{
  "id": 15726119,
  "title": "Mandelblit says he approved questioning Netanyahu as suspect, defense challenges wording",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/20/mandelblit-says-he-approved-questioning-netanyahu-as-suspect-defense",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-20T09:48:32.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Jerusalem Post",
    "slug": "jerusalem-post",
    "url": "https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-912262"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The ongoing criminal trial of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kicked off its second day in court on Tuesday. Former Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit returned to the witness stand to defend himself against accusations of improper approvals during investigations into Netanyahu.\n\nDuring his testimony, Mandelblit confirmed approving questioning of Netanyahu as a suspect but faced difficulty recalling whether he explicitly authorized discussing bribery in Case 4000. His defense lawyer, Amit Hadad, challenged this account by questioning the relevance of the term \"public integrity\" in relation to the approvals, arguing it was not present in meeting records or the warnings given to Netanyahu. Hadad accused Mandelblit of using wording from a memorandum he submitted to the court.\n\nProsecutor Yehudit Tirosh countered that the wording might be present in redacted sections of the records, but emphasized that no redactions affected Mandelblit's approvals. Judge Moshe Bar-Am stated that the nature of the investigation's description would likely not have been obscured.\n\nNetanyahu faces charges of fraud, breach of trust, and bribery in Case 4000, alongside allegations of receiving gifts from wealthy businessmen and attempting to exchange favorable coverage for regulatory benefits. He maintains his innocence. The trial, which commenced in May 2020, encompasses three distinct cases.",
  "summary": "Mandelblit said he remembered approving questioning of Netanyahu as a suspect, but could not recall whether he explicitly approved mentioning bribery in the formal warning given to him in Case 4000.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": "The dispute over specific terminology in investigative approvals shifts the focus toward whether the former attorney-general provided clear enough authorization for the bribery charges against the former prime minister.",
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}