Israel was abuzz this week, and politicians strongly condemned the Supreme Court after it passed a ruling allowing International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) representatives to enter prisons and visit imprisoned terrorists.
i24NEWS legal analyst Avishai Grinzaig claimed in a post to social media that, apparently, behind the verdict is a planned move by the government. According to Grinzaig, the government intentionally refrained from deciding on the matter for years so the court would force the organization's entry, thus diverting the public fury from the political echelon to the judges.
According to the current legal status, the state must allow visits by organization representatives per the Red Cross order instated by the Prison Commission, which permits representatives of the organization to speak with prisoners and detainees who are residents of Judea and Samaria, and listen to their complaints.
Likewise, the Unlawful Combatants Regulation states that a prisoner may meet with representatives, unless the Minister of Defense prohibits it for reasons of state security for a period that does not exceed three months. In practice, the Defense Minister did not enact the prohibition between October 2023 and October 2025, and the period was extended each time retroactively without a permanent legal solution.
Grinzaig explained that the government stalled for time due to internal disagreements between National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and other ministers and the Prime Minister, and notified the Supreme Court that it intended to change the guidelines, but did not anchor it in the law.
According to the analyst, the state attended the Supreme Court hearings while it was, in fact, working in violation of the current legal status. He quoted Justice Noam Sohlberg, who wrote that for two years the authorities chose not to repeal or change the provisions within their authority.
Sohlberg wrote in his decision that the respondents chose for over two years not to repeal or change the provisions within their authority, and noted the suspicion that the government's goal was for the court to demand that it permit the visits to contend with the international pressure without the decision being in its name.
Grinzaig claimed that the result was that the Supreme Court forced the state to follow the current war, while the public criticism fell on the court and not the decision makers in the government: The government decided with a clear mind to lose the process, so that later it could blame the Supreme Court judges."
"It turns out the government was right," Grinzaig concluded, "Since look, within just minutes from the ruling, (Channel 14) political analyst (Moti) Kastel called Sohlberg a terror supporter, when there is no shadow of a doubt that he did not read the ruling."