It seems to me that from a clear theoretical point of view, it can be held that where it was determined that a decision should be disqualified because an extraneous consideration was the dominant consideration at its base, it is, in any case, also an unreasonable decision. This is because a decision in which the dominant consideration underlying it is an extraneous consideration is, by definition, a decision in which an irrelevant consideration is given undue weight (see and compare: Matter The Open House, at p. 39; Interest Sagi, at pp. 609-610; Additional Hearing High Court of Justice3299/93 Wichselbaum v. Minister of Defense, IsrSC 49(2) 195,198 (1995); Ariel Bendor, "A Collection of Judgments - Review and Criticism (Part Two)" Law & Government I, 509,522-524 (1992)).
However, it should be emphasized: this conclusion does not determine that any decision whose result is identical to that which was disqualified due to consideration of extraneous considerations cannot be reasonable. This is the case in principle, and it is also the case in our case: A ruling that the decision to close the Galei Tzahal station should be canceled on the grounds of foreign considerations does not mean that any decision to close the station must be canceled.
And you may hear the argument: What are the considerations of the decision maker, if the decision is appropriate in terms of its outcome? To this it must be answered that this is the essence of the cause of action for extraneous considerations - a cause that invalidates a decision because of the defect in the considerations underlying it, and not because of the "bottom line" in it. Therefore, the disqualification of a decision by virtue of the ground of extraneous considerations leaves open to the future the question of what will be the fate of a similar and even identical decision, if all the relevant considerations are considered, and only they, are considered.
And now for the examination of whether, in making the decision to close the Galei Tzahal station, the improper consideration, as defined above, was indeed considered as the dominant consideration.