Legal analyst: Judge's reinstated decision to dismiss bribery charge against Netanyahu is 'a huge win for the prosecution and gatekeepers'

The ongoing corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached a significant analytical turning point on Monday as legal observers weighed the implications of the court's latest procedural signals. According to legal analyst Amit Glickman, the judges' decision to once again recommend the dismissal of the bribery charge—this time following the conclusion of Netanyahu's own testimony—serves as a major vindication for the prosecution.

Context of the Bribery Charge

The bribery charge, primarily centered on Case 4000 (the Bezeq-Walla affair), has long been the most severe element of the indictment against the Prime Minister. In June 2023, the judges had already signaled to the prosecution that the bribery charge would be difficult to prove, recommending it be dropped. At the time, the Attorney General and the State Attorney's Office rejected the recommendation, insisting on proceeding with the full evidentiary stage.

Analysis of the Institutional Victory

Glickman's analysis suggests that by maintaining their position even after hearing the Prime Minister's defense and cross-examination, the judges have effectively turned what appeared to be a tactical loss for the prosecution into an institutional win. The logic holds that the prosecution's refusal to back down earlier has now been tested against the actual testimony, and while the charge may still be dismissed, the "gatekeepers" have demonstrated their refusal to be swayed by political or judicial pressure prior to the completion of the witness stage.

Outlook for the Trial

As the trial moves forward, the focus shifts to how the State Attorney's Office will formally respond to the court's reaffirmed stance. While the dismissal of a bribery charge would be a significant relief for the Prime Minister's defense team, the analyst's perspective highlights a different dimension: the resilience of the legal establishment's original theory of the case, even in the face of a skeptical bench. The proceedings continue to be monitored closely for their impact on Israeli public trust in the judiciary and the political stability of the government.