An expanded panel of five High Court justices convened on Wednesday to hear a high-stakes petition asking that the government reinstate visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to Palestinian detainees held in Israeli custody.
The hearing took place before the senior three-justice bench: Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez.
The petitioners – the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, HaMoked, and Gisha – argued that Israel’s suspension of Red Cross access to Palestinian prisoners, instituted following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre, violates both Israeli law and international humanitarian norms.
Filed in February 2024, the petition contended that halting ICRC visits lacked a legal basis and breached Israel’s binding obligations under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.
It included testimonies from security wings in several detention facilities describing overcrowding, denial of medical care, and what petitioners termed “starvation.” These claims mirror those raised by Israeli and international human-rights monitors in recent months.
The ICRC has publicly confirmed that it has been denied access to Palestinian detainees since October 2023, calling the exclusion a breach of its longstanding humanitarian mandate in conflict zones.
A ruling ordering renewed access would present a pivotal test of how Israel balances wartime security imperatives with its legal and humanitarian commitments.
Red Cross poses a security risk
The government’s position is that Red Cross access poses a security risk – citing concerns about interference with prison operations and the introduction of “foreign agents” into sensitive facilities.
In June 2024, in response to the petition, the State of Israel announced plans to develop an “alternative mechanism” to replace traditional ICRC visits. The plan would assign another external entity, potentially a judicial or diplomatic body, to monitor conditions, receive complaints, and relay information.
However, in September 2024, reports, including those published by Haaretz, indicated that Israel quietly shelved a proposal to permit ICRC visits to Palestinian detainees affiliated with Fatah.
It was allegedly shelved following strong opposition from hardliners in the security and political establishments, particularly National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who arrived at the courthouse himself shortly after the Wednesday hearing began.
The petition has faced repeated procedural delays. By late 2024, the government had filed its sixth request to postpone proceedings.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office sought another one-month deferment, arguing that restoring Red Cross access or releasing related information could undermine ongoing hostage negotiations.
Human rights attorneys rejected that claim, arguing that the state’s deferrals prioritize political considerations over legal obligations. Attorney Oded Feller, ACRI’s legal adviser and the representative of the petitioners, on Wednesday called this a “rolling-along policy.”
The matter at hand was “completely separate from the issue of the hostages,” he said.
“Everyone can see the Palestinian prisoners except for the Red Cross,” said Feller, questioning the security order blocking ICRC entry.
He also referenced last week’s International Court of Justice advisory opinion, which called for Red Cross access to Palestinian detainees: “International law was not made for times of peace; it was made precisely for times of war. And in this case, it is exactly what is needed.”
During the questioning stage on the petition, Barak-Erez asked Feller, “What would be your stance on the role the hostages would play in terms of the people detained from Gaza?”
Feller replied, “Hamas is a terrorist organization. It has committed crimes against humanity. That doesn’t absolve Israel from its own obligations.”
Sohlberg pressed further, asking whether Feller opposed the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) directive preventing access.
He responded by saying that the directive was inconsistently applied – barring the Red Cross but not other groups – and therefore invalid. “Why is it only now that the security angle is cropping up?” Feller asked.
Altogether, there have been nearly 30 extension requests in this case. Barak-Erez criticized the State of Israel for its disorganization and for submitting materials at the last minute.