High Court Justice: Bar Anyone Who Labels Israel Apartheid State From Country

Justice Alex Stein said during a hearing on aid groups barred from Gaza and the West Bank that calling Israel an apartheid state delegitimizes it internationally and is 'part of a gradual plan to bring about the end of the State of Israel'

July 21st, 01AM July 21st, 10AM

An Israeli High Court justice said on Monday that "anyone who calls the State of Israel an apartheid state has no right to set foot in the State of Israel."

Justice Alex Stein's remarks came during a hearing on petitions submitted by international humanitarian groups banned by Israel from continuing to operate in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Their appeal came after Israel rejected a request by the groups to continue serving the Palestinian population.

Meanwhile, in a separate case, the justices ordered the removal of a medical opinion appended to a petition by human rights organizations demanding that patients from Gaza be allowed to enter Israel for medical treatment, saying it contained accusations against the Israel Defense Forces and the government.

The petitions were submitted by Save the Children, a major international organization that has operated for many years in the territories and around the world; the Italian group CESVI; and the Swedish organization Diakonia.

The three justices – Yael Willner, Ruth Ronnen and Stein – accepted the state's position that it could take into account Israel's delegitimization in deciding whether to allow their presence. They also cited statements attributed to the organizations and the connections that some of them have with Islamic Relief, which was declared an illegal organization in Israel in 2014, to justify the government's refusal to allow them to operate.

The justices recommended that the petitioners withdraw their appeal.

The Israeli ban on the groups' operations was based on a resolution adopted by the cabinet two years ago, establishing strict terms for conducting humanitarian activities in the territories. Among other things, the resolution stated that any group that promotes delegitimization of Israel would not be permitted to operate.

The court rejected an argument by attorneys Yotam Ben-Hillel, Alva Kolan and Sani Khoury that the organizations' criticisms of the state were a legitimate form of expression, that Islamic Relief is a large, well-known international organization recognized by the European Union and United Nations, and that the organizations didn't cooperate with it in Gaza and the West Bank.

"We believe that it is legitimate, the right and duty of a state, to protect itself against bodies that denounce or boycott the state," said Willner, who headed the panel of justices. "All the more so for organizations that support an organization that has been declared a terrorist organization in the State of Israel. From our perspective, this does not justify intervention."

Stein contended that remarks about Israel being an apartheid state delegitimized the country. "It is not part of a cultural debate to claim that the State of Israel is an apartheid state," he said, explaining that "the word apartheid crosses red lines. The State of Israel can be criticized for instances of violence, but the word apartheid has a very clear connotation; apartheid states should not exist .... As soon as you say that, it delegitimizes the State of Israel in the international arena. It is part of the gradual plan to bring about the end of the State of Israel."

In the hearing on Monday on the petition seeking to let Gazans enter Israel for medical care, the High Court focused on criticism of Israel and the IDF.

Justices Stein, Willner and Yechiel Meir Kasher ordered the removal of a medical opinion written by Dr. Ambereen Sleemi, a gynecologist and urogynecologist with 30 years of experience who had volunteered to work in Gaza's Nasser Hospital for six weeks.

In the opinion, Sleemi described, among other things, pregnant women she met who suffered from severe malnutrition, a shortage of medicines and medical equipment, and babies with treatable defects who could not receive the necessary care.

However, the judges focused on the criticisms she made, that she had seen women who had been shot and injured and that infant formula found in the luggage of volunteers had been discarded by the IDF.

In their decision, the judges wrote that after determining that the opinion "included incorrect and offensive statements towards the State of Israel and IDF soldiers, the petitioners agreed to remove this appendix from the petition's appendices, and this will be done."

Five humanitarian organizations appealed to the High Court last November, seeking an order for the government to resume the evacuation of patients from Gaza to hospitals in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The petitioners – Physicians for Human Rights, Gisha, Adalah, HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel – asserted that Israel had violated its obligations under Israeli and international law to protect the lives of Palestinians in Gaza who are effectively under Israeli control. This is especially the case as Israel controls all movement of patients in and out of the enclave.

"This is not a political or security decision, but a basic obligation to save human lives," the organizations said in their petition.

Attorneys for the state said evacuation to third countries was a better alternative, even though only about 10 percent of all evacuations for medical treatment outside Gaza are currently approved, compared to the situation before October 7, even while the health system in Gaza is collapsing.

The petitioners said evacuation to third countries couldn't meet current needs in the Gaza Strip.