What is he so eager to defend?

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit ruled in a verdict that the results of the police investigation in the Military Advocate General's case can be relied upon, even though it was conducted without external oversight, thereby returning the handling of the case to the State Attorney. The column argues that this is a denial of a previous Supreme Court decision, which determined that external oversight was required due to a conflict of interest of the Attorney General and the State Attorney.

In a sharp opinion column, Gil Bringer attacks Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit over a verdict handed down last week in the Military Advocate General's case. Bringer claims that Amit, with the agreement of Judge Khabov and against the dissenting opinion of Judge Mintz, ruled that the results of the police investigation in the case can be relied upon, even though it was conducted without external oversight, in order to determine that the State Attorney is no longer in a conflict of interest and to return the handling of the case to him. The writer recalls that only nine months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General and the State Attorney are barred from overseeing the investigation, and that an external factor is needed. Bringer quotes Judge Yael Vilner, who wrote in the original verdict about "the importance and urgency inherent in appointing an overseeing and supervising factor." The writer claims that Amit is engaging in politics of closing ranks, and describes a series of steps the president took throughout the case to thwart independent oversight of the investigation, including scheduling an additional hearing on the verdict and setting nearly impossible conditions for appointing an external overseer. Bringer ends with a rhetorical question: "What is he so eager to defend here?"

What is he so eager to defend?