For this purpose, the Government Respondents should have placed before us a concrete evidentiary basis that indicates the manner in which the decision was actually made at the Cabinet meeting on December 22,2025 - what was said in the hearing; What questions were raised by members of the government; how (if presented) the alternatives rejected by the Advisory Committee were presented; and how the members of the government related, in real time, to the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General, which was presented to them orally shortly before the opening of the hearing (on the importance of an evidentiary basis that indicates the considerations considered by the Authority in real time, see: Yoav Dotan: "The Duty of Authorities to Justify Administration and Elected Bodies" Legal Research 19:50-46 (2002); Michael Asimow & Yoav Dotan, Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action: The Conflicting U.S. and Israeli Approaches, 64 Am. J. Comp. L. 521 (2016)).
- Although the petitions emphasized the argument that the decision to close IDF Radio was anchored in extraneous considerations, and despite the fact that an order nisi was issued that emphasized that the government's respondents must focus on claims that are within the realm of discretion, no evidentiary basis, as stated above, was placed before us. Thus, the government respondents refrained from presenting the minutes of the cabinet meeting of December 22,2025 in full, and made do with submitting only the open portions of the minutes - which include only the presentation of the proposed resolution by Minister Katz, without any documentation of the statements of the cabinet members in the discussion itself. Moreover, although during the hearing of the objection to turning the order nisi into an absolute order, counsel for the Government Respondents was presented with the difficulties arising from the absence of the full transcript (see the minutes of the hearing of May 26,2026, p. 19, lines 3 and 17, p. 48, line 27 and p. 49, line 35), counsel for the Government Respondents refrained from producing the full transcript even after this hearing. In these circumstances, since we are dealing with a document that is under the exclusive control of the Government Respondents, and there is a possibility that a review of the minutes would have shed real light on the nature of the considerations presented to the members of the Government and the manner in which they relate to them, it can be assumed that if the Government Respondents had submitted the full Protocol, what was stated therein would have acted in accordance with their duty (see: The Ilan Case, at p. 842; see also and compare: Appeal of Petition/Administrative Claim 1012/12 Coffee Time Ltd. Achva Academic College of Education, paragraph 12 of the judgment of Judge A. Vogelman [Nevo] (August 22,2012)).
This assumption is strengthened, given that the media reported that some of the government ministers who participated in the meeting expressed themselves in a manner that could indicate that their position was also based on the improper consideration as a dominant consideration. Thus, it was reported that Minister Yariv Levin noted at this meeting that: "There is no diversity in the writings and in the Galatz, this has been an approach for years"; Minister David Amsalem noted: "This is a station that defames Israel"; Minister Amichai Shikli added: "A complete anomaly that the army owns a radio that broadcasts politics, and with a clear left line"; Minister Idit Silman noted: "The station does not represent the soldiers, it is a station that echoes those who harmed the soldiers - the MAG and the Attorney General (See paragraph 55 of the Galatz Workers' Committee's petition). Precisely in light of these reports, it might have been expected that the government's respondents would seek to submit the full minutes of the meeting, as a tool for setting the record straight and refuting the impression that arises from them, insofar as there is no substance in it. Respondents' Avoidance The Government Doing so is particularly striking against this background, and strengthens the conclusion that the content of the minutes, had it been presented, would have acted in accordance with the government's respondents' obligation.
- The failure of the government respondents to meet the burden imposed on them is also expressed in the fact that the affidavit of reply submitted on their behalf was not accompanied by an affidavit on behalf of any of the government ministers. When counsel for the Government Respondents, in the hearing of the objection, was asked what this meant, he explained that since the affidavit of reply was submitted during Operation "Lion's Roar", he was unable to get the signature of the Cabinet Secretary, who was busy at the time. With regard to this, it was noted to him that in view of the nature of the allegations regarding the consideration of extraneous considerations, there may be difficulty in submitting an affidavit on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, since he is unable to declare with personal knowledge what considerations were considered by each of the participants at the Cabinet meeting at which the decision was made. In response, counsel for the Government Respondents noted that this matter would be completed later, and that there was no material interest in it (see the minutes of the hearing of May 26,2026, p. 14, lines 7-32). However, on May 29,2026, counsel for the government respondents submitted two affidavits - one on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary and one on behalf of the Chief of Staff of the Minister of Defense. Since these cannot testify, from personal knowledge, to the considerations that were considered, it is clear that they do not support the arguments of the Government respondents regarding the considerations that were considered by them at the Cabinet meeting.
- Therefore, on the basis of the reasons detailed above, I have reached the conclusion that the government respondents have not been able to lift the burden and prove that even if the improper consideration was considered, as a dominant consideration, by some of the members of the government, the improper consideration was not the dominant consideration in the decision-making by the government as a whole.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the decision to close the station should be annulled.
- Defects in the procedure
- From the moment I have determined that in my opinion, the decision to close the Galei Tzahal station should be revoked due to the improper consideration that was considered, as a dominant consideration, in its acceptance, there is no need to address the other arguments of the petitioners, including the claims relating to defects that occurred in the decision-making process. However, more than necessary, I find it necessary to add that in view of the accumulation of flaws in the proceeding to which the petitioners and the Attorney General referred, it is not impossible that they were sufficient, even on their own, to justify the cancellation of the decision to close the station.
- As described above, in the petitions and in the position of the Attorney General, it was argued that the committee acted hastily and on an unreasonable timetable, and in particular that the public was not given a proper period of time to comment on its comments, when only ten days were allocated for this purpose. It was further claimed that the committee did not give proper weight, and sometimes even completely ignored, data that it itself took the trouble to collect. Thus, according to the claim, the committee commissioned a survey whose findings indicated a high percentage of soldiers reporting the positive contribution of Army Radio to morale - but these findings were not reflected in the proposed resolution that was brought to the government for approval. Similarly, it was argued that the army's position, as presented to the committee by the Chief of Staff of the Personnel Division, according to which despite the difficulties involved in operating a civilian radio station by a military entity, the station also makes a significant contribution to the State of Israel, and that Army Radio is working to fully and meticulously implement the recommendations of the Zamir Committee, was presented to the government ministers in a partial and biased manner, which does not fully reflect its position.
In addition to the aforesaid, in the petition of the Galatz Workers' Committee, individual claims were raised concerning the station's employees. It was claimed that the government's decision meant the dismissal and loss of livelihood of 84 civilians who work in the IDF and about 50 other employees as consultants, some of whom have decades of experience at the station, without the decision being preceded by an orderly consultation with the workers' union. It was also claimed that there were no proper transit arrangements: the government determined that the station would be closed within only two months, without any answer to the question of the future of the workers, in contrast to similar precedents in which a transition period of one year and five months or even more.
- Without going into the merits of each of the aforementioned arguments, I am of the opinion that it can be determined, without any real difficulty, that the cumulative weight of the aforementioned defects - first and foremost the defects that occurred in the appointment of some of the committee members, as detailed above - is capable of substantially harming the credibility and quality of the factual basis on which the recommendations of the advisory committee are based, to the extent that it is difficult to see it as an adequate basis on which the government could base its decision (see: High Court of Justice 23426-04-26 Almakais v. Prime Minister, paragraphs 58-59 of the judgment of Justice Grosskopf [Nevo] (June 1,2026); High Court of Justice 4380/11 Anonymous v. Minister of the Interior, paragraphs 31-33 of the judgment of my colleague Justice D. Barak-Erez [Nevo] (March 26,2017)). In addition, taking into account the flaws in the process of formulating them, it seems to me that it is difficult to say that by relying on the committee's recommendations, the government fulfilled its duty to consult as it should be (see: High Court of Justice 5538/09 Peleg v. Civil Service Commission, paragraph 14 of the judgment of President D. Beinisch [Nevo] (July 6,2010); High Court of Justice 6163/92 Eisenberg v. Minister of Construction and Housing, IsrSC 47(2) 229,243-229 (1993); Barak-Erez, vol. 1, at p. 313).
Therefore, I am of the opinion that even the defects that occurred in the decision-making process, as detailed above, might justify, in themselves, the cancellation of the decision to close the station.
- The Reasonableness of the Decision to Close the Station
- As to the reasonableness of the decision, as I noted above, since I have determined that the Government Respondents were unable to prove that the improper consideration was not the dominant consideration in the decision to close the station (after the Petitioners were able to prove that the improper consideration was based on the position of Ministers Katz and Karei, and an order nisi was issued), the decision that was made, based on these considerations, is, by definition, a matter of definition, An unreasonable decision.