Moreover, the disclosure of the names of the parties has additional values. Thus, the disclosure may warn the public against engaging with a particular person, because it is found that there has been a crime or injustice, or that he has breached a contract; Thus, from another angle, the disclosure of the names allows for a "broader" tracing - for example, academically - of the court's conduct toward the various litigants over time. The disclosure of the names may also be important in the "narrow" legal sense, as in the matter of the possibility of raising various estoppel claims, since it allows tracing past claims raised by the litigants. Finally, the disclosure of the names also directs the conduct of the litigants in the proceeding, since the disclosure incentivizes the parties to behave appropriately, knowing that their identity will be published [For the case law dealing with the publication of the names of the parties as part of the principle of the publicity of the hearing, see: Civil Appeal Authority 482/13 Eliyahu Insurance Company in Tax Appeal v. Rafael, para. 11 (April 23, 2013); High Court of Justice 7326/09 Halperson v. Minister of Religious Affairs, para. 2 (December 1, 2009); High Court of Justice 5770/05 Wiesel v. Commissioner of Police (9 August 2005); Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 2484/05 Perry v. State of Israel, para. 4 (18 July 2005); High Court of Justice 6005/93 Eliash v. Justice Shmuel Tzur, IsrSC 49(1) 159, 170 (1995); Criminal Appeal 334/81 Ginzer v. State of Israel, IsrSC 36(1) 827, 832 (1982); and see also the decision to register L. Benmelech in a recent tax proceeding: Civil Appeal 8616/15 Revivi v. Kfar Saba Tax Assessor, paragraph 1 (May 3, 2016)...
Well, the rule is that the judgments must be published, including the names of the parties, even when the proceedings in the trial court were conducted behind closed doors. A deviation from the rule - even if it is only a partial deviation - will be possible only when "the purpose for which the doors were closed remains in place"..., and when the details revealed in the proceeding do indeed turn out retroactively as details whose publication would be a sin for the purpose of closing the doors." (Civil Appeals Authority 382/16 Varda Ruth Yahel v. Tel Aviv Assessor 4 (July 13, 2016))