Israel’s High Court of Justice has ordered the state to submit its long-awaited response to a petition demanding media access to Gaza by early January, sharply criticizing the government for what it described as a pattern of stalling.
In a ruling issued Sunday, Justice Ofer Grosskopf made clear that the court would not tolerate another postponement in the case brought by the Foreign Press Association. The judge set January 4 as the final deadline for the state to present its position, rejecting a request for an additional three-week extension.
“Now the respondents [the state and the defense minister] are requesting another extension, this time of three weeks, and they [may yet] ask for more. It is not possible to agree to this,” Grosskopf wrote, adding that if the state does not comply, the court will issue a ruling without waiting further.
The petition, filed in 2024, challenges Israel’s sweeping ban on independent journalistic access to Gaza since the outbreak of the war. The state initially informed the court in June last year that it could not allow journalists into the territory due to security concerns, a position it has not formally updated since.
Grosskopf noted that the government had previously committed to submitting its response by November 23, but then sought and received two extensions that pushed the deadline to Sunday. Those delays were granted despite the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that came into effect on October 10, a development the court expected the state to address.
The FPA welcomed the court’s decision, saying, “After two years of the state’s delay tactics, we are pleased that the court’s patience has finally run out.”
“We renew our call for the State of Israel to immediately grant journalists free and unfettered access to the Gaza Strip. And should the government continue to obstruct press freedoms, we hope that the Supreme Court will recognize and uphold those freedoms,” the organization added.
Since the war began, policy set by the defense minister and the Israel Defense Forces has barred all journalists from entering Gaza independently. Israeli reporters, and a smaller number of foreign correspondents, have been permitted into the enclave only as embedded journalists accompanying IDF units.
The state has argued that allowing independent media access would endanger both soldiers and reporters, citing operational and personal security risks. Those justifications, the petition maintains, are far less compelling in light of the cessation of hostilities.
According to the FPA, the government has requested eight separate deferrals since the petition was submitted, all of which were approved by the court. A hearing was also postponed earlier this year due to the June conflict with Iran.
In its filing, the association argues that the blanket prohibition on independent reporting from Gaza “contravenes the foundational principles of the state as a democratic country, and represents a severe, unreasonable and disproportionate injury to the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and freedom of employment for journalists and the right to information.”
The petition further claims that foreign journalists have been given fewer opportunities to embed with the IDF than their Israeli counterparts, that decisions on who is allowed to enter Gaza are made largely without coordination with the FPA, and that embedded reporting is so tightly supervised that it prevents comprehensive and meaningful coverage of the war.
{Matzav.com}
Saudi Arabia has no interest at present in formalizing relations with Israel, and any such shift would require a fundamental change in Israel’s conduct, according to Prince Turki al-Faisal, the kingdom’s former intelligence chief.
In a rare interview with Israeli media published Sunday, Prince Turki told The Times of Israel that normalization is not on the table under current circumstances. “Saudi Arabia is not considering a normalization deal with Israel. Should Israel become a normal country with normal acceptance of international law, then Saudi Arabia will consider normalization,” he said.
The comments underscored how distant Riyadh remains from establishing ties with Israel, despite sustained efforts by Washington to expand the Abraham Accords framework. Although Prince Turki no longer holds office, his views are widely seen as aligned with Saudi Arabia’s official position, even if he often voices them in blunter terms.
Prince Turki headed Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Directorate from 1979 to 2001 and later served as ambassador to the United Kingdom and the United States. Since leaving public office, he has remained active in foreign policy discourse and currently chairs the King Faisal Foundation’s Center for Research and Islamic Studies.
Saudi officials typically avoid direct engagement with Israeli outlets, making the interview itself unusual. Asked to spell out Riyadh’s conditions for normalizing relations, Prince Turki rejected claims of ambiguity between Saudi references to a Palestinian state and talk of a mere “pathway” toward one.
“Realizing the two-state solution requires a serious and trusted pathway that leads to the end goal, which is a viable Palestinian state as envisioned by the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and the vision of peace presented for a final settlement of this protracted conflict in that initiative,” he said.
That initiative, endorsed by Saudi Arabia, calls for an independent Palestinian state based on pre-1967 lines and a negotiated resolution to the refugee issue — parameters long rejected by successive Israeli governments.
“Normalizing ties with Israel was conditioned by reaching that final and fair solution to the Palestinian cause,” Prince Turki continued. “Therefore, Saudi statements on a ‘pathway’ mean the need for a reliable peaceful process that leads to [that] final solution, with the understanding that such a process requires involvement of many international and regional countries, including Saudi Arabia, to engage in such a process.”
Reflecting on past diplomatic efforts, he cited the period following the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, when Saudi Arabia and other Arab states engaged in negotiations. “Alas, all went in vain. Israel was not ready to pay the price of peace. The man of peace in Israel at the time was assassinated and his partner from the Palestinian side was poisoned,” he said, referring to former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat.
Israel has denied Palestinian claims that Arafat was poisoned, and multiple international investigations have not definitively concluded that his 2004 death was caused by poisoning.
The remarks come as the Trump administration seeks to revive momentum for Saudi-Israeli normalization and hopes Riyadh will eventually join the Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020 between Israel and several Arab states.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, however, dampened expectations during a recent White House visit, saying, “We want to be part of the Abraham Accords, but we want also to be sure that [we] secure a clear path [toward a] two-state solution.”
Saudi officials have since added qualifiers to that demand, including that the process be “time-bound” and “irreversible.” Prince Turki argued that Israel’s current leadership makes such assurances implausible.
“Unfortunately, with the ruling mentality in Israel nowadays, every step toward peace is reversible and not ‘time-bound,’” he said, accusing the government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of blocking Palestinian statehood.
He pointed to Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as operations in Syria and Lebanon, and accused Israel of reversing commitments related to ceasefires and the Abraham Accords. “Israeli aggressive behavior in the region — in Gaza and the West Bank, in Syria, in Lebanon — reversing on the commitments to the ceasefire during Gaza war and reversing its verbal commitment to the Abraham Accords about not changing the status on the ground, along with the statements on Biblical Greater Israel do not call for trust in Israel,” he said.
Prince Turki added that trust would require Israel to adhere to international norms. “Gaining trust requires Israel to conduct itself according to rules and norms of international law and the resolutions of the UN Security Council and abide by them,” he said.
Asked whether rejecting normalization risks damaging relations with US President Donald Trump, Prince Turki dismissed the idea that Riyadh would bend under pressure. “Saudi Arabia bases its foreign policy on its own national interests, not according to the wishes and pressures of others,” he said.
He also denied reports that Saudi Arabia had been close to normalizing ties with Israel before Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack. “All the speculation about normalization before Oct. 7 was out of wishful thinking on the part of mostly Israeli or American pro-Israeli sources,” he said, reiterating that “there is no normalization without a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian issue that entails the two-state solution.”
Addressing claims that weakening Iran and its proxies might incentivize closer Saudi-Israeli cooperation, Prince Turki said there was no benefit in engaging with an Israel that has not accepted peaceful coexistence. “There is no strategic benefit for Saudi Arabia’s normalization with Israel that is not yet a normal country that is peaceful and lives with its neighbors according to rules and norms of natural relationships between countries,” he said.
He also rejected arguments that corruption or dysfunction within the Palestinian Authority excuses the lack of progress. “I believe Israel is responsible for the failure of the PA, since Israel is in control of all aspects of life in the Palestinian territories,” he said. “Therefore, the failure of the PA is not a justification to avoid the real issues of peace.”
Prince Turki concluded by saying that any future Israeli leader seeking peace with Saudi Arabia would need to embrace a two-state framework. “Whoever succeeds Netanyahu should accept the two-state solution. That is for the Israeli people to decide.”
{Matzav.com}
