Foreign journalists still cannot enter Gaza without military escort, Israel tells High Court

The state has told the High Court of Justice that journalists should still be barred from entering Gaza without military escort, citing continuing security risks in response to the Foreign Press Association’s renewed push for independent access.

The response, dated Sunday, maintains the restrictions a year after the October 2025 ceasefire agreement and more than two years after the association filed its petition.

The dispute centers on whether journalists can enter Gaza and report independently, rather than through visits organized and escorted by the IDF. The state points to escorted visits allowed at various stages of the war, while the association argues that those visits cannot substitute for reporters choosing where to go, whom to interview and what to investigate.

In its September 27 request, the association argued that conditions had changed substantially, including through arrangements allowing international aid workers to enter and move within Gaza. It said those arrangements undermined the justification for continuing to bar independent journalists' access.

The association asked the court to allow entry while the case remained pending, require the state to formally justify the restrictions, or alternatively hold an urgent hearing. It also argued that repeated delays were causing lasting harm: the opportunity to report on events as they happen cannot be recovered through access granted months later.

The state’s latest response, submitted after an instruction from Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg, says the current security assessment still does not allow journalists to enter without a military escort. It opposes the requested orders and offers to provide another classified explanation to the judges.

The proceedings have continued through several rounds of updates and extensions, including a review the state promised after the ceasefire agreement.

In its June 19, 2025 response, the state relied on the court’s January 2024 rejection of an earlier petition. That ruling found no automatic right to enter Gaza and no grounds to intervene in the restrictions under the circumstances at the time. It nevertheless left the association free to approach the authorities again, and return to court if necessary, should conditions change.

On October 9, 2025, the government approved the hostage-release framework that included the ceasefire arrangements. At a hearing two weeks later, the state said it would reconsider its policy in light of the agreement.

In its October 26 decision, the court gave the state time to complete that review and set November 23 as the deadline for an update. It also recorded the state’s intention to resume escorted journalist visits to areas up to the Yellow Line within days.

Following extensions, the state submitted its response on January 4, 2026. It acknowledged changes on the ground but maintained that continuing threats and security incidents prevented independent entry. At that time, it also cited the continued captivity of the remains of hostage Ran Gvili.

At a January 26 hearing, state representatives presented classified security information to the judges without the petitioners present. The court subsequently ordered another update by March 31, without issuing the order sought by the association requiring the state to formally justify its policy.

Following two extensions, the state filed that update on June 3, again maintaining its position. At Sohlberg’s instruction, it then provided a classified explanation on June 15, after a short extension. According to the latest state response, no further decision followed on that material.

The state now argues that allowing independent entry temporarily would effectively grant the main request in the petition before the court had reached a final ruling.

It said it could prepare another classified submission within approximately 20 days if the court requested one. An affidavit supporting its current security assessment would also be submitted in the coming days, it said.

The court’s response will determine the next steps in the case.