The High Court of Justice on Monday held a hearing on a petition challenging the state’s continued refusal to allow journalists to enter the Gaza Strip without a military escort, amid mounting pressure on the government to articulate when - and under what conditions - independent press access could be permitted.
The petition was filed in September 2024 by the Foreign Press Association (FPA), which represents over 350 foreign journalists working in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It argues that the blanket prohibition on independent access to Gaza violates press freedom, the public’s right to information, and journalists’ rights to carry out their profession.
The hearing was held before Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg and Justices Khaled Kabub and Ruth Ronnen.
The central issue before the court was whether the state can continue to maintain a categorical ban on independent journalistic entry - and whether it is required to present a clear framework explaining how and when such access might become possible.
Ronnen pressed state representatives to clarify what security considerations currently prevent journalists from entering Gaza without military accompaniment, and what concrete changes on the ground would be required for the policy to shift.
“You have to explain what the security reasoning is today,” Ronnen said, asking what specifically distinguishes journalists from other categories of civilians who are permitted to enter Gaza.
Representing the FPA, senior advocate Gilead Sher criticized what he described as prolonged delays and a lack of meaningful policy reassessment by the state.
About 400 journalists worldwide are seeking access to Gaza
Sher told the court that around 400 journalists from dozens of countries are seeking access to Gaza, but that under the current system, the FPA has been allowed to send only two journalists at a time with each escorted delegation - a constraint he said renders the state’s claims of access deeply misleading.
According to Sher, three months have passed since the court last instructed the state to present an updated policy, following multiple extensions, and more than a year has elapsed since the petition was filed.
International organizations and humanitarian delegations enter Gaza daily, Sher noted, “but for some reason, the line is drawn at foreign journalists.”
He argued that the policy effectively allows the state to control which journalists enter and what information emerges, leaving reporting dependent on military-approved tours rather than independent observation.
“The war is over,” Sher said, contending that there is no longer a legal, diplomatic, or professional basis for maintaining a blanket ban. He argued that the policy disproportionately violates freedom of expression under Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and deprives the Israeli and international public of independent information.
Representing the state, attorney Yonatan Nadav maintained that despite changes following the ceasefire, the security situation in Gaza remains unstable and that allowing journalists to enter independently could endanger Israeli forces operating in the area.
In open court, the state’s position was that unsupervised journalistic movement could interfere with military activity and create operational risks for troops. Nadav acknowledged that conditions have changed since the height of the fighting, but said those changes were insufficient to alter the state’s legal position.
When questioned by Justice Kabub as to how journalists differ from humanitarian workers who enter Gaza without military escort, the state reiterated that the risk assessment varies by category, arguing that journalism presents distinct challenges from a security perspective.
However, the state did not provide a detailed public explanation of how it defines “entries” into Gaza, how many journalists have entered in total, or what criteria are used to assess risk - an ambiguity that petitioners argued lies at the heart of the dispute.
Michael Sfard, appearing on behalf of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), told the court that the issue was not whether security concerns exist, but whether the policy meets the legal test of proportionality.
He argued that international precedent demonstrates that press access can be accommodated even in active conflict zones without jeopardizing military operations, and that independent reporting plays a protective role for civilians.
Representing Israeli journalists, Amir Basha from the Union of Journalists said the restrictions have left the Israeli public without independent Israeli reporting from Gaza for nearly two decades.
“Since 2005, Gaza has been covered through three sources only,” he said: the IDF, journalists approved by the IDF, and foreign reporting that Israeli journalists cannot independently verify.
In a statement posted to X on Monday, the union said the time had come to allow journalists to enter Gaza independently, warning that continued restrictions undermine both press freedom and the public’s right to know.
“For more than a year, entry of journalists into Gaza has not been permitted without military escort, without authorization, and without any public timeline,” said the union, adding that since the outbreak of the war, “journalists are capable and prepared to enter Gaza independently.”
The union said journalists from around the world are closely monitoring developments and are committed to reporting accurately on events in Gaza, stressing that Israeli society and the international community alike “deserve precise, direct information about what is happening in Gaza.”
It added that foreign journalists could help report on conditions on the ground in places Israeli journalists are currently unable to access.
Following the public portion of the hearing, the court moved to a closed-door session, during which state representatives presented classified security material in support of their position.
Deputy President Sohlberg said the court would issue a decision at a later date.
The hearing comes amid broader regional developments, including discussions around potential changes to border access into Gaza, though no formal linkage between those developments and press access policy was addressed in open court.