The High Court of Justice on Monday gave petitioners seeking the release of 14 Gaza doctors held by Israel until July 19 to respond to the state’s request that the petition be dismissed, while declining at this stage to schedule a hearing.
Justice Ofer Grosskopf’s decision came after Physicians for Human Rights Israel and lawyers for the detainees asked the court to allow them to respond to the state’s position, and to order the state to provide a detailed medical update on Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya.
Abu Safiya, a pediatrician and director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, has been held by Israel since December 2024. His case has drawn growing international attention, including calls by UN bodies and medical professionals for his release or for independent medical access. Israel has said Abu Safiya had ties to Hamas and that Kamal Adwan Hospital was used for Hamas activity, while PHRI has argued that he and the other doctors are being held without charge despite Gaza’s severe need for medical personnel.
Gaza doctors who have been held for extended periods in Israel
The petition concerns Gaza doctors who have been held for extended periods in Israel under the Unlawful Combatants Law, as the state argued that the detention orders were issued after officials reviewed classified intelligence specific to each detainee, and that their release could harm state security.
In its position, the state asked the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the detainees are already subject to periodic individual judicial review under the law, before District Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
Grosskopf wrote Monday that, despite the state’s position, the petitioners may submit a response by Sunday. “At this stage, I do not see grounds to set the petition for a hearing,” he added.
In their Sunday filing, the petitioners rejected what they described as the state’s procedural argument that the petition should be dismissed because it named IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir as respondent - rather than an official authorized by him under the law.
The petitioners said they were not disputing the chief of staff’s ability to delegate authority, but argued that Zamir retained authority even after such delegation and that the petition should be read as directed at both him and the official authorized by him.
They also sharpened a broader legal argument at the center of the case: that periodic judicial review of each individual detainee does not replace the chief of staff’s authority and duty to consider the doctors' detention as a group.
The petitioners argued that only the chief of staff has the full picture needed to assess the implications of holding a group of doctors from Gaza during a humanitarian and medical crisis.
No legal basis for the procedural route chosen by the petitioners
The state rejected that framing, saying there was no legal basis for the procedural route chosen by the petitioners, which it said sought to create an alternative forum outside the mechanism set by law. It said the petition should be dismissed at the threshold.
The sharpest part of the petitioners’ filing concerned Abu Safiya personally.
According to the petitioners, the state received an affidavit from attorney Nasser Odeh, who visited Abu Safiya on July 2 and described him as having been beaten to the point of losing consciousness, with bruises across his body.
The petitioners said the state’s response to that claim was only that “no indication was raised as to a danger to life.” They argued that the state did not deny that violence had been used against Abu Safiya.
The state previously told the court that Abu Safiya was received at Nitzan Detention Center on June 24, was examined by medical staff upon arrival and several times afterward as needed, and remains under regular medical follow-up. It said that “at no stage” was there an indication that his life was in danger.
But the petitioners said the state had not provided any medical report, file, or documentation of those examinations. They also argued that the very need for several medical checks in a short period pointed to a medical issue requiring further explanation.
They said a July 6 request for Abu Safiya’s medical file had not been answered, after an earlier July 5 request was rejected over an allegedly missing document. Ordinarily, they said, such medical files are transferred within 24 hours.
They added that a request for another attorney visit had also gone unanswered, and that a request for a doctor to visit Abu Safiya had been submitted to the Israel Prison Service.
The petitioners asked the court to order the state to address the allegations in detail and provide a medical update, including medical documents, a medical report, and the results of the examinations carried out on Abu Safiya.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.