Adalah: Israeli High Court Hearing on UNRWA Reflects Liquidation of Palestinian Refugee Issue

The Adalah legal center said that the Israeli High Court of Justice session to consider a petition against laws targeting UNRWA's work reflects the court's adoption of government policies aimed at liquidating the refugee issue and undermining their rights. It added that the court held its session on Monday to consider the petition submitted by Adalah and Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement on behalf of dozens of refugees, challenging two laws passed by the Knesset in October 2024 and a legislative amendment passed in December 2025. It noted that the session was held about a year and seven months after the petition was filed, after repeated postponements, and that the court relied on the state's position that Israel bears responsibility for providing services in East Jerusalem, considering this a justification for ending UNRWA's work. It explained that the court ignored UNRWA's actual work in Gaza and the West Bank, and recommended withdrawing the petition.

The Adalah legal center said that the Israeli High Court of Justice session to consider a petition against laws targeting the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) reflects the court's adoption of government policies aimed at liquidating the refugee issue and undermining their rights. The center added, in a statement, that the court held its session on Monday to consider the petition submitted by Adalah and Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement on behalf of dozens of Palestinian refugees, challenging two laws passed by the Israeli Knesset in October 2024, along with a legislative amendment passed in December 2025, which target UNRWA's work. It noted that the session was held about a year and seven months after the petition was filed, after a series of repeated postponements, despite the continued implementation of the laws and the resulting violations of Palestinian refugees' rights. It mentioned that the court panel, during its deliberations, relied on the state's position that Israel bears responsibility for providing services in East Jerusalem, which it considered a justification for ending UNRWA's work and replacing it with other entities. It added that the court proceeded from this assumption "without questioning it or examining its legality," and without addressing its implications for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who depend on the agency's services. It explained that the court's deliberations focused primarily on "the state's powers" in East Jerusalem, instead of discussing what was stated in the petition regarding the violation of the fundamental rights of Palestinian refugees. In addition, the court largely ignored UNRWA's actual work in Gaza and the West Bank, despite the widespread reliance on its services amid the ongoing war on Gaza and Israeli military operations in the camps of the northern West Bank. Adalah considered that this reflects the court's adoption of the legal and political framework presented by the "state," which is based on treating the Palestinian refugee issue as a matter that can be liquidated, ignoring the individual and collective rights of refugees and the obligations incumbent on Israel under international law. It noted that the session was attended by extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, along with Knesset members Tali Gottlieb and Almog Cohen, and activists from the Israeli right, explaining that some of them tried to assault the defense team and shouted slogans inside the court corridors. It added that the court panel recommended at the end of the session withdrawing the petition, while the defense team informed the court that it would present its position on continuing deliberations within ten days. Adalah stressed that the petition proved that these laws "violate the fundamental rights of Palestinian refugees, including the right to dignity, health, education, and property, and also conflict with Israel's obligations under international law as an occupying power."