The state on Sunday pushed back against a request to move up its next filing in the High Court case over foreign journalists’ access to Gaza, arguing that there is still no basis to require an earlier update and no justification for advancing the case to the next procedural stage.
In its response, the state said the court had originally set a March 31 deadline after a January 26 hearing, in which the justices also heard classified security material in a closed-door session.
It said that the timetable was later disrupted by the outbreak of the February 28 campaign against Iran, which then expanded to the Lebanon front, and that a substantial part of the period set aside for formulating the state’s updated position was consumed by the war effort. The court later extended the deadline to May 19.
The state argued that, contrary to the impression raised by the petitioners, the easing in the intensity of the fighting does not mean the relevant work has been completed. According to the filing, multiple state bodies are still involved in shaping the response; the process is not yet finished, and more time is still needed.
It also rejected the suggestion that what remains is merely a technical update that could be produced quickly, saying the filing requires substantive examination and coordination.
Foreign press groups challenge Gaza access restrictions
At the same time, the state said the process has continued to move forward and that if the update is ready before May 19, it will be submitted earlier, though it stopped short of committing to that. It also asked the court not to issue a conditional order, arguing that the bench had already declined to do so after the January hearing and instead chose to seek a further update after additional review.
The filing is the latest step in a petition brought by the Foreign Press Association in Israel, joined by media-rights groups, over the military’s continued refusal to allow independent foreign press entry into Gaza.
The petitioners had asked the court to move up the state’s next deadline, arguing that after repeated delays, there was no reason to wait until mid-May in a case touching directly on press freedom, independent documentation of the war, and the public’s right to know.