In addition, in the summary of the discussion on August 11, 2024, the Cabinet Secretary referred to "the staff work that was done over the course of weeks [...] which included discussions that took place with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the Director General of the Prime Minister's Office, and the Cabinet Secretary." However, the content of these discussions and the work of the staff - and the reasons for which the staff work allegedly led to the conclusion that a search committee is not an appropriate mechanism - no details have been brought before us [...]. I will add that the determination that was brought in the proposal for Resolution 2129, according to which 'the process of the search committee is long and unnecessary' (on page 5 of the proposed resolution 2129), was brought in vain and without detail or support.
Resolution 2344, which the government adopted after the petitions before us were filed, also does not relate to a real and in-depth process of clarification and examination of alternatives, and in fact does not include any explanation for the government's choice to choose the mechanism of a special appointments committee. All that was noted in the proposal for a resolution in this context was that 'the members of the government were not at all convinced of the need to establish a search committee [...] and did not see an impediment to the appointment of a commissioner by way of an appointments committee or through the advisory committee'; and that the members of the government received a review of the proceedings in the petitions in question, and it was made clear to them that the position of the legal counsel regarding the existence of a 'legal impediment' relates only to the advisory committee and not to the appointments committee."
- If we had been presented with documentation of the process The essence of examining and comparing alternatives, may have been in order to To shed light on the considerations that led the government to choose the appointment process it chose. But we do not have such documentation. Instead, as already noted above, in the hearings before this court, counsel for the government discussed certain considerations that, in his view, guide the government's actions with regard to the appointment of the commissioner: "considerations that are not purely professional. They involve a worldview"; and "The desire of the Israeli government to work with someone who has an affinity or affinity in terms of worldview, in terms of values for the implementation of his policy(See paragraphs 43 and 51 above). However, it is precisely these considerations They are not included in the set of relevant considerations In light of which the Civil Service Commissioner should be appointed, or the procedure for his appointment should be determined.
Against the background of the aforesaid, and in continuation of the remark of my colleague Justice Mintz On the presumption of administrative correctness (in paragraph 148 of his opinion), I will refer to what was written in the case law a long time ago: