Human Rights in Israel

Israel is a multiparty parliamentary democracy without a single formal constitution; its Knesset has enacted Basic Laws enumerating certain rights and freedoms.[1] Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty protects life, bodily integrity, dignity, property, personal liberty, privacy, and departure from Israel, and requires government authorities to respect the rights it recognizes.[7] Other legislation prohibits discrimination in employment and the provision of products and services, while judicial decisions have developed protections for equality and expression.[1][8]

The constitutional framework combines the values of a Jewish and democratic state with protections for individual rights.[9] Its operation encompasses both judicial remedies against discriminatory state action and government measures intended to reduce social and economic gaps.[3][10] Formal legal protection has coexisted with institutional and societal discrimination, making implementation, access to services, and representation important dimensions of human-rights practice.[1]

Human-rights conditions differ between citizens of Israel and Palestinians living under different governing and legal arrangements in the West Bank — known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria — and Gaza.[6] Reporting boundaries also require care: the 2023 United States human-rights report covered Israel within the 1949 Armistice Agreement lines together with East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, where Israel extended its domestic law, jurisdiction, and administration, while treating the West Bank and Gaza separately.[11] That reporting arrangement did not express a position on final-status questions, Jerusalem’s boundaries, or the borders of a future Palestinian state.[11]

The Declaration of Independence, issued in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, committed Israel to development for all inhabitants and equality of social and political rights irrespective of religion, race, or sex.[2] It also promised religious, cultural, linguistic, and educational freedoms and protection for the holy places of all religions.[2] Its appeal to Arab inhabitants called for participation in building the state through full and equal citizenship and representation in provisional and permanent institutions.[12] These were founding commitments rather than a comprehensive description of subsequent practice.[12]

The Declaration is not itself a constitution or statute, but its principles have informed judicial interpretation of Israeli law.[9] The Constituent Assembly chose a process of gradually adopting Basic Laws rather than producing a single written constitution.[9] Before 1992, human and civil rights were not codified in a Basic Law, although courts had developed protections through case law.[9]

An account in the Jewish Review of Books identifies the 1953 Kol Ha’Am case as an early turning point: after the interior minister closed a Communist Party-owned newspaper, Justice Shimon Agranat applied a modified “clear and present danger” standard to assess the restriction.[13] The essay characterizes subsequent decades as a period of judicial restraint and general deference to the government and legislature.[13] A separate Jewish Review of Books discussion of historian Nir Kedar’s account places early policy toward Arab citizens in the security context following the War of Independence, while emphasizing military government, exclusion from centers of power, and discrimination despite democratic and rule-of-law commitments.[14]

In 1992, the Knesset adopted Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, establishing a stronger constitutional foundation for rights protection.[9] The former passed on March 17, 1992, and was amended in 1994; the latter protects citizens’ and residents’ ability to engage in an occupation, profession, or trade.[7][5] Both connect their rights protections to Israel’s values as a Jewish and democratic state.[9]

The Supreme Court’s 1995 United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal ruling established a basis for invalidating later legislation that infringed protected rights without satisfying the Basic Law’s limitation requirements.[3] The eight-to-one ruling treated these requirements as binding on statutes enacted after the Basic Law took effect.[9] This development expanded constitutional rights protection and gave judicial review of legislation a central place in the legal framework.[3]

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty grounds basic rights in human worth, the sanctity of life, and human freedom, to be upheld in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.[7] Alongside protections for the person, property, and privacy, it guarantees everyone the right to leave Israel and Israeli nationals the right to enter it.[7] Its limitation clause permits infringements only under specified legal conditions, including consistency with Israel’s values, a proper purpose, and restrictions no greater than necessary.[7] The law also preserves the validity of pre-existing legislation and allows limited restrictions through emergency regulations.[7]

Equality is not expressly written into the Basic Laws as a general overriding constitutional provision.[5] Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has derived a constitutional right to equality from human dignity, and statutory protections prohibit discrimination in particular fields.[1] Israel’s 2023 national report for the Universal Periodic Review similarly identified binding Supreme Court decisions and the two 1992 rights Basic Laws as foundations of domestic protection, including constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.[10]

Judicial oversight has extended to government decisions and actions, applying legal standards that included proportionality and reasonableness, alongside review of legislation.[6] Legal supervision has also operated through the Attorney General’s office and ministry legal advisers.[6] A 2023 account of legislative review counted 22 laws struck down out of more than 4,000 enacted since 1992 and distinguished that process from reasonableness review of executive decisions.[15]

The 1992 Basic Laws marked a major change in constitutional rights protection, and Aharon Barak described the resulting judicial doctrine as a “constitutional revolution.”[3][13] In the absence of a state organ exclusively devoted to protecting and advancing human rights, the State Comptroller and Ombudsman regards itself as fulfilling that function.[16] Additional anti-discrimination mechanisms have included legal aid for certain discrimination claims and a Ministry of Justice unit coordinating the fight against racism.[17]

Arab citizens freely participate in Knesset elections as voters and candidates.[5] Arab citizens have also participated in public life as judges, journalists, professors, legislators, and government-coalition partners.[18] A Sapir Journal essay emphasizes service in the cabinet, Supreme Court, medicine, academia, and the legal profession while also describing serious discrimination and inadequate policing in Arab communities as important concerns.[19]

Arab citizens possess individual civil rights, while Arabic-language education, Arab educational arrangements, religious personal-status systems, and religious days of rest provide community-specific institutions.[5] These arrangements have not amounted to a general, binding legal recognition of the Arab population as a national minority entitled to collective national rights.[5] Demands for recognition as an indigenous national minority and for collective rights have formed part of Arab citizens’ political claims.[5]

The Law of Return gives Jews a right to immigrate and a facilitated route to citizenship; non-Jews may seek entry and naturalization under the rules applicable to them.[9] This is a preference for Jewish immigration rather than a general prohibition on non-Jewish immigration or naturalization.[9] Military-service arrangements also differentiate among citizens: the historical legal account describes compulsory service for Jewish and Druze citizens and exemptions for other citizens intended to avoid conflicts of conscience, particularly where Arab citizens have relatives in countries not at peace with Israel.[9] Some benefits have been linked to military service, creating practical disadvantages for those not serving, although non-Jewish citizens may volunteer and qualify.[9]

Women’s equality has also been enforced through judicial remedies.[3] In the Shakdiel case, the Supreme Court held that excluding Lea Shakdiel from a religious council because she was a woman violated equality principles and the Women’s Equal Rights Law of 1951; she became the first woman to serve on an Israeli religious council.[3] In a different area, the 2018 surrogacy law did not extend access to male couples, prompting protests by LGBT Israelis and supporters over surrogacy and broader family-rights grievances.[20] Protest organizers linked the measure to the absence of same-sex marriage and adoption rights, while the prime minister supported extending surrogacy to men publicly but voted against the proposed clause.[20]

The Ka’adan case established that the state could not allocate land, directly or through the Jewish Agency, on a discriminatory basis.[5] It arose after an Arab couple was refused residence in Katzir because they were Arabs.[5] Chief Justice Aharon Barak’s reasoning connected Israel’s Jewish character with equality between religions and nationalities rather than permission to discriminate.[3]

In 2006, a seven-judge High Court panel unanimously invalidated a government decision defining national education priority areas that included 500 Jewish communities but only four Arab communities.[4] The Court found discrimination and harm to equality, noting the absence of a government formula explaining the boundaries.[4] In 2019, the Supreme Court upheld NIS 40,000 compensation for an Arab couple refused an apartment by a developer building on state land.[21] Contractors marketing such housing were required to treat citizens equally regardless of nationality, religion, or race; the Court left open the separate question concerning privately owned, non-state land.[21]

The Or Commission called for government and state institutions to implement equality and address gaps between Jewish and Arab society.[5] Its priorities included land for housing and industry, representation in public bodies, educational disparities, and Bedouin poverty; recommendations included population-proportionate funding and consideration of affirmative action.[5] The commission concluded that discrimination against Arab citizens had been documented in research, court rulings, government decisions, and official reports.[5]

Historical resource disparities also appeared in litigation over religious funding: a comparison cited by Justice Cheshin placed Arab religious groups at approximately 20 percent of the population but only 2 percent of the Ministry of Religious Affairs budget.[5] Those figures concern the historical case, not current allocations.[5] More broadly, formal equality has not eliminated social, economic, and educational gaps, and affirmative-action laws have sought to reduce inequalities that courts alone cannot resolve.[3]

Historical civil-service data show increased minority recruitment alongside underrepresentation.[5] A 2014 count recorded 6,609 Arab, Druze, and Circassian employees among 73,543 state employees, or 8.9 percent; recruitment from these populations rose by 112 percent between 2007 and 2012.[5] Their share of employment rose by 18.4 percent over the five-year period discussed, while low candidacy rates remained an issue and a 10 percent representation target was set for 2015.[5]

Government figures placed Arab public servants at 13.9 percent in December 2021, compared with 10.1 percent in 2016 and 6.17 percent in 2007, and stated that women comprised 45 percent of Arab civil servants.[10] Later figures cited in 2023 placed Arab citizens at 21 percent of the population and 14.7 percent of public-sector employees, with 61.3 percent of those employees in entry-level positions.[11] Arab citizens comprised approximately 1.4 percent of employees in 70 government-owned companies.[11] A 2018 Supreme Court ruling required Arab, Druze, or Circassian membership on the Israel Lands Administration Executive Council to prevent discrimination, but no such member served at the end of 2023.[11]

In the first quarter of 2020, 39.5 percent of Arab women were employed, approximately half the overall female employment rate, and their average wage was about 65 percent of women’s overall average.[10] Government responses included employment, education, and development programs and 2022–2026 plans described with allocations of NIS 26.5 billion for socioeconomic development in Arab communities and approximately NIS 30 billion for reducing gaps and promoting integration.[10]

Particular infrastructure deficits affected Negev Bedouin communities.[11] Estimates cited in 2023 counted 268,000 Negev Bedouin citizens, including approximately 90,000 residents of 35 unrecognized villages without government services.[11] Nine of 11 recognized villages were described as having no residences connected to electricity or water infrastructure.[11] Most unrecognized villages lacked shelters or safe rooms and were outside missile-defense coverage because they were classified as open spaces.[11]

Israeli courts recognize freedom of expression as a basic constitutional right, drawing protection from the Declaration of Independence even though a Basic Law does not expressly guarantee speech.[8] Press freedom and political expression include unpopular views and criticism of government.[8] Restrictions may apply where there is near certainty of real harm to public safety or conflict with other protected interests, but the Supreme Court has interpreted restrictions narrowly and afforded political speech particularly broad protection.[8]

In 2021, the Supreme Court invalidated a COVID-19 emergency rule limiting demonstrations to less than a mile from participants’ homes, finding it disproportionate because location forms part of a demonstration’s message.[22] Nearly 11,000 related fines were canceled, while separate group-size and social-distancing requirements were upheld.[22] Independent media offered a range of views, subject to restrictions concerning incitement, boycotts, and some security-related reporting.[22]

The legal framework generally protected expression and press freedom in 2023, and government practice generally respected those protections, with exceptions especially affecting Palestinians and Arab/Palestinian citizens.[11] NGOs and Palestinian journalists reported movement restrictions, violence, arrests, intimidation, imprisonment, and security-based media closures.[11] The anti-boycott law permits tort liability for certain public boycott calls and restricts entry for visitors who actively and consistently advocate such boycotts.[11]

After the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack, authorities arrested hundreds and issued dozens of indictments involving alleged incitement, support for terrorism, and other offenses.[11] Mossawa reported more than 350 speech-related criminal investigations from October 7 to year’s end, predominantly involving Arab/Palestinian citizens, and disciplinary proceedings affecting about 130 Arab students and lecturers at 33 higher-education institutions, including suspensions or expulsions.[11] Human-rights NGOs alleged that counterterrorism laws were suppressing opposition to the Gaza war and criticism of government policy.[11]

During 2024, journalists and NGOs reported further restrictions on war criticism and expressions of sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.[23] The Union of Journalists in Israel received reports of five journalist detentions and 13 physical attacks by security forces against journalists during the year.[23] Israeli law prohibits hate speech and incitement to violence, terrorism, or discrimination on grounds including race, origin, religion, nationality, and sex.[23]

Israeli law and Supreme Court rulings protect freedom of conscience, faith, religion, and worship.[24] The legal system recognizes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith, and the Druze religion, while some religious groups lack formal recognition.[24] Religious courts regulate personal-status matters, with exclusive jurisdiction over some questions, creating difficulties for people without a recognized religious affiliation or denomination.[9]

Only marriages performed through recognized religious systems generally have domestic legal standing, subject to specified exceptions.[25] The Chief Rabbinate does not recognize some citizens who identify as Jewish, including some Reform and Conservative converts and people unable to establish Jewish matrilineage to its satisfaction.[24] This can exclude them from official Jewish marriage, divorce, and burial services.[24] Evangelical Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are among groups without official recognition, and some minorities have reported unequal access to services or benefits.[25][24]

Protection of religion includes criminal prohibitions on disturbing worship and desecrating places of worship, alongside judicial remedies.[9] Courts balance religious freedom with public order, security, property rights, and freedom of movement.[9] In one case, the Supreme Court rejected a police refusal to allow a Jewish prayer service near the Temple Mount and ordered permission subject to conditions.[9] The 1967 Protection of the Holy Places Law protects holy sites from desecration and provides for freedom of access, although adjudicating access and protection differs from determining substantive worship rights.[9]

Authorities maintained controlled access to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, sometimes imposing restrictions based on security, religion, gender, or age.[24] Officials defended the prevailing status quo and the importance of worship, while Waqf officials and civil-society organizations criticized access limits and restrictions on Waqf administration.[24] The Supreme Court had declined to ensure Jewish group prayer on the Mount, recognizing that public-safety concerns could justify temporary access restrictions.[9]

At the main Western Wall Plaza, authorities prohibited mixed-gender services, while an egalitarian prayer platform south of the Mughrabi Bridge remained available.[24] A 2016 agreement for a permanent egalitarian plaza remained pending at the end of 2023.[24] Separate reporting on the Temple Mount recorded conflicting accounts of an April 1, 2023 fatal police shooting and police entries into al-Aqsa Mosque on April 4 and 5; cited media accounts reported approximately 56 Palestinians injured and more than 350 arrested during the latter events.[25]

Israeli civil law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and generally provides judicial review, timely access to counsel, and procedural safeguards, alongside security-related exceptions and reported failures.[22] A 2021 account distinguished extended pre-indictment detention under criminal procedure, renewable administrative detention periods of up to six months without charge, and detention under the Illegal Combatant Law with periodic judicial review.[22] Organizations challenged aspects of these arrangements and the transfer of Palestinians to Israeli facilities, while the government maintained that its practices complied with its legal obligations.[22]

Israeli citizens committing crimes in the West Bank were subject to Israeli law and civilian courts, while Palestinians were subject to military law and military courts.[11] Military administrative detention could initially last six months without charge or trial and be extended.[11] Israeli Prison Service figures counted 3,242 Palestinian administrative detainees on December 31, 2023, including 41 from East Jerusalem.[11] Military Court Watch reported a 96 percent conviction rate in cases tried in military courts.[11]

Following amendments after October 7, the Unlawful Combatants Law permitted detention without charge or trial and without access to counsel; authorities detained hundreds of Palestinians suspected of Hamas involvement or other support for terrorism during Gaza operations.[23] Reports concerning Palestinian detainees included allegations of physical and sexual violence, threats, restricted food and water, exposure to cold, and prolonged isolation.[25] The government acknowledged “exceptional measures” in some interrogations without further details, and Israeli law lacked a specific prohibition on torture.[25]

For 2024, reports identified arbitrary or unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, degrading treatment, and arbitrary detention amid the conflict following October 7.[23] Palestinian Authority and NGO accounts placed deaths of Palestinians in Israeli custody at least 43 during the year; most reported disappearances involved Palestinians taken during Gaza raids and transferred to Israeli detention facilities.[23] The government took several credible steps to identify officials responsible for abuses, with multiple trials pending at year’s end.[23]

The human-rights consequences of October 7 also included hostage-taking and abuse in Gaza.[23] Returning hostages testified to sexual abuse, deprivation of food, water, and medical care, and other physical and psychological abuse; many abducted people’s whereabouts remained unknown at the end of 2024.[23] A UN mission visiting Israel from January 29 to February 14, 2024 found reasonable grounds to believe sexual violence occurred at multiple locations in the Gaza periphery during the attacks and clear and convincing information that some hostages experienced sexual violence.[26] The mission was not an investigation and could not establish prevalence or specific attribution, calling for comprehensive investigation by competent bodies.[26]

The mission separately visited Ramallah and interviewed four recently released detainees, without seeking to verify West Bank allegations.[26] It relayed a February 2024 count of nearly 9,000 Palestinians in Israeli custody, including 3,484 administrative detainees.[26] Israeli justice and military representatives described complaint mechanisms and protocols prohibiting sexual violence and stated that no complaints of sexual violence by Israel Defense Forces members had been received.[26]

Judicial decisions on state land, education funding, women’s participation, and demonstrations illustrate the practical reach of Israel’s rights framework beyond the wording of constitutional texts.[3][22] At the same time, historical and contemporary reports identify discrimination affecting Arab and Bedouin citizens, Ethiopian and Mizrahi Jews, non-Orthodox Jews, religious minorities, women, people with disabilities, migrant workers, and asylum seekers.[11][27] The 2013 assessment also identified labor abuses affecting foreign workers and noted a state of emergency in effect since 1948, while describing general respect for speech, press, assembly, and association and government steps to prosecute abusive officials.[27]

A 2021 assessment identified credible reports of arbitrary killings and detention, interference with Palestinians’ privacy, family, and home in Jerusalem, restrictions on association and movement, violence against minorities and asylum seekers, and labor abuses affecting foreign workers and West Bank Palestinians.[22] In 2023, anti-discrimination protections in employment and services were generally enforced, but NGOs reported de facto inequalities in education, jobs, social services, personal security, and housing, and weakened enforcement after October 7.[11]

Public surveys provide historical measures of attitudes and experiences rather than judicial findings.[28][29] A 2019 Central Bureau of Statistics survey, based on home interviews with about 7,450 adults representing approximately 5.6 million people, found 27 percent reporting discrimination.[28] Rates were 53 percent among Jewish-Ethiopian respondents, 40 percent among ultra-Orthodox respondents, and 37 percent among Arab citizens, across grounds including age, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.[28]

The 2009 Israeli Democracy Index surveyed 1,191 adult Jewish and Arab citizens, with a maximum sampling error of 2.8 percentage points at 95 percent confidence.[29] It found that 53 percent of Jewish respondents supported encouraging Arab emigration and 42 percent of respondents believed Arab citizens experienced discrimination relative to Jewish citizens.[29] These findings describe that historical survey, not current public opinion.[29]

Major constitutional disputes concern rights not expressly enumerated in the Basic Laws, judicial authority, and the relationship between national identity and equal citizenship.[3] Religious freedom’s status as an unenumerated constitutional right remained unresolved in the case law surveyed by one legal study.[9] The Jewish Review of Books characterizes Aharon Barak’s broader approach to standing, justiciability, and human dignity as a contested expansion, contrasting a “constitutional revolution” with Daniel Friedmann’s description of a “legal revolution.”[13]

The 2018 Nation-State Basic Law reserves national self-determination to the Jewish people, identifies Hebrew as the state language and Arabic as having special status, and makes Jewish settlement a national value.[30] Critics objected to its omission of equality, while supporters maintained that other laws protected equal rights.[31] In July 2021, the High Court rejected 15 petitions challenging it; President Esther Hayut interpreted its provisions consistently with constitutional equality and minority cultural rights, while Justice George Karra dissented.[30] CERD recommended explicit constitutional equality and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and expressed concern about the law’s effects; Israel’s government maintained that it diminished neither other Basic Law rights nor minority rights.[17][30]

Other disputes include the 2011 Acceptance Committee Law, whose community-suitability criteria prompted warnings of concealed exclusion, and proposed 2023 changes to anti-discrimination law involving religious services.[5][32] A March 2025 judicial-selection law, effective with the next Knesset, created a nine-member committee with six political appointees and no Bar Association members; an opposition boycott, court petition, and criticism over judicial independence followed.[33]

International disputes concern treaty applicability beyond sovereign territory and allegations of apartheid.[17][34] Israel emphasizes international humanitarian law in the West Bank and Gaza conflict, whereas CERD asserts convention protections for people under effective control.[17][34] Amnesty International’s 2022 apartheid allegations were rejected by INSS authors and the ADL, which emphasized differing legal populations, security conditions, and Palestinian Authority and Hamas governance; those responses also acknowledged policy concerns, discrimination, or hardship.[18][35] These competing positions do not constitute a settled legal determination.[18][35]