They asked why the Military Advocate General's case is stuck? Knowing they were the ones who stuck it

You have surely encountered quite a few such statements from various coalition members, such as Saadas and Milvitskys, and also from regular and occasional panelists on Netanyahu's home channels: 'What is happening with the Military Advocate General's case? Why is nothing happening with it? Here, the system is protecting itself again!'

And indeed, for the average person who is not versed in the material, even if they are an ardent supporter of the rule of law, there was no good answer to this question. Why is there no quick decision on an indictment in a case that is seemingly as simple as it gets? After all, the Military Advocate General admitted ten months ago, in a public letter, that she was Guy Peleg's source and that she was the one who passed him the abuse video from the investigation file. How and why do law enforcement authorities allow themselves to drag their feet in such a flagship case?

Whoever wants to understand what happened here, let them read the verdict given yesterday by the High Court.

After the outbreak of the affair, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, accompanied by an aggressive campaign by the coalition and the 'shofars' (propagandists), decided to appoint the Commissioner for Complaints against Judges, retired judge Asher Kola, to step into the shoes of the Attorney General regarding the investigation of the Military Advocate General. This was after he claimed that the Attorney General and the State Attorney's Office were conflicted and could not deal with the affair.

Kola's appointment was described by the coalition members themselves as a political appointment. MK Moshe Saada, for example, boasted of his special ties with Kola. He said that he pushed for his appointment, that he spoke with him, and that he knew Kola would summon the Attorney General for questioning under caution.

Saada's and others' promises sounded like promises to realize the wet dream of the judicial coup coalition and its propagandists. However, this demand did not meet the requirements of the law, mainly due to the fact that the letter of the law did not allow the Commissioner for Complaints against Judges to take on such an additional role.

And yet, Levin's claim that the case should be taken out of the Attorney General's hands did find a listening ear in the High Court, following an opinion provided to Levin by the Ministry of Justice's Legal Advisor, Yael Kotik. The High Court ruled that the minister is authorized to appoint a senior civil servant, who meets several conditions, to fulfill the functions of the Attorney General regarding the supervision of the investigation.

Following this, Levin decided to appoint retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo. However, Ben-Hamo did not meet almost any of the conditions set by the High Court, and the appointment was disqualified.

We have already reached December.

The court, which identified Levin's difficulty, suggested that it itself appoint the accompanying official. Levin was not willing to hear about it, and in practice did not appoint any other accompanying official.

The investigation continued, but without an accompanying or supervising official. And when the police finished the investigation in February of this year, they had no one to pass their conclusions to. Ultimately, some prosecution authority is supposed to decide whether to file an indictment.

Another month passed, until on March 8th an updated opinion was given by the Ministry of Justice's Legal Advisor, Yael Kotik. Kotik, who is considered completely acceptable — and even more so — to Levin, wrote that in view of the investigators' conclusion that the State Attorney did not take part in the relevant events and was not even required to testify, he is no longer conflicted from dealing with the investigation.

However, petitions were filed with the High Court against this opinion as well.

The right-wing organizations, and the Justice Minister who joined them in his position, demanded that the High Court rule that the State Attorney should be prevented from making decisions in the case — that is, among other things, deciding on filing an indictment. The petitioners also asked to give the Justice Minister additional time to appoint a supervisor of his own choosing.

In addition, the petitioners asked to compel the police to carry out specific investigative actions that would lead directly, how not, to the Attorney General. The latter remedy was rejected unanimously by the three judges.

Regarding the additional time, the President of the Supreme Court wrote that Levin refrained for several months from using his authority to appoint a supervisor, and as mentioned, did not accept the judges' offer to do so. Amit clarified that now, after the investigation has been exhausted, Levin cannot return and demand this.

And so Levin delayed the filing of the indictment against the Military Advocate General and other senior officials in the Military Advocate General's Corps.

He is the one who caused such a simple and precious case for him and his base to reach only now, in August 2026, about ten months after the affair broke out, to a point from which one can move towards an indictment. Had he not interfered, the case could have reached this stage within a few months.

Now, with the case taken out of the freezer, one must take into account the completion of work on the case, summoning for a hearing, holding the hearing, and filing an indictment. Thus, the management of this simple case will reach, at best, about a year and a half until an indictment is filed.

By the way, if the minority opinion of Judge Mintz had been accepted yesterday, the case would have continued to be dragged out. Mintz believed that the Justice Minister should be given additional time to appoint a supervisor for the investigation — as if we hadn't waited long enough.

So why did Levin, the coalition, and the proxy organizations do everything to drag out this case?

Again we are witnessing that for Levin, Saada, and the propagandists, the exhaustion of justice is not really important. They want to crush the rule of law so much — and recently Levin has not stopped expressing his desire to eradicate the Supreme Court — that they don't care at all that retired Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi will not stand trial.

They don't care if she doesn't pay a price for her actions, even though they themselves claimed repeatedly how serious they are and how the Military Advocate General, according to them, slandered IDF soldiers in the world.

How frustrated they are that it was the Attorney General who reacted quickly when she learned of the suspicion against Tomer-Yerushalmi. It doesn't sit well with them that she was the one who demanded a thorough investigation quickly.

In their story, the Attorney General must be the villain in this affair. She is the one who must be the accused.

And since they are not willing to accept any other narrative — to hell with this case. From their perspective, an indictment against the Military Advocate General should never be filed. It is worth nothing if the Attorney General does not appear in it as an accused.

And besides, if the indictment is filed, they will also not be able to continue sitting on panels and asking: 'What about the Military Advocate General's case? Why isn't it being filed?'