
Netanyahu’s supporters see the testimony as proof that the process was flawed: if the investigations were not approved in due order, they say, the indictments cannot be relied on.
Critics recall that approval was given, according to the prosecution, orally, and that Mandelblit himself said there was no need for written documentation. In their view the defense is trying to turn the defendant into the accuser.
A single testimony is not a verdict. What is worth following is whether the defense succeeds in tying the unapproved actions to specific evidence in the indictment, and whether the court will be required to address whether oral approval is sufficient.
Haaretz, Israel Hayom, Maariv, Jerusalem Post, Globes, Ynet (October 11, 2026)
Mandelblit begins testifying at Netanyahu trial: “There were serious investigative actions that I did not approve”
The former attorney general, who decided to file the indictments, is testifying for the defense 16 days before the election. Netanyahu sat in the courtroom, and the testimony continues today.
Avichai Mandelblit, the former attorney general who decided in 2019 to indict Benjamin Netanyahu, took the witness stand on October 11 at the Jerusalem District Court. He is testifying for the defense, and according to Israel Hayom seven days of testimony are expected. The prime minister came to the courtroom despite the security situation, and security arrangements became complicated as a result. According to reports, this is the first time Mandelblit has testified in the trial, about seven years after he brought Netanyahu to trial (Haaretz).
The dispute concerns whether the opening of the investigations was approved as required. The defense has argued since the start of the trial that investigative actions in Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000, known as the “Thousands Cases,” began before approval was given as required by law. The prosecution replies that Mandelblit approved the investigation orally (Globes). In his testimony Mandelblit said, according to Haaretz, that in his view there was no need for written documentation of an approval to open an investigation.
But he also admitted, as Israel Hayom and Ynet reported, that there were serious investigative actions he did not approve, and that he canceled one of them because it made his blood boil. Asked by attorney Hadad, one of Netanyahu’s defense lawyers, whether he had said the police acted behind his back, he replied: “It could be.” Even before the testimony began, a confrontation broke out in the corridor between the journalist Ayala Hasson and Mandelblit, who complained about it to the judges (Maariv, Ynet).
Reactions came immediately. In the Likud they called to “arrest him and close the Netanyahu trial” (Ynet), and MK Amir Ohana appealed to President Isaac Herzog to pardon Netanyahu. Maariv also quoted jurists who accused the defense of turning the defendant into the accuser. The testimony takes place 16 days before the election, and Maariv estimated that it would echo outside the courtroom as well.
DailyDrop notes: testimony on direct examination is not a ruling. The court has not yet addressed the defense’s claims, and the quotations here come from reports of the hearing, not from an official transcript. Whether oral approval is sufficient, and what the unapproved actions mean, will be decided in the verdict, not in testimony.