As to the stage of the government's decision-making, the petitioners claim that the government's discussion was also a discussion of appearances only, a matter that is inferred from the fact that the government did not discuss any alternatives other than closing the station, even though the advisory committee's report included an alternative to closing the station. In this context, the petitioners further claim that the government was not presented with the recommendations of the Zamir Committee and the status of their implementation; Although the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General regarding the existence of a legal impediment to the approval of the proposed resolution was presented to the government, the government chose to ignore it.
- Third, the petitioners claim that there is a real concern about the existence of extraneous considerations in making the decision. According to the petitioners, contrary to its declared purpose, the decision to close Galatz was not intended to preserve the army's stateliness, but rather to silence criticism of the government and to close a station whose broadcasts are mainly identified with another side of the political map. Therefore, the petitioners claim that the decision was made for extraneous considerations and therefore should be disqualified. The petitioners claim that there are clear indications that the decision was made due to extraneous considerations in the manner in which the decision was conducted. Thus, it was claimed that the three senior government officials behind the initiative to examine the closure of the station expressed an open and firm position in favor of closing the station even before the advisory committee was established. According to the petitioners, in doing so, the three conveyed "explicit messages" to both the members of the government and to the members of the advisory committee, even before its establishment, regarding the desired outcome, and restricted their discretion in advance.
The petitioners further claim that the defect of extraneous considerations is also clearly expressed in the composition of the advisory committee. Thus, it was argued that not only do two of the committee members have a clear political affiliation with the Likud party; However, even before their appointments to the committee, the two expressed a firm position in favor of closing the station, and even called for its "elimination" - which indicates that they did not approach the task "willingly" but aimed at a known result from the outset.