The Associations Law

“I am among the founders of an organization that is still operating - Women against Violence – and I, we, could not have succeeded to bring up this issue of violence and to offer the services that we provide to Arab women without foreign support … simply because the state was not willing to take upon itself the basic responsibility to protect women. This is still the case and it’s even getting worse.” So said Hadash Member of Knesset Aida Touman Sliman in a heated hearing of the Constitution, Law and Justice committee, held on May 5th this year and dedicated to an alarming legislative initiative that passed a preliminary hearing in the Israeli Knesset in February 2025, and since then is in the process of being prepared for its first reading (out of three).

Under the pretext of defending Israel’s democracy and sovereignty, this initiative seeks to severely debilitate, or disable in some cases, the operation of many civil society organizations in Israel who are fighting against the Israeli occupation and apartheid, and for human rights and democracy. Thus, and as I will try to clarify below, if this initiative – a proposed amendment to the NGOs Law - is approved by the Knesset, another milestone on the road to eliminate Israel’s democratic characteristics and turn it into a full authoritarian state – will have been achieved.

The current formulation of the proposed amendment states that organizations that receive foreign donations exceeding a certain amount (that is yet to be determined), must attach to their financial report a written commitment to refrain for three years from engaging in any of a vast and diverse array of activities. Generally, and as will be presented in more details below, these include activities which certain civil servants are forbidden by the Israeli Law to engage in; activities which by Israel Law lobbyists are forbidden to engage in or need a permission from a designated Knesset committee; and activities defined by the Israeli Law as elections activities. According to the proposed amendment, NGOs who will not sign a declaration or will violate it will be obliged to pay 23%-46% tax on donations from foreign state entities. Furthermore, it is proposed that two consecutive sanctions for violating legal obligations (including the abovementioned ones) will constitute ground for dissolving an NGO.

In the context of the Association Law, donations from a “foreign state entity” are donations whose source is a foreign state, or a union or group of foreign states like EU and UN bodies. Thus, foreign state entities include local embassies, church foundations when their donations originate from funds they received from their respective states, and other state-funded organizations.  When it comes to Germany,  the term “foreign state entity” applies also to the German political Stiftungen, including the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

It is important to re-iterate that all the restrictions and sanctions presented above apply to NGOs who receive donations from foreign state entities exceeding a certain amount  and do not apply at all to organizations that receive most or all of their funding from private donors or Israeli state or public institutions.  This distinction is telling, as according to mappings of Israeli NGOs, it is the critical, progressive and left-leaning NGOs that receive donations from foreign state entities, whereas foreign funding of right-leaning NGOs comes mostly from private donors. Also, it is critical organizations like B’tselem and Breaking the Silence that are often mentioned in arguments for the proposed legislation.

Thus, this amendment stands to severely restrict the work of many and different organizations working to advance human rights, democracy, equal citizenship, marginalized communities, the rights of the Palestinian minority in Israel, and anti-occupation and peace building organizations. Looking closely at the specific activities that this proposed amendment refers to helps to clarify the detrimental blow it will inflict on the effected organizations.

It might seem reasonable and even desirable to forbid NGOs from engaging in activities such as being a member in a party’s active leadership, participating in public elections propaganda, offering benefits to Knesset members or misleading, pressuring or threatening them. However, in these cases as well as in others, whether restrictions were breached or not is open for interpretation. Where should we draw the line between, for example, legitimate criticism and harming the dignity of the Knesset or one of its members? or between legitimate pre-elections debates and illegal influence on voters? And if allowing or prohibiting these activities is debatable, when it comes to other activities referred to by the proposed amendment, their prohibition is a clear violation of democratic freedoms. Such are, for example, the prohibition to organize a public gathering of a political nature, to preside or to speak in such a gathering, or to publicly criticize government or ministries policies (e.g. in a press conference, media interview, when speaking in public events or in a book or a media article). Furthermore, up for discussion, in the framework of the legislative process of this proposed amendment, is adding to the abovementioned prohibited activities also calls for boycotting Israel, cooperating with a declared [by Israel, T.A.] terror organization or individual, activities de-legitimizing the state of Israel and negating Israel as a Jewish State.

Thus, the proposed amendment severely restricts, if not completely disables, much of the critical and advocacy activities that are core activities of the organizations that stand to be effected by it.  As mentioned above, NGOs who will not abide by it, will be obliged to pay 23%-46% tax on donations from foreign state entities. It is safe to assume that democratic states will not agree to make any donation to a civil society organization in these terms. If this amendment is approved by the Knesset, it will make it effectively impossible for NGOs to receive contributions from what has historically been one of their main sources of income - human rights and democracy-building funds and programs operated by states around the world - all of whom are allies of Israel - as well as state-funded aid organizations, including EU and UN bodies.

Advocates of the proposed amendment claim that this direct financial support of Israeli NGOs by foreign state entities constitutes indirect influence of foreign governments and state entities on the State of Israel. As such, they say, it extends beyond the bounds of a democratic framework and undermines the sovereignty and independence of the state [of Israel] where it occurs. They treat the NGOs, and this has explicitly come up in the committee’s discussions, as envoys of the foreign state donors who are advancing their donors’ agenda and interests, and not as local autonomous entities with agendas of their own. It is in this context that one can understand why are the imposed restrictions based on the ones pertaining to civil servants or lobbyists.

Looking carefully at the specifics of the proposed amendment and at statements made by its advocates, suggests that defending democracy might not be the motivation behind this legislation. If this legislation indeed seeks to prevent foreign influence on internal affairs than why does it distinguishes between private and state donations and targets only donations from foreign state entities? While it is true, as the amendment’s advocates claim, that states have diplomatic channels through which they can exert influence, it is also true that their donations to civil society organizations are under strict supervision and regulation, unlike private donations. In addition, private donors also seek to exert a political influence through donations to their preferred civil society organizations. A case in point is the Kohelet Forum that receives most of its funds from private foreign donors and advances a right-wing conservative agenda by compiling position papers and policy recommendations that inform government policies.

Interestingly, the Israel Democracy Institute searched and did not find equivalents to targeting foreign donations in other western democracies, except in the eroding democracies of Hungary and Poland. These two states apply measures to financially harm critical CSOs and restrict their activities. However, these measures are far less extreme than the proposed amendment and they do not distinguish between state and private foreign donations. In Hungary, for example, CSOs based on (private or governmental) foreign funding are obliged to declare it in their website and other activities platforms (a measure implemented also in Israel, as mentioned below). In Poland, measures mostly restrict the possibility to receive financial support (for example, according to the Polish law, governmental support is given mostly to organizations that advance Christian or Patriotic Polish values).  

In order to understand the deep meaning of the proposed amendment presented above and grasp its grave implications, one should look at broader and longer-term contexts in which it arises.

Legislative attempts that target organizations who receive more than half of their funds from foreign state entities – are not new. Proposals to tax such donations have been previously suggested, but were taken off the table, mostly due to international pressure. Under the pretext of transparency, legislations approved by the Knesset between 2008 and 2016, gradually increased reporting demands on such donations - from specific and frequent reporting to the Registrar of CSOs and up to the obligation of these CSOs to explicitly state that they are supported by foreign state entities in any public appearance (including their publications and widespread emails, when speaking in public events or when being interviewed in the media).

Another legislative way in which the Israeli regime is trying to debilitate the work of organizations and individuals that criticize Israel’s policies and practices in the OPT, is by criminalizing direct and possibly indirect assistance to the International Criminal Court. A proposed bill titled “Protection of Israeli Public Officials from the Action of the International Criminal Court in The Hague against the State of Israel” passed a preliminary hearing in the Israeli Knesset in February 2025 and is now being prepared for its first reading (out of three). This is a rather elaborated bill and in the parts of it that refer to assistance to the ICC, the formulation as to what constitutes such assistance is somewhat open to interpretation and might change during the legislation process. However, it is currently quite broad and frames such assistance as an offense punishable by up to five years imprisonment and in the case of delivering classified information – up to a life sentence.

The bill seeks to effectively make it impossible for any individual or organization in Israel to publish any material that could potentially be used against Israeli officials in the ICC. Nearly all B'Tselem’s work, for example – reporting, researching and publishing on serious violations of Palestinians’ human rights – could be considered an offense (email from B’tselem 25/2/25). Such reports or materials that criticize Israel's policy and conduct are the bread and butter of the work of many organizations in the human rights community in Israel. As Breaking the Silence explains (email 24/2/25), such assistance could even include soldiers’ testimonies they publish on their website, since these testimonies could theoretically be quoted in cases brought against Israel's leaders at the ICC. According to Prof. Itamar Mann, an expert in international law, the bill in its current formulation could also apply to research findings if they show Israeli responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity or the crime of genocide, and they reach the ICC. Such legislation, he explains, might deter students in advanced degrees to research these areas. Indeed, if this bill becomes a law, even if the final formulation will be much more limited, it is likely to have a significant chilling effect.

But legislation is one aspect of a long-term and broader campaign not only to financially debilitate but also to delegitimize and restrict pro Human-Rights and democracy and anti-occupation organizations. Right-wing politicians, civil society organizations, journalists and other actors have been using  measures like smear campaigns and pressure on venues to cancel critical progressive events for this purpose. MK Simcha Rothman, member of the Religious Zionism faction and chair of the Constitution, Law and Justice Knesset Committee, practiced what he preached. Referring to the original formulation of the amendment, that focused on taxation of donations from foreign state entities to NGOs who do not receive funds from the Israeli government, he said that the proposed taxation addresses the symptom - donations from foreign state entity - and not the disease. The disease, according to Rotman, lies in the activities of CSOs, like B’tselem and others, which should be firmly addressed by the state. Rothman used his prerogative as the committee’s chair to put forward a formulation of the amendment that is quite different from the original one and does indeed address the activities of these NGOs. The conditioning of the imposed restrictions on donations from foreign state entities is a way to target certain organizations and not others.  

The intensified efforts described above to silence criticism of the Israeli regime are directed not only towards Israeli organizations and activists but also towards international ones.

In February 2025, the Israeli Knesset approved an expansion of the criteria to bar non-citizens from entering or residing in Israel. Under this law, individuals or organizations that have, according to Israeli authorities, denied the events of October 7 or the holocaust, or have expressed support for legal accountability efforts against members of Israel’s armed forces in international courts, can be denied entry.  This legislation builds upon a 2017 amendment that barred entry to individuals or organizations advocating for boycotts against Israel.​ As an open letter by nine Palestinian CSOs in Israel, says, in practice, Israel has long used such restrictions to prevent the entry of human rights defenders, legal professionals, and civil society actors critical of its policies.

In December 2024, the Israeli government decided to establish an inter-ministerial team that will be responsible for registering international NGOs who mainly engage in assisting Palestinians and for recommending whether their foreign workers should be allowed to stay. The decision gives officials broad authority to reject the registration of INGOs, using a far-reaching set of guidelines. Among the criteria: whether an NGO or its employees have ever called for a boycott of Israel, denied its existence “as a Jewish and democratic state,” or expressed support for legal proceedings against Israeli citizens in international courts for acts carried out while serving in the military or any security agency. Aid groups say they are particularly worried about a provision requiring them to submit the names, contact details and identification numbers of Palestinian staff, as submitting this information might put these staff members at risk. Furthermore, as part of their missions, INGOs advocate for the rights and protections of civilians under international humanitarian law. But, say INGO workers, the broad new directives, which the Israeli government says do not constitute an exhaustive list, could be used to penalize groups that have been the most outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.  A press release published in May 2025 and signed by 55 organizations operating in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory calls Israel’s new registration measures a grave threat to humanitarian operations and international law. These new rules, they say, are part of a broader, long-term crackdown on humanitarian and civic space, marked by … a series of actions that restrict humanitarian access, compromise staff safety, and undermine core principles of humanitarian action. The Israeli regime is advancing the measures described above, and more, after launching a genocidal attack on Gaza and while advancing ethnic cleansing and annexation of the West Bank, through military operations and settlers’ violence as well as the implementation of fundamental changes in the structural and procedural control of the West Bank. It is in this context that one should understand the deep meaning and grave implications of the proposed amendment.

While the Israeli government implements its extreme and destructive right-wing agenda in the OPT and engages in the efforts described above to oppress any criticism or resistance to its doings, until recently opposition politicians and public opinion show either support or lack of interest. This is due, partly if not mostly, to a long-term strategic process of weakening liberal and progressive actors and building right-wing power. With the active participation of politicians, civil society organizations, research institutes and other actors, the elites in Israel changed.  In the last two decades or so, advocates of a right-wing agenda gradually took over senior positions in key institutions, like the army, the academia, the juridical system and the media, and shaped Israeli public opinion and discourse. The juridical overhaul advanced by the current Israeli government, undermining Israel’s system of checks and balances and leading Israel to an authoritarian regime - can be seen as a culmination of this process.

Several prominent civil society organizations submitted position papers expressing their opposition to the bill, including the Israel Democracy Institute, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the LGBTQ+ Coalition, Brothers in Arms, and others. The Citizens' Commission for Investigating Hamas Crimes of October 7th also expressed its opposition, explaining that its testimony archive exists thanks to support from the German Embassy in Israel. In the time of writing this, Israeli progressive actors have been engaging in intensive efforts to lobby against the amendment. These efforts seem to be bearing some fruit, as the legislative process is receiving the attention, and even the critical attention, of the media, and as opposition MKs, not only from Hadash but also from center parties like Yesh Atid, the Democrats and The National Unity faction – publicly voice their opposition.

Without underestimating the importance of these local efforts and developments, past experience shows that what succeeded to avert previous attempts to impose harmful measures on critical and progressive NGOs - was international, and specifically American and possibly German pressure on Israel. With Trump as US president, it seems unlikely that the US administration will oppose the proposed measures, or the bill that criminalizes assistance to the ICC. It remains to be seen what will the position of the EU and Germany be.

The proposed legislation discussed above might seem a minor issue in the face of the deep humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza, the grave developments in the West Bank and the continued implementation of the Juridical overhaul in Israel. However, this legislation targets, among others, exactly those civil society organizations that dedicate their efforts to demanding from Israel to fulfil its moral and legal obligations and to pressuring the international community to hold Israel accountable. Therefore, the international community should use its power to determinedly object to this detrimental and anti-democratic initiative.