From here, I will turn to examine the significance of the government's decision to revote on the aforementioned defect.

The significance of the government's re-vote decision

145. As may be recalled, a week after the government's decision, on March 31,2026, the government made the government's decision to re-vote. There is no dispute that the prime minister did not participate in the process that preceded the government's decision to re-vote.  The government's decision to revote noted that "the prime minister is not present at the discussion and does not participate in the vote.  Minister Yariv Levin takes his place and announces that he has added the issue to the agenda in accordance with the authority set forth in the government's work regulations." At the end of the discussion, the government ministers voted unanimously on the government's decision to re-vote, while clarifying that this decision does not prejudice the validity of the government's decision, and that it was adopted, among other things, "in order to prevent lip service" in relation to the prime minister's conflict of interest claim.
146. In this state of affairs, we are required to examine whether the government's decision to re-vote is sufficient to cure the flaw in the government's decision, insofar as this flaw relates to the prime minister's involvement in the appointment of Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev.  On this issue, the government and Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev claim that to the extent that there was a flaw in the government's decision, this defect was corrected by means of the government's decision to re-vote, in which the prime minister did not take part at any stage.

I did not find any substance in this argument, and this without even addressing the question of whether the conflict of interest in which the Prime Minister was found "Paste" The rest of the members of the government (compare: Bar, in paragraph 88; In this context, see also: Ministry of Justice The Team for Rethinking Conflicts of Interest Accountability 49 (2018)).  I'll explain.

147. The purpose of the laws of conflict of interest cannot be reconciled with a situation in which a functionary who is in a conflict of interest participates in the formulation of a certain decision, openly announces his position on the issue under discussion, and a few days later the same decision is made by his subordinates or his colleagues in the same collegiate body. This is done without conducting a re-examination of the issue, with the only change being his absence from the meeting.  Legalizing such a move is liable to render the laws of conflict of interest meaningless, and even create an incentive to make "renewed" decisions that are nothing more than a formal cover intended to legitimize a decision made in the shadow of a conflict of interest.
148. Indeed, in certain circumstances, a late correction of the defect that adhered to the decision or the administrative proceeding may lead to its retroactive healing. In the context of this issue, Justice   Willner clarified that:

"In order for the defective procedure to be cured as a result of a retroactive amendment, the administrative authority is required to consider the new data that arises from this amendment with an open heart and a willing mind , and if necessary, even change its decision accordingly" [emphasis added] (High Court of Justice 6905/18 Naji v.  Military Commander of the West Bank Region, para.  17) ‏(‏2.12.2018‏)‏).