2) The Chief of Staff noted that there is a possibility that the 210th Division is in the 210th Division.
3) The Chief of Staff noted that the details of the investigation are exposed to a very limited forum and therefore the details of the conversation should not be discussed with any party at all.
4) The brigade commander asked the commander of the 210th Division whether there was any known connection, directly or indirectly, to the current affairs-security channel on Telegram.
5) The commander of the 210th Division replied that there is no known connection as described in the division.
6) The Operations Brigade Commander asked whether the name 'News World' was familiar to the division commander.
7) The division commander stated that he was not familiar with the channel in question.
[...]
10) MAUG 210 noted that he would be happy to check the matter with his people in order to give a definite answer.
11) The head of the Operations Brigade emphasized that the matter should not be examined with any party, since the investigation is still underway and we do not want to harm it.
- An examination of the memorandum of understanding does not allow us to adopt the sweeping conclusion reached by the members of the majority opinion in the committee, according to which the answer given by Major General Goffman as documented in this document was the proper and correct answer. There is no doubt that in practice the division maintained "some connection, directly or indirectly, to the current affairs-security channel on Telegram" (paragraph B(4) of the memorandum. Hereinafter: the first question). This broad definition includes, of course, the connection between Mr. Almakais and Major Tzur. According to General Goffman's own version, it was also expected that he would give a different answer to this question. According to this version, as noted, he authorized Major Tzur to contact the managers of the Telegram channel, in order to use them to disseminate information that had previously been published to the public. Therefore, Maj. Goffman should have answered the aforesaid question in the affirmative, while clarifying the nature of the relationship, and noting that, to the best of his knowledge, Maj. Gen. Tzur acted according to his instructions, and provided only unclassified information (and it is precise, the head of the IABM also clarified that, in his opinion, Maj. Gen. Goffman should have been informed about the said connection. See section 3 of the Commanders' Update, and the announcement of the head of the IUCB in the committee, at p. 3). Nevertheless, Maj. Gen. Goffman ostensibly answered, according to what is written in the memorandum, a negative and unequivocal answer to the first question: "The commander of the 210th Division replied that there is no known connection as described in the division." Maj. Gen. Goffman gave a similar answer to another general question that was asked - whether he was even familiar with the name "News World", the name of the channel operated by Mr. Almakais (ibid., in section 2(6)). Admittedly, there are certain indications in the evidence that Maj. Gen. Goffman was exposed at one point or another to the channel's name, but it is possible that he was not aware of the channel's name when he was asked about it (or did not remember his name), and therefore replied that he did not know it (even when he was asked about it in a neutral manner, not in relation to its operation by the division). In any event, since the first question was formulated broadly, Major General Goffman had to answer it differently than Mishnatan, in order for his answer to be considered complete and accurate. To complete the picture, it should be noted that the broad wording of this first question corresponded, in the end, to the wording of the statement to the investigative authorities given by the head of the IIB, in which he stated that the confidential information dealing with the affair was not published with authority as part of an IDF influence operation ("No evidence was found before contacting the Telegram channels relevant to the investigation [...] as part of influence or fraud efforts." See paragraph 2(b) of the document dated May 21, 2022, which was submitted for review by all members of the Committee on April 26, 2026, as stated in the reference of the members of the majority opinion to the classified materials).
- Still, there is a long distance between the conclusion that General Goffman should have given a different answer and the conclusion that he deliberately lied. In retrospect, of course, it is difficult to trace the exact state of mind of Major General Goffman during the conversation, but a general examination of the course of the conversation indicates that there is no clear indication that his intention was to mislead. In the absence of any additional evidence indicating knowingly deception, the only compelling conclusion is that no substantial evidence has been presented to indicate that Maj. Goffman intended to lie or mislead the Operations Brigade and, subsequently, the investigative authorities. I will elaborate.
- First, it should be noted that at the end of the conversation, Maj. Goffman suggested that the Operations Brigade Commander deepen the investigation into what was happening in the division, and to turn to the officers under his command in order to "respond with certainty", and the Operation Brigade Commander clarified that he was not allowed to do so, so as not to harm the ongoing investigation (Memorandum of Understanding, in paragraphs B(10)-B(11)). These words indicate the good faith of Maj. Gen. Goffman. Moreover, it can be assumed that a person who wishes to conceal certain information will not offer to deepen the investigation regarding this information, in light of the concerns that his proposal will be answered in the affirmative, and he will be required to provide additional details after the investigation is completed, or that contacting other parties will lead them to expose his deception.
- Second, despite the concrete nature of the aforementioned question, it is impossible to ignore the general context of the conversation, as presented to Maj. Goffman. As stated above, the subject of the security and criminal investigation as a whole was the leak of classified information, including top-secret information and details regarding various capabilities. The investigative authorities contacted military officials in order to clarify the existence of a "leaked axis of some security entity" (ISA interrogation records, at p. 1), which would explain why so many secret information was published on the Telegram channel. Accordingly, the conversation between the Chief of Staff and Maj. Gen. Goffman dealt with the same subject. In the words of the Chief of the Operations Brigade, according to the memorandum: "an investigation of a sensitive affair in the IDF, regarding the alleged transfer of intelligence materials" (ibid., in section b(1) and at the end of section b(9). See also: paragraphs 2, 4 and 9 of the affidavit of the Operating Officer). This is how the Chief of Staff described the purpose of the conversation in his statement to the committee: "The purpose of the conversation, as I was sent to carry out by the head of Military Intelligence, is to find out whether Brig. Gen. Goffman at the time knew or gave instructions or gave permission to any of his [personnel] in the division to provide intelligence information to that Telegram page" (Transcript of the Committee's announcement dated June 21, 2026, at p. 2 (hereinafter: Notice of the Supervisor of the Committee's Operating Committee); as well as Section 3 of Appendix B of the Supplementary Opinion of the Members of the Majority Opinion). Finally, the Operations Brigade's conclusion from the conversation, as he described it in his affidavit, also related to this issue: "On the same day, and at the latest the next morning, I informed the head of Military Intelligence and the Rambam that the response of the commander of the 210th Division to the question of whether he approved the delivery of intelligence materials to the Telegram channels mentioned above was negative" (paragraph 24 of the affidavit of the Operations Brigade Commander). Admittedly, it is clear that even in a case where the existence of "somehow" contact with Telegram channels was not the focus of the conversation, it would have been appropriate for Maj. Gen. Goffman to give a full and detailed answer regarding the question on the matter, but the general topic of the conversation cannot be ignored. The fact that the matter was not the focus of the conversation establishes the plausibility of the possibility that the partial and inaccurate answer given by Maj. Gen. Goffman is the result of distraction or a mistake in the questioner's understanding, and not the result of a deliberate intention to mislead.
- Third, the recording of the conversation was not done by means of a recording and transcription, but rather by means of a memorandum, which is a summary of the main points that were done in real time by a person who listened to the conversation (see: Notice of the Committee's Operating Officer, at pp. 1 and 5). It can be assumed that this summary reliably reflects the spirit of the matter, but it is very difficult to deduce precisely from the memorandum what was said in practice in the conversation. Thus, for example, in the summary, it is noted that Maj. Goffman answered the first question, "There is no known existence of contact as described in the division." It can be assumed that these were not the exact words with which General Goffman answered the question. However, the exact language may be important. Thus, for example, if Maj. Gen. Goffman answered, "I am not aware of the transfer of intelligence materials to the Telegram channel," then on the one hand, the memorandum documents it accurately (with an emphasis on the terminology "conspiracy as described" and the context of the question, given the manner in which the investigation was presented by the Operational Intelligence Officer); On the other hand, the answer was factually correct. On the other hand, if he answered, "I am not aware of any influence operation by the division against the Telegram channel," then his answer was clearly incorrect. Which of the two answered Major General Goffman at the time - such subtleties cannot be descended upon when we have only a memory of the matter.
- Finally, it should be mentioned that the conversation was a short telephone conversation, of the kind that happened "countless times" between the Operational Commander and Maj. Goffman, according to the latter (see: paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the Operational Operations Commander; the transcript of Major General Goffman's third statement to the Committee dated May 21, 2026, p. 6). It is quite possible that for this reason General Goffman misinterpreted the question that was asked. In retrospect, it seems that the assessment of the head of the IOMB regarding the nature of the conversation (an assessment that was made prior to the decision of the first committee, before the affidavit of the head of the Operations Division was submitted) would have been plausible:
I imagine that the conversation between [Operation Coordinator] and Roman Goffman or that it was very low-quality, that is, [Operation Coordinator] asked him a general question like this: Do you know who you are operating? And Roman Goffman answered him casually: I don't think so[,] without him examining it in depth. I guess that's to his credit.