by Robbert van der Bovenkamp
Introduction
At the end of February 2026, Israel imposed a ban on 37 aid organizations operating in the Gaza Strip for refusing to comply with Israel’s new registration law. In their place, Israel has approved two dozen groups that have agreed to the requirements. In the media and other platforms, there is a one-sided narrative that condemns the measures by Israel taken against humanitarian aid organizations. However, these criticisms ignore Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law, its legitimate security concerns and Israeli discretion with regard to aid organizations. This article will discuss the Israeli measures in light of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and see whether Israel retains discretion over which relief schemes to permit.
Registration law
Pursuant to Government Decision No. 2542 dated 9th December 2024, Guidelines were adopted in Israel that require humanitarian organization whose primary activities are to provide assistance to the welfare of Palestinian residents , to register themselves under the Ministry for Diaspora Affairs. This measure was introduced in order to secure legal status and work visas for foreign employees. Under this registration law, humanitarian organizations that wish to operate must, among other things, submit financial reports (bank statements, donor details), a list of equipment and a comprehensive list of staff (including ID numbers).1
Geneva Convention obligations
In the 2004 Wall opinion, the International Court of Justice specified that Israel is bound in the occupied Palestinian territories by article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This article requires that “if the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.” The provision further specifies that these schemes “may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross” and should include “consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.”2
Impartiality
An important note here, and relevant for the current assessment, is that humanitarian schemes need to be undertaken by, among others, impartial humanitarian organizations. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not specify what the term ‘impartial humanitarian organizations’ means. However, the ICRC Commentary to the article gives more insight. According to the Commentary “impartiality refers to the attitude to be adopted vis-à-vis the persons affected by the armed conflict when planning and implementing the proposed humanitarian activities”. The Commentary goes on to add that “for an organization to qualify as an ‘impartial humanitarian organization’, it does not suffice for it to claim unilaterally that it qualifies [as impartial] as such: it will need to make sure that it operates at all times in an impartial and humanitarian manner. In practice, what matters is that the Occupying Power agreeing to a given relief scheme or the High Contracting Party allowing free passage of relief consignments perceives the organization to be both impartial and humanitarian, and that the Party also trusts that it will behave accordingly.”3
This last sentence of the Commentary makes it clear that it is the Occupying Power, in this case Israel, that retains discretion in relation to the relief organizations and that it is important that it sees the relief organization as impartial and humanitarian. It is exactly this context that is lacking in most news reports and other responses on the new registration law. Those reports focus mainly on the Israeli ban of organizations that operate in Gaza, but ignore the obligations of impartiality for humanitarian organizations and the discretion of the Occupying Power as such. Moreover, what many reports ignore are the security concerns of the State of Israel.
Security concerns
A proper attention for Israel’s discretion and its legitimate security concerns can be found in the Separate Opinion of Vice-President Julia Sebutinde in the ICJ’s UNRWA Opinion in October 2025. She states that relief organizations operating in occupied territories are required to adhere strictly to the core humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence. Where an organization fails to meet these standards, Sebutinde writes, the occupying Power or party to the conflict retains the right to deny or restrict access, provided such measures are grounded in legitimate security concerns. In Sebutinde’s view, the right to impose restrictions for imperative reasons of security or military necessity is reaffirmed across multiple provisions of international humanitarian law, including Articles 62 and 63 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Articles 54 and 71 of Additional Protocol I. “These provisions recognize the balance between humanitarian access and the sovereign duty to safeguard national security.”4
Furthermore, Commentary to article 63 reads that “where the failure of a National Society [organization] to adhere to the Fundamental Principles gives rise to a situation that could be deemed to create an ‘urgent reason of security’, the Occupying Power may impose temporary and exceptional measures that limit the National Society’s activities or change its personnel or structure. Such a situation could arise, for example, if a National Society violates the prohibition of taking sides in hostilities contained in the Fundamental Principle of neutrality by supporting military operations against the Occupying Power.”5 While these principles are articulated in the context of the ICRC, they are broadly applicable to all humanitarian organizations seeking to operate in sensitive or contested environments. In light of this, Israeli security measures towards dozens of organization could and should be understood, as will be substantiated in the following section.
Credible allegations
As is pointed out in this article, within the law of occupation, humanitarian obligations must be balanced with the occupying Power’s legitimate security concerns. Israel retains the sovereign right to deny international organizations permission to operate in occupied territory, particularly where there are credible and substantiated concerns that such presence may pose a threat to its national security or sovereignty. Such concerns are well-founded, as is shown in the following examples.
In one recent report, the IDF provided evidence that an individual who worked as a physical therapist for Doctors Without Borders was also a prominent terrorist in the PIJ terrorist organization. The person in question “developed and advanced the terrorist organization’s rocket array for 15 years, and was a central figure in the terrorist organization’s knowledge of electronics and chemistry,” the report said.6
In another report, by NGO Monitor, it is concluded that based on internal Hamas documents, there is a systematic control by the terrorist group of foreign NGOs operating in Gaza.7 According to the report, “the evidence confirms that NGOs in Gaza do not operate independently or neutrally” and that “senior NGO officials were Hamas members or supporters, or employed by Hamas-affiliated authorities.”8 Moreover, the report provides evidence of how Hamas inserts operatives to administrative positions within international NGOs operating in Gaza.
Moreover, in her Separate Opinion, Sebutinde also addresses this same issue in relation to UNRWA. She points to the information that was provided by Israel, in which is specified that 12 UNRWA staff members participated in the attack and atrocities of 7 October 2023 and that based on intelligence, another 30 UNRWA staff assisted or facilitated those crimes.
In the wording of Sebutinde:
“where credible allegations exist implicating UNRWA facilities, personnel or operations in activities that may pose a threat to Israel’s sovereignty or security, these concerns must be addressed through appropriate legal and institutional mechanisms….Ensuring accountability and transparency in such matters is essential not only for safeguarding national security but also for maintaining the integrity of humanitarian operations under international law.”9
This is exactly this what is done through the Israeli registration law, ensuring accountability and transparency with regard to aid workers and making sure the integrity of humanitarian operations under international law is maintained.
Conclusion
Under Article 59, the occupying Power retains discretion over which relief schemes to permit, provided that such discretion is exercised in a manner consistent with its obligation to maintain public order and security. A second safeguard built into Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is the requirement of impartiality of humanitarian aid organizations. Moreover, articles 62 and 63 provide that humanitarian access alone is not the sole aim of the Fourth Geneva Convention, but point out that there needs to be a balance with the national security of the Occupying Power. Where credible allegations exist regarding the infiltration of aid organizations by terrorist organizations, the misuse of its facilities or the involvement of its personnel in activities that threaten Israel’s sovereignty and security, the host State is entitled – and indeed obligated – to take protective measures.
This article has addressed credible allegations that humanitarian mechanisms are systematically abused by Hamas. Reports that pay attention to the Israeli registration law, often fail to acknowledge the security concerns of Israel, and also fail to address the safeguards that are built into international humanitarian law. Against the illustrated background of compromised NGO’s, there is a need for a system that ensures accountability and transparency to safeguard security interests amidst humanitarian aid in Gaza. The registration law of Israel, as a legal mechanism to safeguard Israeli security and preserve the integrity of humanitarian operations, seems to enable just that.
