According to the petitioners and the Attorney General, the aforementioned set of legislative arrangements shows that over the years the Knesset has given its attention to key aspects of the station's activity - the allocation of its frequencies, its sources of income, the supervision of its programs and the manner in which its headquarters is appointed - and has expressed its opinion that it views it as a body that requires regulation by primary legislation. In addition, making a decision to close the station as part of a government decision will lead to the de facto cancellation of sections of the law enacted by the Knesset, a result that, according to the claim, cannot stand.
- In principle, I do not reject the argument of the petitioners and the Attorney General, according to which a body established by a government decision, and even a body established by another administrative body authorized to establish it, may, in the course of time, by way of regulating it in legislation, acquire such a status that its closure will require legislative action, and can no longer be done by a purely administrative decision.
However, I am of the opinion that this result does not stem from the very existence of legislation relating to one body or another, nor from the multitude of pieces of legislation that mention it or regulate aspects of its activity. In my opinion, a distinction must be made, in this context, between the regulation of an existing activity - in which the very existence of the body constitutes a factual fact relevant to the object of the regulation and no more than that - and an arrangement that expresses a crystallized intention of the legislature to establish a comprehensive arrangement for the body or to establish it. The question of which of the two alternatives belongs to a given arrangement is, in essence, a question of interpretation. In my opinion, a necessary condition for the conclusion that a certain body has acquired "legislative status" with respect to its closure is, therefore, that it will be possible to interpret the entirety of the arrangements enacted by the legislature in relation to it as expressing a cohesive intention of the legislature to regulate, in primary legislation, the existence and consolidation of that body, to such an extent of the scope and essence of which is in fact equivalent, in fact, to its establishment in legislation in the first place.