Israel’s High Court has temporarily suspended a government rule that threatened to bar dozens of international aid organisations from operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, days before a 1 March compliance deadline. The injunction follows a petition by 17 NGOs and came amid warnings that forcing 37 groups to stop work would cause irreparable harm to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Four months into a fragile ceasefire, more than two million people in Gaza remain heavily dependent on humanitarian assistance for food, medical care and water. Judge Dafna Barak-Erez said the dispute raised real legal questions that require time to resolve, postponing an immediate cut to aid operations.
Key takeaways
- 37 named international organisations faced a 1 March deadline to renew Israeli registrations under new rules or cease operations, a move the NGOs said would halt essential services.
- A group of 17 NGOs jointly petitioned Israel’s High Court to suspend the new licensing requirements, arguing the measures conflict with obligations under international humanitarian law.
- Israel’s Diaspora Ministry reported it has been contacted by 117 NGOs since the rules were introduced; 27 applications were approved and 11 rejected, with others under review.
- The government says the rules require full disclosure of staff, funding and structures to prevent ties to armed groups; NGOs counter these demands breach privacy laws and humanitarian principles.
- MSF reported at least 15 staff killed in the conflict; Israel has alleged links between some aid workers and militant groups — claims the organisations deny and which remain contested.
- The dispute unfolded against a backdrop of rapid West Bank settlement expansion, settler violence, and sustained restrictions on aid entering Gaza earlier in the war.
- An alternative, US‑ and Israeli‑backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was set up in early 2025 but ended its mission by year’s end after security incidents, illustrating the strained aid landscape.
Background
Since October 7, 2023, the war triggered profound humanitarian pressures in Gaza and heightened political tensions in Israel over security and accountability. International NGOs, UN agencies and local groups have long operated in both Gaza and the West Bank providing health care, shelter and basic services; many organisations say these established relationships and practices preserve neutrality and enable access in volatile settings. In December, Israel informed several well‑known organisations — including Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Oxfam, Save the Children, ActionAid and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) — that their registrations had expired and set new compliance requirements with a 60‑day renewal window.
The Israeli government framed the new rules as transparency and security measures, aiming to document staff lists, funding sources and operational structures to prevent cooperation with armed groups. Critics see the requirements as politically motivated and argue they would undermine the principles of independence and impartiality that guide humanitarian operations. The measures also arrived alongside domestic legislation restricting the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), adding to international concern about the future of long‑standing relief channels in the occupied territories.
Main event
In response to the December notices, 17 NGOs filed a joint petition to Israel’s High Court seeking suspension of the licensing regime. The organisations argued that Israel, as an occupying power, has legal obligations under international humanitarian law that constrain arbitrary restrictions on relief operations. The court granted an injunction while judges consider the legal arguments, delaying enforcement of the March 1 deadline for the 37 groups cited by the government.
Israel’s Diaspora Ministry and the government say the new requirements are aimed at rooting out any links between humanitarian actors and Palestinian armed groups following the Hamas‑led attacks of October 7, 2023. The ministry has publicly described its demands as transparency rules and has said 27 organisations have been approved while 11 were rejected, with the remainder under review. It also asserted that rejected groups account for a small share of humanitarian volume entering Gaza.
The NGOs have strongly rejected requests to provide exhaustive staff lists and operational details to the Israeli authorities. They cite dangers to personnel, the deaths of hundreds of aid workers in the conflict zone and legal constraints such as European data‑protection rules. MSF and others argue that handing over staff names to a party to the conflict would breach humanitarian principles and create security risks for local and international employees.
Analysis & implications
Humanitarian impact: had the ban gone into force, organisations warn that services for food, health and water would shrink rapidly. Gaza’s population of more than two million remains dependent on external assistance; the loss of some international operators could reduce capacity at clinics, field hospitals and relief distribution points and slow recovery even during a ceasefire. In the West Bank, aid programmes that support communities displaced by settlement expansion could face disruption at a sensitive moment.
Legal and precedent effects: the case will test how Israeli domestic security claims intersect with duties under international humanitarian law toward civilians in occupied territories. A ruling upholding expansive disclosure requirements could set a precedent allowing states to condition relief work on sharing sensitive personnel information, potentially reshaping operational safeguards used globally in conflict zones.
Political signalling: the dispute reinforces a broader political tilt in Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right‑wing government, which has adopted tougher measures toward international bodies and NGOs it views as critical or insufficiently supportive. International donors and partners may reassess funding channels and compliance requirements, complicating coordination and potentially prompting new, politically backed alternatives to established agencies.
Comparison & data
| Item | Number / note |
|---|---|
| NGOs named in deadline | 37 organisations |
| NGOs petitioning the court | 17 organisations |
| NGOs contacted by ministry since rules | 117 organisations |
| Applications approved / rejected | 27 approved, 11 rejected |
| Gaza population reliant on aid | More than 2,000,000 people |
| MSF staff reported killed | At least 15 |
The table above summarises the principal numerical claims cited by both the government and humanitarian organisations. While the ministry emphasises that only a small fraction of aid channels were affected by rejections, NGOs counter that even a limited loss of specialised teams or international staff can have outsized effects on medical and protection services.
Reactions & quotes
Legal context and court response: the High Court’s immediate step to delay enforcement reflects the gravity of the legal questions and the potential humanitarian consequences.
“There is a real legal dispute that requires more time to work through.”
Judge Dafna Barak‑Erez, Israeli High Court
NGO perspective: representatives emphasise rigorous internal vetting and view the measures as politically motivated rather than security driven. They stress that independent relief workers are vital eyewitnesses and service providers in areas generally closed to foreign media.
“It has nothing — zero — to do with countering terrorism.”
Jan Egeland, Secretary General, Norwegian Refugee Council (paraphrased)
Medical humanitarian perspective: MSF underscores its internal screening and the operational risks of sharing staff data with a party to a conflict.
“We would never knowingly employ anyone affiliated with any armed group.”
Will Edmond, MSF Head of Mission in Gaza (paraphrased)
Unconfirmed
- Broad allegations that MSF or other NGOs have been systematically infiltrated by militant groups remain disputed and have not been independently verified in all cited cases.
- The exact timetable for a final High Court decision is not clear at this stage; the injunction only postpones enforcement pending further hearings.
- Claims that the 11 rejected NGOs account for precisely 1% of total humanitarian aid into Gaza reflect ministry assertions; the methodology behind that percentage has not been independently detailed in available reporting.
Bottom line
The High Court’s injunction has temporarily averted what aid organisations warned would be a dramatic reduction in services to vulnerable civilians across Gaza and the West Bank. For now, the humanitarian network retains capacity to deliver food, medical care and water to millions in Gaza and to support displaced and at‑risk populations in the West Bank.
Longer term, the case will determine whether states can impose sweeping transparency and personnel‑disclosure conditions on humanitarian actors operating in occupied or contested territories. The ruling will have implications beyond Israel and Palestine, shaping how relief agencies balance the protection of staff and beneficiaries against government security demands in other conflicts.