Finally, it was argued that the foreign political considerations that underpinned the decision arise explicitly from the public statements of Minister Karei and Minister Katz on the subject, which unequivocally prove that the decision was made not out of practical considerations of security or stateliness, but out of a desire to silence criticism and serve a political agenda.
- Fourth, the petitioners argue that even if the government had the authority to make the decision and the procedure that preceded it was proper, the decision cannot stand because of its extreme unreasonableness and disproportionality. According to the petitioners, the closure of the Galei Tzahal station severely harms freedom of expression and the free press, since it means a "cut" of about half of public radio broadcasting in Israel. The petitioners claim that this harm is even more severe in the circumstances of the case, for two reasons: first, the short timetable set for the execution of the closure - only two months from the date of the decision; Second, the timing of the decision - a few months before the start of the election campaign for the 26th Knesset - a period characterized by increased importance for the existence of a diverse and critical media discourse, which allows the public to formulate its position on the basis of complete and balanced information. Therefore, it is argued, the violation of freedom of political expression and the public's right to information, at this time, is particularly severe.
According to the petitioners, despite the severe damage, it is evident that the government did not give sufficient weight to possible alternatives and chose the most extreme alternative - closing the station altogether. The petitioners emphasize that only two years earlier, the recommendations of the Zamir Committee, which was appointed by the Minister of Defense, who served in his position under the same government, were made, according to which the station should be left under the management of the IDF while making changes to the broadcasting schedule. It was argued that although the implementation of these recommendations is still in progress, the government did not wait to examine whether its completion would obviate the alleged need underlying the decision to close the station. It was also claimed that the advisory committee, whose recommendations were the basis of the decision, did not only recommend the closure of the station, but also proposed another alternative - closing only the current affairs and news department. Despite this, the government chose the most extreme alternative. According to the petitioners, this choice, without sufficient reasoning and without examining less harmful means, testifies in itself to the fact that the decision does not meet the test of proportionality.
- In addition to the arguments detailed above, which are common to all the petitions, the Galatz Workers' Committee's petition raised claims unique to the group whose voice this petition was intended to be heard - the 84 civilians who are IDF employees employed at the station. In this petition, it was argued that the decision to close the station meant the dismissal of employees within a very short period of time - only two months - without any orderly dialogue with the IDF Workers' Organization, the professional body representing the station's employees, beyond their general hearing before the committee. It was argued that this defect justifies, in and of itself, the cancellation of the decision. In addition, it was argued that the timetable set for the closure of the station does not allow for any proper preparation for the workers. It was also argued that the decision completely ignores the fact that these are employees with the status of civilians who work in the IDF - a unique status that requires specific arrangements for terminating employment; and that the staff work that preceded the decision was not required at all for the implementation aspects relating to this issue.
The Attorney General's Position
- Like the petitioners, the Attorney General is of the opinion that the decision to revoke the decision should be revoked, and in essence, a significant part of her arguments coincides with the petitioners' claims. Special weight is given in the framework of the Attorney General's position to the argument that the decision was made without authority. Similarly, the Attorney General is also of the opinion that the closure of the station must be done by way of primary legislation. In this context, the Attorney General notes that in 2022, with the establishment of the Eshel Committee, the Deputy Attorney General (Economic Law), Adv. Meir Levin, prepared an opinion examining the possible legal ways to implement the decision to close the station, which was adopted by the Attorney General at the time (hereinafter: the Levin Opinion). The Attorney General notes that in Levin's opinion it was noted that the decision to close the station has certain characteristics of a preliminary arrangement, and that the "way out" for its implementation is through primary legislation. At the same time, it was held that in the circumstances that existed at the time, this was not a clear preliminary arrangement that was necessarily required to be made within the framework of primary legislation. This, in essence, is because the infringement of freedom of expression stemming from the closure of the station is only "peripheral", in view of the existence of the Public Broadcasting Corporation, which constitutes a worthy alternative to independent public broadcasting.
According to the Attorney General's position, since the Levin Opinion was drafted in 2022, there have been many changes in the media market, mainly in the steps that the government allegedly has taken and is still implementing, with the aim of harming and weakening the free media. Under these circumstances, the Attorney General argues that primary legislation is no longer just the "way out" - but rather the only obligatory and exclusive way through which the closure of the station can be carried out.
- In addition, the Attorney General is also of the opinion that the decision to close the station suffers from material flaws in the process of accepting it and in the discretion exercised. In this context, it was claimed that the composition of the advisory committee included members with significant political affiliations to the Likud party, some of whom had expressed a firm position in favor of closing the station; and that the professional and factual basis on which the committee was based was flawed. Moreover, the decision was made while ignoring the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General, which insisted on the existence of a legal impediment to approving the decision. It was argued that the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General was not presented to the government in a full and orderly manner, and its main points were brought to the attention of the members of the government only orally, close to the opening of the hearing held on December 22,2025. Despite this, and without a real discussion of its findings, the government chose to approve the decision. According to the Attorney General, this disregard for the position of the competent legal body of the executive branch constitutes an independent and serious flaw in the decision-making process.
In addition, the Attorney General claims that there is a serious concern that the decision to close the station was based on extraneous considerations, including the content of the station's broadcasts and its confrontation with the government.