The issue of closing Galei Tzahal: When you shoot an arrow and run to mark the target
The Supreme Court determined that the dominant motive for closing the station was dissatisfaction with the content broadcast. Although given the opportunity, the state failed to prove otherwise.
In an angry post published following the Supreme Court's decision to cancel the closure of Galei Tzahal, Amir Weitman attempted to explain why the court disqualified the decision. Weitman, chairman of the "Liberals in the Likud", emphasized that the government's decision to close the station was made under his personal leadership. His position is simple: it is not appropriate for the state, and certainly not the army, to own media outlets. This is a completely legitimate position.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the government is authorized to close Galei Tzahal and that no special legislation is required. However, the crux of the problem lies elsewhere. The "Liberals in the Likud" openly declare their goal to be the closure of public broadcasting and Galei Tzahal. They have every right to lobby and promote their political views. The problem begins when the question "how to convince that it should be closed?" replaces the question "should it be closed?".
Elad Malka, the group's deputy chairman, was appointed secretary of the committee established by the Minister of Defense to examine the station's future. The appointment letter did not even list closure as an alternative for the committee to examine—only removal from the defense system, privatization, or management by an external body. Nevertheless, the movement in which Malka serves as deputy chairman already knew what it wanted. The verdict quotes how the "Liberals in the Likud" welcomed his appointment with the call "Onward to privatization!".
Institutional confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is one of the most well-known biases in psychology: we usually start with the conclusion we want to be true, and then look for evidence that fits it. This is what is called "shooting the arrow and then marking a target around it."
Judge Yechiel Kasher, who wrote the main verdict, draws a clear line between a prior position and prejudice: the former is acceptable, the latter is not. The problem begins when someone tasked with examining an issue comes from a body that has already turned one of the answers into a political goal. In such a case, the risk becomes an institutional confirmation bias. A committee may be composed of honest people, but the bias is embedded in the planning itself: what questions are asked, who is invited to speak, and what information is requested.
A chronicle of a death foretold
On the day he appointed the committee, the Minister of Defense opened his remarks with the words "what was will not be." Ten weeks and 19 days of discussions later, when announcing the conclusions, he opened with the exact same words. The speech and the result suggest that the committee's work did not change anything in the government's position.
The Supreme Court determined that the dominant motive was dissatisfaction with the content and positions broadcast on the station. In a democratic regime, elections do not make every use of government power legitimate. The government is not supposed to use its authority to punish freedom of speech that comes from the "wrong" camp. We pay for free media, not for propaganda.
The Supreme Court's ruling does not cancel the voter's right or turn the court into a dictatorship of the "deep state." It merely reminds us that if we truly want to know the answer, the process must allow even answers we do not want to be revealed as correct. Fortunately, the predetermined result is no longer certain—thanks to the democratic procedure.
The author is an expert in behavioral economics and decision-making, a faculty member at the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology at Reichman University.
