The High Court of Justice on Monday urged several international aid organizations to withdraw petitions challenging Israel’s refusal to register them, signaling that it saw no grounds to intervene in a policy allowing the state to consider security, boycott, and “delegitimization” concerns.
The joined proceedings were brought by Save the Children International and the Association of International Development Agencies, known as AIDA; Swedish Christian aid organization Diakonia; and Italian humanitarian organization CESVI Fondazione – ETS.
The petitions concerned the registration framework through which international humanitarian organizations receive recommendations for visas and work permits for their foreign employees – not the entry of a particular aid shipment or the operation of a specific humanitarian corridor into Gaza.
The organizations argued that denying registration severely disrupted the structure through which they had operated in Israel, east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, preventing international staff from entering through Israel, meeting local employees, and overseeing their work.
The state and the three-justice panel of Justices Yael Willner, Alex Stein, and Ruth Ronnen questioned whether nonregistration actually prevented the organizations from providing humanitarian assistance, or instead made their established operating arrangements substantially more difficult.
Ronnen told the petitioners that they needed to demonstrate harm to the populations they assist, rather than merely show that it was more convenient to maintain offices and bring employees through Israel.
Willner similarly said the court had not been shown a sufficiently severe injury that could not be addressed through other arrangements, stressing that the government was entitled to set its own registration policy unless the petitioners established a legal basis for judicial intervention.
The organizations said those alternatives were not realistic because Israel controls access through the relevant crossings and foreign workers could not simply enter the West Bank or Gaza under ordinary tourist arrangements.
The hearing then turned to the different grounds on which the state had refused to register each organization.
Case of Save the Children International
In Save the Children’s case, the state relied on public statements it characterized as delegitimizing Israel and alleged institutional and financial links with Islamic Relief Worldwide, which Israel declared an unlawful association in 2014 over alleged support for and financing of Hamas.
Save the Children denied supporting Hamas or participating in prohibited activity. Its attorney, Yotam Ben-Hillel, said there had been no cooperation with Islamic Relief concerning the organization’s operations in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank since the Israeli declaration.
The state argued that financial or institutional support elsewhere could still be considered support for an organization prohibited under Israeli law.
Ronnen distinguished between allegations of links to designated organizations and the separate ground of delegitimization.
Where an organization had a connection to Hamas or another prohibited group, the state’s argument was more straightforward, she said. Where no such connection existed, the interpretation of what constituted delegitimization left greater room for dispute.
CESVI’s petition
CESVI’s petition raised a separate procedural challenge over what the organization said were changing versions of the security allegations against it.
An initial notice issued in March said classified information indicated ties between CESVI itself and Hamas. The final refusal decision in April referred instead to concerns that Hamas-affiliated elements could exploit CESVI’s activities in Gaza.
In court, the state further alleged that a list of CESVI’s local employees included people active in terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
CESVI argued that those were materially different claims and that the employee allegation had not been presented during the administrative proceedings, leaving it unable to investigate, respond, or take remedial action.
The state disputed that account and said CESVI had been given sufficient notice of the security concerns. The disagreement was not resolved in a reasoned judgment before the organization agreed to withdraw its petition.
Diakonia’s case centered primarily on alleged boycott and delegitimization activity rather than terrorist financing.
The state relied on the organization’s advocacy concerning trade connected to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, calls for international pressure, and its legal discussion of apartheid.
Diakonia said it does not endorse the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, does not call for a boycott of Israel, and distinguishes between Israel and settlements in the West Bank.
It also said it does not claim that the State of Israel maintains an apartheid regime. Its 2024 position paper instead examines whether particular legal systems, movement restrictions, and inequalities in the Palestinian territories resemble elements of apartheid as defined under international law.
The sharpest exchange came as Diakonia attorney Sani Khoury argued that the organization’s positions amounted to legal and political criticism and did not deny Israel’s right to exist.
“Anyone who calls the State of Israel an apartheid state should not enter Israel,” Stein said.
He said the term “apartheid” went beyond ordinary criticism of Israeli conduct because of its implication that the state itself was fundamentally illegitimate.
Khoury objected to Stein’s characterization of the organizations’ work as “poison,” telling the justice that the court was required to remain neutral and warning that the state’s interpretation created a slippery slope under which opposition to government policy could be treated as opposition to Israel’s existence.
Willner said the state had a legitimate right – and duty – to defend itself against organizations that sought to boycott it, deny its legitimacy, or support an organization designated as terrorist under Israeli law.
After the judges briefly consulted, Willner said the members of the panel shared the view that the cases did not justify the court’s intervention and recommended that the organizations reconsider whether to pursue judgments dismissing their petitions.
CESVI agreed to withdraw its petition. Save the Children, AIDA, and Diakonia requested three days to state how they intended to proceed.
In a brief decision issued after the hearing, the court ordered the petitioners to respond to its recommendation by Thursday, July 23.
