For nearly 15 months, since the war began, the State of Israel has prohibited both Israeli and foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip and reporting independently on events in the area. In recent weeks, the ban has been extended to Syrian territories under Israeli control.

The Foreign Press Association (FPA) filed a petition last September demanding that the state lift the ban. This was the second petition, following an earlier one submitted during the early months of the war, which was dismissed due to security considerations.

The petition, submitted by attorneys Gilead Sher and Ran Greenwald, argued that "there is paramount importance, especially in areas of escalating tension, for independent and objective coverage conducted openly and transparently, in a reliable and comprehensive manner, in real time and from firsthand sources, to report on events in the Gaza Strip and to uphold the public's right to know."

However, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, presiding over the petition, is allowing the state to stall the legal proceedings and has now granted a fourth extension for submitting its response to the petition. This is despite the association recently filing an "urgent request" with the court citing a "change in circumstances."

The Foreign Press Association points to the ceasefire in Lebanon, the occupation of territories in Syria, and the humanitarian disaster in Gaza as further emphasizing the need to allow free and professional journalistic coverage in the war zones. They warn that the lack of such coverage not only harms Israeli and global citizens by denying them accurate knowledge of the situation in Gaza but also undermines Israel's security by leaving the media arena to interested parties with ulterior motives.

A profound disregard for the petitioner’s claims

Shortly after the petition was filed in September, Justice Sohlberg instructed the state to submit a preliminary response by October 10. However, two days before the deadline, the state requested an extension until November 24, citing the workload burdening the officials required to provide their position.

About two months ago, on the day the state was supposed to submit its preliminary response, it instead filed another request for an extension. According to attorneys Jonathan Nadav and Michal Danieli from the State Attorney's Office, the relevant parties had not yet completed the task, although it was claimed to be "in the final stretch."

The FPA strongly objected, arguing that "submitting the request for an extension at the last minute, on the designated submission date, along with a repeated request for an even longer extension than previously requested, is unreasonable and demonstrates a profound disregard for the petitioner's claims. It is clear that this should not be granted." Nevertheless, Justice Sohlberg granted the state the extension.

The FPA strongly objected, arguing that "submitting the request for an extension at the last minute, on the designated submission date, along with a repeated request for an even longer extension than previously requested, is unreasonable and demonstrates a profound disregard for the petitioner's claims. It is clear that this should not be granted." Nevertheless, Justice Sohlberg granted the state the extension.

However, even on the new deadline, the state did not submit its preliminary response. While in November the state announced that work on the preliminary response was "in the final stretch," it turns out that this "final stretch" has been exceptionally long.

At the end of November, after two extensions, the state claimed that following feedback from relevant parties, "additional clarifications" were needed from these parties, and perhaps an "additional meeting" would be held with their participation, in order to "complete the formulation of the position regarding the petition."

The Foreign Press Association once again raised their voice on behalf of "international media outlets, for whom the ongoing prevention of coverage, every minute, hour, and day, constitutes a severe blow to their ability to fulfill their purpose, and no less of a severe harm to the fundamental rights of billions of their consumers." Attorney Greenwald argued that "it seems as though the respondents' hearts are indifferent to this."

Justice Sohlberg was not impressed, or at least not to the extent that it led him to reject even partially the state's request for an extension. The judge did write that "given the circumstances of the case, the request raises a difficulty" and even stated that "there is a need to advance the handling of the petition," noting that "the respondents should take this into account." However, he granted the state a third extension, until the end of December, without indicating that it would be the final extension he would approve.

A fourth extension

Last week, as the third extension was nearing its end, the FPA filed an "urgent request for a hearing in the petition due to a change and worsening of circumstances."

According to the Foreign Press Association, the request is being submitted "due to significant changes on a historic scale, with implications for the Middle East and beyond." The petitioners argue that in the northern front, the fighting in Lebanon has almost completely ended, while Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have entered Syrian territories and taken control of areas near the border with Israel. "Only direct, firsthand, and reliable journalistic coverage can properly reflect the situation and reality, both the good and the bad. This applies to both Israeli citizens and citizens of the entire world."

Regarding Gaza, the petitioners argue that vast areas of the Strip are under Israeli control, with "hundreds of thousands of homeless people, refugees in their own land, in a war-torn region, and as claimed, also suffering from diseases, famine, and other objectively negative phenomena, such as the harsh winter weather." The FPA argued that the ban on foreign journalists entering the Gaza Strip contributes to the growing calls in many countries around the world condemning Israel for "genocide" and "intentional starvation" in Gaza.

"The world is exposed almost exclusively to images and videos filmed and broadcast on social media by Gaza residents themselves, which are necessarily biased and one-sided, and the damage is growing," the FPA argued. "[...] It is absolutely clear that a crucial element in shaping global public opinion is the near-total absence of serious and reliable journalistic coverage by foreign journalists from within the Gaza Strip. In fact, the very lack of coverage is having a negative impact."

From this, the FPA argued, it follows that it is precisely the severe infringement on press freedom that has contributed to harm to the state's security. In the absence of independent coverage of events in Gaza, the negative tide against Israel in global public opinion is increasing.

The FPA pointed out that in 2014, foreign journalists were allowed to enter the Gaza Strip and report on events there. Therefore, they explained, the current ban creates the impression "as if the State of Israel is trying to hide the Gaza Strip behind a curtain, in order to operate in the dark."

"To remove any doubt," the FPA emphasized, "the petitioner does not propose (and cannot propose) any form of supposed biased coverage in exchange for granting permission for any journalistic coverage, even basic coverage (a right that belongs to its members and the media organizations they represent worldwide, as part of the fundamental rights as stated and detailed in the petition). The petitioner seeks to allow its members to examine and reflect, through journalistic eyes, the reality as it is, objectively and without 'filters' or screens – neither of Israel nor of the residents of the conflict areas."

Justice Sohlberg instructed the state to address in its preliminary response, "which is due to be submitted on 31.12.2024," the FPA's latest request as well. However, unsurprisingly, on the final day for submitting the state's preliminary response, a fourth request for an extension was submitted.

"Recently," the state updates in its request through attorneys Jonathan Nadav and Michal Danieli, "an additional meeting was held regarding the petition with several relevant parties, including the participation of the head of the Supreme Court Department at the State Attorney's Office, in order to complete the formulation of the position regarding the petition."

"Furthermore," the state updates, "following the meeting, another meeting was held, this time with the participation of IDF Spokesperson Brigadier General Daniel Hagari. Following this meeting, Hagari scheduled a meeting with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the FPA in order to 'hear more, with further clarity and detail, their words (and directly), and to consider them with an open heart and a willing spirit.' This meeting, the state informed the Supreme Court, took place this week, on 30.12."

"The formulation of the position regarding the petition is being done with utmost seriousness and has therefore progressed," the state informs the Supreme Court justices. "The state officials are not resting on their laurels in its formulation." However, "additional time is needed to complete the matter," and therefore, the state requests that the Supreme Court grant a further three-week extension for submitting its preliminary position.

The FPA once again objected, reminding Justice Sohlberg that just a few days ago, he had instructed the state to respond to the latest urgent request they submitted.

Justice Sohlberg decided to grant the state's request for an extension once again, the fourth in number, and provide an additional three weeks for the delay. In his decision, Justice Sohlberg referenced the update regarding the meeting that took place between the IDF spokesperson and the FPA representatives.

However, Justice Sohlberg demanded that the state respond in writing within just one week to the FPA's latest request regarding the need for an urgent hearing due to the change in regional circumstances.