Supreme Court Slams Adalah Petition
The Supreme Court sharply criticized Adalah’s petition against the law to end UNRWA’s activity in Israel. The judges recommended withdrawing the petition as baseless.
The Supreme Court this morning (Monday) sharply criticized the petition by the Adalah organization against the law to terminate UNRWA's activity in Israel, which was approved by an overwhelming and exceptional majority about two years ago — despite pressure and opposition from the international community, the USA, and the UN.
During the hearing, the judges said that the Knesset is entitled to deny the organization's activity and that no evidence of human rights violations was brought. The judges called to withdraw the petition and even determined that the petition is baseless, and therefore there is no need to hear the state's position.
Coalition members arrived at the hearing, including Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Likud Knesset members Tali Gottlieb and Boaz Bismuth, and attacked the Supreme Court for the very fact of holding the hearing. "What is the meaning of 92 Knesset members?" (the number of supporters of the law - ed.), they wondered. "And we are the danger to democracy."
Gottlieb added: "Just to be clear, judges intend to discuss a petition by terror supporters against a Knesset law." Judge Ofer Grosskopf opened the hearing and said that "Basic Laws protect human rights. Where is the violation of rights? Where did the Knesset exceed its authority?".
Suhad Bishara, director of the legal department of the Adalah organization, replied that "We are talking about a population segment that is in the most difficult conditions. Both for a citizen in Jerusalem, and in the West Bank, and in Gaza. They have been receiving a social safety net from UNRWA for 70 years."
Seventy UNRWA employees were fired due to ties to Hamas: "This is a drop in the ocean." Judge Grosskopf pressed that "There is nothing in the affidavits you submitted that can establish actual harm, and if there is no evidence, then what are we supposed to discuss? There isn't even one person in the petition who says their situation is worse since the closing of UNRWA."
Bishara replied to the judge: "This is a process where the harm is cumulative. There is a petitioner from the Shuafat refugee camp. He receives free medication for chronic diseases from UNRWA, and today he does not receive it." Judge Grosskopf did not let up: "You brought affidavits of people who say 'We know the situation will be bad.' Show me where the state says the situation has worsened? I don't see any agreement by the state that there is a worsening, nor any factual claim in the petition."
The judge mentioned that there is an import of medicines from the Palestinian Authority and that in the sovereign territory of Israel, like in Shuafat, the state is responsible for providing medicines. Judge Gila Canfi-Steinitz argued that there is no legal basis that obligates the state to cooperate with a specific organization, and attorney Bishara replied that "There is harm to people here. It is impossible to disconnect after 70 years."
The judge wondered: "Why is it impossible? From the moment the state cooperates with a certain humanitarian organization, can it not stop?" The third judge on the panel, Judge Yechiel Kasher, intervened and said that "If there is no affidavit brought after the enactment of the law, there is not even an entrance ticket here in this petition. There is no beginning at all in this case. Either there is evidence here with a date, or there isn't. Direct me to the page, to the clause. There is-there is, there isn't-there isn't. Very simple. If there isn't — then there is no entrance ticket at all."
At the end of the hearing, the judges recommended that Adalah withdraw the petition against the law due to it being baseless. The judges also did not see a need to hear the position of the state and the Knesset against the petition due to its legal status.
In 2024, the Knesset approved by an overwhelming majority the "UNRWA Law," which ordered the termination of the organization's activity in the sovereign territory of the State of Israel and even prohibited the state from maintaining contact with it. The law is relevant to areas in the sovereign territory of Israel, such as the Shuafat refugee camp in Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank, but is not relevant to the Gaza Strip — except for the prohibition on creating contact which also applies to the organization there.
In the explanatory notes to the law, it was written that "UNRWA's role is to care for Palestinian refugees only — and hence there is no place for it to provide any services in the territory of the State of Israel, where there are no Palestinian refugees but residents of the state who receive services from its various institutions." It was further written that "UNRWA serves as a platform for incitement and education for hatred of Israel and harm to its Jewish residents. In the schools it operates in Jerusalem, antisemitic content is taught, and in the textbooks, terrorists who murdered children and women are glorified. UNRWA's institutions serve as 'fertile ground' for carrying out actions and incitement against the State of Israel. Thus, for example, according to a UN commission of inquiry report in 2015, after Operation 'Protective Edge', it was discovered that UNRWA's institutions in Gaza were used by terrorist organizations for storing and firing rockets at Israel."
