In the main arguments of the Galatz Workers' Committee, their editors did a good job of showing that a similar rule applies to comparative law as well. Thus, for example, in American law, it has been ruled that a general position formulated by a functionary does not disqualify him from sitting in the proceeding. On the other hand, when the office holder has expressed a position in relation to that very concrete dispute that is about to be decided, his participation in the proceeding will be disqualified (FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683 (1948); Hortonville Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass'n, 426 U.S. 482 (1976); Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Texaco, Inc. v. FTC, 336 F.2d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1964)).
In addition, in English law, an objective test has been adopted, according to which it is necessary to examine how a fair and informed observer will be impressed by the circumstances, and whether he concludes that there is a real possibility of bias; It was held that the expression of a firm and one-sided position with respect to the issue in dispute raises such a real concern (Porter v. Magill [2001] UKHL 67; Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451; R (Lewis) v. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 746). Similar rules have also been established in Canada (Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Newfoundland (Bd. of Comm'rs of Pub. Utils.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170) and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Procola v. Luxembourg, App. no. 14570/89 (1995); Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989))).
- In our case, the statements made by Ms. Haetzni-Cohen and Mr. Malka prior to their appointment to the Committee, and in the case of Mr. Malka even during his tenure as a member of the Committee, clearly deviate, in my opinion, from the boundaries of the existence of "prejudice" and constitute a clear expression of "prejudice" with respect to the station and with regard to the concrete result that the Committee was required to formulate. Thus, Ms. Haetzni-Cohen's publications, in which she referred to Army Radio as "the home of terrorists" and her statement "Army Radio against the State of Israel" do not constitute an expression of a professional and practical position regarding the very existence of a military radio station in a democratic state, but rather an expression of personal (and particularly offensive language) disgust with the station and the content broadcast on it. Similarly, Mr. Malka's statement, when he served as a member of the advisory committee and as secretary, according to which "Wait, we have not yet eliminated, we do not shout 'Yes' before the goal"; His claim that "thousands of people said that the station was tilted to the left, and no one claimed that it was tilted to the right, " indicates a position that was formulated in advance and is no longer subject to persuasion.
Moreover, and important for our purposes, the statements made by Ms. Haetzni-Cohen and Mr. Malka in our case are not "only" an expression of prejudice according to which the IDF Radio should be shut down (or at least - the current affairs broadcasts on the station should be silenced). Rather, it is a preconceived position based on the improper consideration at the center of the discussion.