"The Jurists' Rebellion", Episode 3: How the Image of Avichai Mandelblit Changed

In a proper democratic state, the rules are clear: the public elects the legislator, the legislator sets the law, and the judge interprets it. However, the series "The Jurists' Rebellion" seeks to prove that in recent decades, this order has been reversed. At the heart of this quiet revolution stands a small group of jurists who have taken upon themselves far-reaching powers, sometimes without explicit legal authorization and without public oversight.

The third episode of the series focuses on the person who should have, perhaps more than anyone else, understood the need for restraining power: Avichai Mandelblit.

The perfect candidate who became "hunted"

The story of Mandelblit begins with great anticipation. As Adv. Ilan Bombach notes in the episode: "The fact that he arrives at the position of Attorney General at a time when he also saw the other side as a suspect… could have made him the perfect person for the job." Mandelblit, who knew the system as Military Advocate General but also as someone investigated under caution in the Harpaz affair, knew well how a person feels when the system marks them.

But the series claims that it was precisely this weak point that was used against him. Recordings revealed in the episode raise a worrying picture of an Attorney General who felt that Shai Nitzan, the then-State Attorney, was "holding him by the throat" and delaying decisions in his personal case, which created, according to critics, a problematic dependency between the two.

"A person who is led is a weak person"

One of the shocking revelations in the episode concerns the conduct of the investigations against Benjamin Netanyahu. Investigator Zvi Chavkin testifies in the episode that investigations were carried out without written approvals, as required by Basic Law. David Peter, from the Kohelet Forum, describes Mandelblit as one of the weakest Attorneys General in the country's history: "Today in court it turns out that the Attorney General gave an explicit instruction – do not investigate certain issues – and they investigate and bring findings and lead him."

The picture that emerges is of a police and prosecutorial system that "ran wild," while the one who was supposed to set boundaries for it – the Attorney General – actually served as a rubber stamp.

The victims along the way: the case of Shira Spitz

The series does not settle for just political and legal analysis, but presents the human cost of the "predatory" system. The story of Adv. Shira Spitz is brought as a painful parable: Spitz, who muttered the words "judicial system shame" at Mandelblit on his way to the synagogue, found herself arrested on Shabbat in front of her children. According to the series, this case illustrates how Mandelblit's inaction in the face of the system's injustices led to a reality where human rights are trampled in the name of protecting the honor of the system's senior officials.

The democratic question: who really decides?

At the end of the day, "The Jurists' Rebellion" places a big question mark over Israeli democracy. When Mandelblit announced "with a heavy heart and a whole heart" the filing of the indictment against the Prime Minister, did he act out of independent judgment, or was it the culmination of a system where the last word always belongs to people whom no one elected?

Dubi Shratzer summarizes this in the episode with poignant words: "This is a person who introduced extraneous considerations into the holy of holies… and caused a loss of trust in the system." The third episode of "The Jurists' Rebellion" is not just an indictment against one person, but against an organizational culture that sees criticism as a threat, and power as an exclusive working tool.