(p. 7 of the announcement of the head of the IOMB in the committee and paragraph 11 of the opinion of the committee chairman. Maj. Gen. Goffman also assessed, in his second statement to the committee on March 22, 2026 - prior to the submission of the affidavit of the Operating Operations Commander, that the conversation with the Operating Operations Commander was conducted in a similar manner to the one described at the end in the affidavit: see there, at p. 4).
- From the aforesaid it appears that it is difficult to determine, based on the memorandum of understanding and the totality of the circumstances of the case, what was the motive behind General Goffman's inaccurate answer to the first question. In the end, and this is the main thing, I was not convinced that General Goffman's answer was deliberately misleading, and it is certainly reasonable in my opinion that it was given inadvertently, whether due to the way he understood the subject of the conversation or due to his distraction. For this reason, it is not possible to blame General Goffman on the grave moral defects involved in the determination that Maj. Goffman lied to an IDF official who was sent to inquire about activity in the division under his command (and it is clear that an incorrect answer that was given inadvertently does not constitute a real defect in moral integrity, which justifies the disqualification of the decision to appoint Maj. Gen. Goffman as head of the Mossad).
It is a well-known rule that "Attribution to a person a behavior that involves a lack of cleanliness, Fraud or falsehood requires evidence of weight and credibility" (Civil Appeal 3725/08 Cantor 50' Cantor, paragraph 31 (3.2.2011); Civil Appeal 7456/11 Bar Noy N' Malchi, paragraph 15 (11.4.2013)). This rule also applies in administrative contexts, with the necessary changes (see: Lightning-Erez, vol. 1, pp. 454-455; Ron Shapira from Criminal Enforcement to Administrative Enforcement 176-174 (2019); Civil Appeal 8709/23 The Central Company for the Distribution of Drinks inTax Appeal N' Competition Commissioner, paragraph 37 (9.3.2026)). After the completions that were made following the petitions, the Advisory Committee had before it a large evidentiary platform, centered on a detailed document from real time, along with oral statements by those involved in the conversation, as well as additional notices and adjacent renewed documents. This evidence does not allow us to draw the weighty conclusion that the Petitioners and the Counsel seek to draw from it, according to which not only did Maj. Gen. Goffman give an erroneous answer regarding the connection of the 210th Division with Mr. Almakais, but he did so deliberately. For this reason - It cannot be said that the issue of lying casts a moral asperation on General Goffman.