I am writing this from an empty office. Since the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, and the ensuing Israeli military campaign in Gaza, Israel has systematically denied work visas and permits for staff of humanitarian organizations. My Palestinian and expatriate colleagues in our international organization are thus effectively barred from entering Israel and accessing occupied East Jerusalem, where our office is located. As an Israeli citizen, I do not face these barriers, but my work as an international lawyer is not risk free. With strong backwinds from a presidential order recently issued from the White House against the International Criminal Court (ICC), Israeli lawmakers are advancing a legislative proposal that would outlaw support for the Court’s work, making it a domestic crime to pursue international criminal justice.
Palestinian human rights defenders have long since faced such risks. After designating some of the most prominent Palestinian civil society organizations as “terrorist organizations” in 2021, Israeli authorities have been tightening their grip on the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly in the occupied territory, rendering advocacy for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli government policies and actions exceedingly difficult and dangerous.
While Palestinian journalists, artists, activists, human rights defenders, students, scholars, and even booksellers have been most affected, repressive measures are increasingly also targeting other actors who expose, condemn, or call for redress of violations committed by Israel and its agents against Palestinians. Another bill being pushed through the Israeli legislature seeks to impose an 80 percent tax on donations that Israeli nonprofits receive from “foreign State entities.” If passed, this bill would effectively cut off the funding that human rights NGOs in Israel depend on, essentially a “death sentence” for their work.
Foreign journalists, diplomats, and humanitarian workers also face increasing pressure from Israeli authorities. In addition to denying work visas and permits for humanitarian organizations’ staff, this has manifested, among other things, in the banning of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that has provided humanitarian and development assistance for Palestinians for decades and the denial of access for the International Committee of the Red Cross to places of detention where they are supposed to be allowed under international law to monitor conditions.
Most recently, on March 9, Israel introduced new guidelines for international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) “primarily engaged in activities with Palestinian residents for the purpose of humanitarian aid.” Under these guidelines, INGOs — including those already registered in Israel such the one where I work — must apply for registration before an inter-ministerial body headed by the director general of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism. This body has authority to grant, reject, and revoke INGO registrations and to determine whether their international staff will be issued work visas.
Potential Risk to Employees and Families
One concern about the new guidelines is that the registration process they establish requires organizations to disclose detailed information, including personal details of employees and their families who might consequently be exposed to detrimental treatment by Israeli authorities. Another concern is the broad and sweeping grounds for denying or revoking registration and work permits outlined in the guidelines.
For example, registration may be denied or revoked if an organization “including any officeholder, partner, board member, or founder, has, knowingly and publicly, within the seven years preceding the date of the registration application, called for a boycott of the State of Israel, as defined in the Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott, 5771-2011, or has committed to participating in such a boycott.” This law defines a boycott as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or body solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, an INGO could face registration denial or revocation if, for instance, a person associated with it signed a petition, say in 2019, that called for a boycott of products manufactured in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. INGOs may also face such risks simply for stating the requirements of international law as commonly understood. The registration of my own organization, the Diakonia IHL Centre in Jerusalem, for example, may be in jeopardy merely because it has outlined the obligations of States pursuant to the International Court of Justice’s findings in its Advisory Opinion of July 2024 to “abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory” and “take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Advocating for international law could also trigger other grounds for withholding registration and work visas listed in the new guidelines. For instance, a call for States that are party to the Rome Statute to respect the arrest warrants that the ICC issued against Israeli officials might be deemed as “support for legal proceedings against Israeli citizens in a foreign country or before an international tribunal,” which is listed as a disqualifying factor.
Similarly, overzealous interpretation of the guidelines may result in an INGO being denied registration on the grounds that it “actively promotes delegitimization campaigns against the State of Israel” simply because it raised concern about apparent violations of international law committed by Israel. Examples might include asserting, as did the International Court of Justice, that Israel maintains an illegal presence in the occupied territory, as well as observing, as so many actors have done, that Israel appears to have engaged in unlawful detention and ill-treatment (e.g. here, here and here), or that it may have used excessive force in military operations (e.g., here, here and here).
The new guidelines are consequently expected to have a chilling effect on INGOs’ public communication and advocacy, as they may fear that expressing concern over Israel’s compliance with international law could result in denial or revocation of registrations and work visas. The lack of transparency as to how decisions will be reached on registration and work visas further exacerbates uncertainty for INGOs, undermining their ability to plan, recruit, and secure funding.
Immense Humanitarian Need
This latest measure comes at a time of immense humanitarian need in the occupied territory. In the Gaza Strip, Israel’s military campaign has claimed more than 50,000 lives, inflicted injuries on well over 100,000 people, displaced almost all of the enclave’s millions of inhabitants, and reduced most of its infrastructure, including countless homes and crucial facilities, to ruins. In the West Bank, too, Israel has been conducting devastating military operations in which hundreds have been killed, many thousands have been displaced, and massive damage has been caused. At this time, the presence of international actors is critical not only for the provision of humanitarian aid but also to safeguard against, document, and demand accountability for suspected violations of international law. Implementation of the INGO registration guidelines may itself violate international humanitarian law (IHL) by unlawfully impeding humanitarian activities on behalf of those affected by the hostilities in the Gaza Strip or by other aspects of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
While States are entitled to territorial integrity and non-interference in their internal and external affairs under international law, State parties to an armed conflict are prohibited from arbitrarily withholding consent to impartial humanitarian organizations seeking to carry out assistance or protection activities on behalf of persons protected under IHL. To the extent that such activities are aimed at improving respect for IHL, a duty not to arbitrarily withhold consent can arguably also be inferred from the fundamental obligation of States to respect and ensure respect for IHL (Article 1 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949).
Moreover, in occupied territory, the occupying power has an unqualified duty to agree to and facilitate relief schemes on behalf of the population of that territory if they are inadequately supplied (Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV)). Refusing to register an INGO that seeks to deliver impartial humanitarian services to the affected population in the occupied Palestinian territory would therefore implicate Israel’s responsibility under international law.
Implementation of the new registration guidelines may also lead to a violation of Israel’s duty to facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, equipment, and personnel (GC IV Article 23; CIHL rule 55). The vague and overly broad grounds for denying or revoking registration and work visas arguably go beyond the right of control that Israel is permitted to exercise under IHL to ensure that humanitarian organizations and their staff respect the principles of impartiality and humanity and do not pose a security risk to it. Instead, the new registration process is likely to unduly interfere with the ability of INGOs to comply with the principles of humanity and impartiality and thus incentivize self-censorship and avoidance of protection activities that Israel might deem grounds for refusal.
In addition to depriving those affected by the hostilities and the occupation of critically needed assistance and protection, the steady shrinking of the right and authority to provide humanitarian aid in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, as exemplified by the new INGO registration guidelines, diminishes the visibility of international law violations and seriously impedes accountability.