The High Court of Justice has postponed the joint hearing in the anti-war protest case and the Western Wall worship case from Wednesday to Friday, giving the state more time to file its response affidavits while making clear that the new schedule goes beyond what the state itself had requested.
In a decision issued Tuesday, the court said that after reviewing the state’s requests and the petitioners’ objections, it found no basis to maintain the earlier compressed timetable merely to accommodate more staff work by the respondents. At the same time, the judges said the issues raised by the two cases are broader and more complex than could reasonably be addressed on the existing schedule.
The court therefore ordered that response affidavits in both cases be filed by Thursday at 11 a.m., that principal arguments be filed later that day by 7 p.m., and that the joint hearing be held on Friday at 10 a.m.
The ruling effectively resets the procedural timetable in two closely watched petitions that have become intertwined in recent days: the challenge brought by Itamar Greenberg and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel over wartime restrictions on anti-war demonstrations, and the petition brought by Emet LeYaakov and Israel Gafner over the number of worshippers allowed at the Western Wall.
The immediate backdrop was a pair of state requests filed over the course of two days. In the first, filed Monday, the state asked to change the schedule in the protest case ahead of the hearing that had been set for Thursday and was already expected to be heard together with the Kotel case.
It said senior legal officials in the military and the attorney-general’s system were in active discussions, that various issues had been referred to senior command levels in the IDF, and that more time was needed to formulate a position for the court. The state asked to postpone its response affidavit until Tuesday at 2 p.m., to push the petitioners’ principal arguments to Thursday at 9 a.m., and to move the hearing itself to a later hour on Thursday.
The protest petitioners objected. Attorney Oded Feller, for the petitioners, argued that the request addressed only the military and the Justice Ministry and did not address the police or their enforcement policy at all.
He also argued that if the state were granted the requested extension, the petitioners would be forced to conduct necessary inquiries, prepare their principal arguments, and prepare for the hearing during the second holiday, which he said would be extremely difficult.
Court asks for extension
A day later, on Tuesday, the state returned with another request, saying that despite extensive efforts over recent days and nights, including overnight, draft responses were still circulating for comments and approvals. It added that additional time was needed because sign-off was required from the most senior officials, “including against the background of the events of the hour.”
The state asked for a short extension until Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. to file the response affidavits in both proceedings.
The court’s answer was effectively to reject the state’s piecemeal timetable while acknowledging that the broader issues now raised by the two cases warranted more time and fuller briefing. Its new schedule gives the state until Thursday morning to file, gives the parties until Thursday evening to submit principal arguments, and shifts the hearing itself to Friday morning.
The justices also signaled that this was a court-imposed reset, not an open-ended invitation for further delay. In the decision, they noted that the new deadlines go beyond what the respondents had requested, “so that no additional requests for extension will be made.”
The significance of the decision is not only procedural. By rescheduling the two cases together, the court appears to be treating them as part of a wider legal question about wartime restrictions, enforcement, and the balance between security considerations and fundamental rights.
The protest case grew out of the High Court’s dramatic weekend intervention ordering broader allowances for anti-war demonstrations, including a limit of no fewer than 600 participants at Habima Square. The Kotel case, heard Sunday, ended with a separate ruling raising the cap on worshippers at the Western Wall from 50 to 100 while also issuing a conditional order on broader policy for holy sites.
Now, the next stage appears set to focus on a wider, coordinated state position. The language in the state’s filings suggests that such a position is still being hammered out at senior levels in the legal and military systems. The court, for its part, has now given the government one more chance to present it - but on a firmer schedule of the court’s own making.