The lawyers of the ISA agent who was arrested on suspicion of leaking classified information to Minister Amichai Chikli and journalists Amit Segal and Shirit Cohen have published his version of the affair.

The lawyers filed an appeal on his behalf against the decision to extend his detention, stating that "The measures taken against the appellant are not proportional at all and in fact they exceed all proportion. The appellant is suspected of transferring information to journalists and a minister in the Israeli government. The information is not 'security-related' and does not pose a threat to the security of the state or the public. The appellant's aim was to bring to the public's attention issues of significant public interest – issues that were presented to the public in a very distorted manner by interested parties who have the ability to control the release of the information held by the ISA."

"Moreover, the appellant made sure not to transfer information that could harm the security of the state and intentionally only transferred materials that do not pose any danger to the security of the state or the public. The publications passed through censorship, and in any case do not contain a shred of information that could endanger the security of the state and the public."

"When has a person ever been arrested on suspicion of leaking information to a journalist or a minister in the government where there is no risk to the security of the state? And if that’s not enough, this was done while forbidding him a meeting with a lawyer. The appellant is not dangerous and there is no concern that they will disrupt the investigation."

The attorneys further argued that "The detention of the appellant, and certainly the prevention of the meeting in our case, where he is presumed innocent, constitutes an aggressive and improper measure against a dedicated ISA employee who indeed leaked and violated the rules, but does not pose a danger to public security and there is no serious concern that he will disrupt the investigation, certainly not at this stage. This case represents a draconian use of the powers reserved for preventive purposes, while abusing the provisions of the law."

The attorney for the ISA agent added: "It seems that the ISA, and the heads of the systems involved in the investigation of the affair, are in a critical conflict of interest, and their manner of operation indicates that they have not managed to overcome the severe conflict of interest in which they find themselves in the affair."