Israeli High Court questions basis of petition against UNRWA restrictions

The Israeli High Court of Justice on Monday scrutinized a petition challenging legislation that restricts the operations of the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). The judges repeatedly pressed the petitioners' legal team for evidence demonstrating concrete harm to identifiable individuals, questioning whether the petition met the threshold for constitutional review.

Justice Ofer Grosskopf stated that the petition, at its current stage, did not establish harm to any particular person. He suggested the petitioners' counsel withdraw the case, noting the court was not requesting a formal response. Attorney Suhad Bishara, representing the petitioners, requested 10 days to consider the court's suggestion, leaving the petition's fate undecided.

The petition, filed by 10 Palestinian residents along with advocacy groups Adalah and Gisha, challenges two laws enacted in October 2024 and an amendment from December 2025. One law prohibits UNRWA from operating within Israeli-defined sovereign territory, while another bars Israeli authorities from engaging with the agency. The amendment further expanded enforcement powers, including utility disconnections and site-specific measures.

Petitioners argue that the UNRWA ban infringes upon the rights of Palestinians who rely on the agency for essential services like education and healthcare. They alternatively requested that the laws not be applied in the West Bank or Gaza. However, Monday's hearing focused almost exclusively on the petitioners' ability to prove practical harm resulting from the legislation.

Bishara contended that the laws had damaged the social, medical, and humanitarian safety net for vulnerable Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, affecting UNRWA's distribution of medicines and aid. She cited a petitioner from the Shuafat refugee camp who allegedly stopped receiving medication previously supplied through UNRWA. Justice Grosskopf countered that such claims could not be established from oral arguments alone and were not sufficiently updated in the amended petition.

“

Our position at this stage is that the petition does not meet the initial threshold of showing harm to any particular individual. I suggest that counsel withdraw the petition. We are not requesting a response.