The Sequence of Events in the Petitions
- After the petitions were filed, and in response to the claim that two members of the Advisory Committee were not exposed to all the relevant material, the Prime Minister ordered that the confidential documents that were placed before the Advisory Committee be transferred to the Advisory Committee for review by the two members of the Advisory Committee, and later even permitted the publication of the full minority opinion of the Chair of the Committee. As a result, on April 27, 2026, the three members of the majority opinion submitted another comment, in which they responded in more detail to the minority opinion, while reiterating their position that there is no basis, factual or normative, to attribute to Maj. Goffman a defect in moral integrity. They concluded their comments with the conclusion that "not only did we remain firm in our opinion that the integrity of the Ramsd, Maj. Gen. Roman Goffman, was not faulty, but our opinion was also significantly and substantially strengthened in light of the additional things we learned from these materials" (hereinafter: the reference of the members of the majority opinion to the classified materials).
It should be noted that in the preliminary responses on behalf of the Prime Minister and Major General Goffman, which were submitted after this supplementary comment, they claimed that the defect that the petitioners pointed out in this matter was cured. The Attorney General, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the decision of the majority opinion members to leave their previous decision in place was not sufficiently reasoned.
- On May 12, 2026, a lengthy hearing was held on the petitions, in which the parties' arguments were heard at length. At the end of the hearing, we instructed, in accordance with the agreements of the parties, that the Chief of Operations submit an affidavit on his behalf, which will include a reference to the examination he conducted with Maj. Goffman regarding the Almakais affair. It was also agreed that all the materials presented to the Advisory Committee as well as the full minutes of its deliberations would be submitted to the court for review. Mr. Almakais was also allowed to submit investigative materials he received in connection with the criminal proceedings that were conducted in his case.
- On May 18, 2026, the affidavit of the Operations Officer was submitted, and subsequently, as well as to the hearing held on May 12, 2026, we were of the opinion that the work of the Advisory Committee was deficient, including that it was not presented with relevant documents from real time and no direct testimonies were heard from parties involved in the events. Therefore, we recommended that the Advisory Committee examine the possibility of completing the examination process that it conducted, inter alia, by summoning Mr. Almakais and the Operations Officer to appear before it, and then submit an up-to-date and reasoned opinion.
- On May 21, 2026, the Advisory Committee announced that it would act in accordance with our recommendations, and on the same day it convened once again (the additional procedure it held hereinafter: the completion stage). The committee was preceded by Mr. Almakais, the head of the Operations Brigade, Major Tzur (via video conference) and Maj. Goffman. In addition, additional materials were submitted to the Advisory Committee, including the affidavit of the Operating Brigade, which was submitted to this Court on May 18, 2026; The advisor's opinion, which was submitted at the time for review by the committee chairman; Notes from the interrogations conducted in connection with the Almakais affair (hereinafter: the records of the ISA interrogations); and a 511-page file of WhatsApp messages between Mr. Almakais and Major Tzur, which were given to the Commission by Mr. Almakais (hereinafter: the correspondence between Major Tzur and Mr. Almakais. It should be noted that the file of correspondence submitted for our review begins on page 228). On May 24, 2026, the members of the Advisory Committee convened for another meeting, during which each of its members expressed their current position before writing the supplementary opinion.
The Advisory Committee's Supplementary Opinion
- On May 26, 2026, the Advisory Committee's supplementary opinion was submitted, in which the positions of its members remained the same. Essentially, the members of the majority opinion found that the additional materials provided to them, as well as the conversations they held, "substantially and significantly strengthened their previous determination that the integrity of Maj. Roman Goffman was not flawed." The chairman of the committee, on the other hand, noted that at this stage he had not found a change in his position, and in his opinion, an additional factual inquiry should be conducted in order to make a final decision on the issue of the integrity of Maj. Gen. Goffman.
- In summary, the members of the majority opinion focused on two issues: the first issue, the existence of a connection between Maj. Goffman and Mr. Almakais. In this regard, the members of the majority opinion were under the impression that even according to the testimony of Mr. Almakais, he never had direct contact with Maj. Gen. Goffman (as opposed to a connection with Major Tzur), and that the material placed before the committee does not indicate that Maj. Gen. Goffman was aware of Mr. Elmakais prior to the publication of the affair in the media; The second issue is whether in the examination call (i.e., Maj. Gen. Goffman's conversation with the Operations Brigade Commander dated May 15, 2022), Maj. Gen. Goffman spoke the truth. The members of the majority opinion were of the opinion that the conversation that took place between Maj. Gen. Goffman and the Chief of the Operations Brigade should be understood against the background of the context in which it took place. In their understanding, the purpose of the conversation between the two was to locate a leak of classified material from the IDF, and hence Major General Goffman's negative answer to the questions of the Operations Brigade Commander is pure truth, since Major General Goffman was convinced that classified material had not been transferred from the division, since he did not approve such a transfer. The members of the majority opinion also noted that Major General Goffman's answers turned out to be true even in retrospect, when they found that no classified material had been transferred to Mr. Almakais from Major Tzur. In this context, the members of the majority opinion relied on the correspondence between Major Tzur and Mr. Almakais, from which they got the impression that Major Tzur was very meticulous about information security matters, and that all that was transferred there to Mr. Almakais on his part was material from open sources. In addition, the members of the majority opinion emphasized that Maj. Gen. Goffman had even asked the Operations Brigade Commander to conduct an inquiry on the matter with the relevant division officials in order to clarify his answers, which illustrates his integrity.
- According to the current position of the Chairman of the Committee, the main question that has arisen at the current stage, which is relevant to the integrity of Maj. Goffman, is the quality of the information that was transmitted from the Division's officials to Mr. Almakais. Specifically, the Chairman of the Committee was of the opinion that to the extent that the Division's officials also passed on confidential information to Mr. Almakais, it would harm the integrity of Major General Goffman. However, according to the position of the Chairman of the Committee, the members of the Committee do not have the knowledge and skills to determine what classified information is, and even Mr. Almakais himself (who testified that classified documents were transferred to him) cannot do so. Therefore, the chairman of the committee is of the opinion that in order to determine whether confidential information was passed on or not, a review of the correspondence is not sufficient, and therefore it is appropriate that "a military entity examine, under the direction and supervision of the committee, the correspondence on WhatsApp for the purpose of distinguishing between unclassified and unclassified ones" (emphasis in original). Against this background, the Chairman of the Committee was of the opinion that further examination and examination were required in order to make a final decision on the question of the integrity of Maj. Gen. Goffman.
Summary of the parties' references to the supplementary opinion
- The petitioners (in their separate comments, which will also be presented here in consolidation) claim that the flaws that occurred in the appointment process of Maj. Goffman remain, and have even been strengthened in part; that there remain substantive issues that have not yet been properly clarified; and that the conclusions of the majority opinion members are erroneous, and are inconsistent with the evidence in the petitioners' possession. It was argued that the majority opinion ignores significant evidence presented to the committee, and that it raises many contradictions. As for the examination call that was held, it was emphasized that, contrary to the majority opinion's determination, Maj. Gen. Goffman did not tell the truth to the Operations Brigade, because the main purpose of the investigation did not deal with the question of whether Maj. Gen. Goffman knew the identity of Mr. Almakais or whether he knew of the existence of a leak of information from sources in the division, but rather whether the division contacted operators of a Telegram channel in the field of security current affairs. In particular, "the world of news", for the purpose of conveying messages - a conspiracy that Maj. Gen. Goffman denied. In any event, even if the purpose of the examination call was to examine the leakage of classified information, Major General Goffman's answers still raise difficulties, and he should have at least noted that there was activity by the division (even if he was convinced that classified materials were not transferred in the framework of the investigation). Moreover, according to Mr. Almakays' testimony, during a meeting that took place in March 2025 between Mr. Almakais and Major Tzur and other parties, it was brought to Mr. Almakays' attention that even before it was activated, Major Tzur showed Maj. Gen. Goffman the Telegram channel of Mr. Almakays; and that a few days after Mr. Almakais's arrest, Major Tzur reported this to Maj. Gen. Goffman - facts that the members of the majority opinion ignored. Therefore, when Maj. Gen. Goffman denied any awareness of Mr. Almakais's Telegram channel, and when he testified before the Commission that he did not know about Mr. Almakays' arrest until a long time later, he did not tell the truth. It was further argued that contrary to the determination of the members of the majority opinion that no classified information was provided to Mr. Almakais, the evidentiary material placed before the Committee shows that it is quite possible that confidential information was also passed on to Mr. Almakais, and therefore there is room to conduct an additional inquiry as proposed in the position of the Chairman of the Committee.
Note: Shortly before submitting his response to the supplementary opinion, Mr. Almakais submitted a request to be allowed to review the full transcripts of the conversations with the various parties that appeared before the Advisory Committee, since the Prime Minister had allowed Maj. Gen. Goffman to review them. In the circumstances of the case, I do not believe that there is room to grant the request, and this is already due to the date on which it was submitted - more than two weeks after the oral hearing of the petitions (see our decision of May 27, 2026), and taking into account the tight timetable; In light of the Prime Minister's opposition in his response to the request; and taking into account that the Counsel, who joined the Petitioners' position, reviewed the full minutes and referred to them at length in her responses.
- In her response, the Attorney General argues that the supplementary opinion of the members of the majority opinion still raises considerable difficulty. According to her, the members of the majority opinion ignored some of the testimonies heard before the committee, and from real-time documents presented to them, to which significant weight should be given, and that there were inaccuracies in their opinion. It was argued that the new materials that were placed before the committee, and in particular the memorandum of understanding and the statement of the head of the committee's operating brigade, weaken the opinion of the majority members, and strengthen the minority opinion that Maj. Goffman did not give accurate answers to the head of the operation brigade, and that even after the arrest of Almakais he refrained from updating and refining the answers he gave at the time. The Advisor is of the opinion that the analysis of the evidence shows that Major General Goffman was aware of the activity of theWest Bank with Mr. Almakais's Telegram channel, and at least with any Telegram channel, and despite this, he consciously refrained from providing this vital information after learning of the security and criminal investigation. In this regard, the Attorney General argues that the focus of the majority opinion on the question of whether overt or secret materials were transferred is irrelevant, since Maj. Gen. Goffman was asked about the division's connection to Telegram channels, and he certainly knew about such a connection. In addition, when asked in the examination call who was the party who might know about the connection with the aforementioned Telegram channel, he did not refer to the party who was indeed in contact with the relevant Telegram channel (Major Tzur or another party who was familiar with his activities). Moreover, according to the Advisor, Maj. Gen. Goffman had another opportunity to come to the aid of Mr. Almakais, since, as appears from Maj. Tzur's second statement to the Committee (which, according to the Advisor, was ignored by the majority opinion), after the arrest of Mr. Almakays, the arrest was brought to the attention of Maj. Gen. Goffman, and despite this, he chose not to do anything. All of this, in contrast to his conduct after the interrogation of Major Tzur at the IIBAM, when he chose to update the investigative authorities by approving Mr. Almakais's operation, whilerequesting that Major Tzur not be harmed. According to the Attorney General, in the conduct described, Major General Goffman failed the investigative authorities and harmed the investigation of the truth and Mr. Almakays' rights as a suspect - thus tarnishing the integrity of Major General Goffman.
- The Prime Minister, in his response, argues that the affidavit of the Chief of Staff and his testimony before the committee leave no room for doubt as to whether there was a defect in the conduct of Maj. Goffman in the examination call that was held for him, and therefore there is no defect in his integrity. It was further argued that the position of the chairman of the committee also supports this conclusion, since the dispute that remains between him and the members of the majority opinion is quite limited, and deals only with the question of whether the information that was passed on to Mr. Almakais was confidential or not. Either way, the Prime Minister believes that this question has no bearing on the integrity of Major General Goffman, as determined by the members of the majority opinion, since even if this happened, Major General Goffman "did not approve of it, [and] did not know about it." With regard to the proposal raised by the Chairman of the Committee to conduct further clarification, it was argued that there was no need for it, inter alia, because it was not clarified by the Chairman of the Committee at all what is the connection between the confidentiality of the information passed on to Mr. Almakais and the integrity of Major General Goffman, and in any case the Committee is not authorized to conduct a re-examination or delegate its authority to others. As suggested. In short, according to the Prime Minister, the supplementary inquiry that was conducted, but strengthened the conclusion that the petitions should be dismissed.
- Gen. Goffman also argued that after the completions made by the advisory committee, there were no question marks that could undermine his integrity. In the meantime, it was clarified that the issue that was in dispute and for which a supplementary clarification was requested before the Advisory Committee, revolved around the conduct of Maj. Gen. Goffman in the examination conversation he had with the Operations Brigade. Since this dispute does not arise from the supplementary opinions of the majority opinion and the minority opinion, it is thus resolved. Maj. Gen. Goffman also emphasizes in this context that the only dispute that remains in the completion stage relates to the quality of the materials transferred by Major Tzur to Mr. Almakais, but this matter does not affect his integrity. In addition, Maj. Gen. Goffman argues that there is no justification for ordering a further investigation, let alone by an external party to the committee.
Discussion and Decision
- After hearing the arguments of the parties and reviewing the many writings and materials that were transferred to the Advisory Committee and submitted for our review, I have reached the conclusion that despite various flaws in the Committee's work, it can be determined on the basis of the material before us that there was no fault of Major General Goffman's integrity in connection with the Almakais affair, and accordingly there is no reason to cancel the Prime Minister's decision to appoint him to the position of head of the Mossad. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitions should be dismissed, and so I will suggest to my colleague and colleague that it be done.
I will begin by presenting the normative infrastructure necessary for our case. In this framework, I will review the rules that apply to the work of Advisory Committee, the law concerning for judicial review of the appointment of senior security officials, and the special aspects related to his appointment of the head of the Mossad, unlike other positions. Afterwards, I will focus my attention on the issue that is up for our decision - the appointment of Maj. Gen. Goffman following her recommendation (According to Majority opinion Friends) of the Advisory Committee. As will be detailed below, the decision in the proceeding is to a large extent a decision between two contradictory narratives regarding the conduct of the Major General Goffman in the Almakais case - the one, who tells a story of lies and abandonment on his part (and he is the one who is at the basis of the petitions); And the second, Describes conduct that is not without flaws, but does not reveal a moral defect (And he Who Underpins the Positions of the Major General Goffman and the prime minister).