Israel has moved to bar Doctors Without Borders, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), from operating in Gaza under an updated registration and licensing framework that requires humanitarian groups to submit documentation and staff lists for security vetting.
The policy applies across Israel, including east Jerusalem, and it comes with deadlines that turn paperwork into an operational decision: comply and continue, or refuse and leave.
The government has a clear stance. Gaza is a war zone run by Hamas, and humanitarian access can be exploited.
Oversight designed to protect security and civilians
Israel’s coordination authority, COGAT, has described the registration process as a tool to prevent Hamas from exploiting humanitarian aid, and Israeli officials have argued that oversight protects both civilians and Israeli security.
Officials have also said the organizations affected represent a small fraction of total aid activity, while aid continues through approved groups.
The Jerusalem Post defense correspondent, Yonah Jeremy Bob, reported that Israel has approved 24 NGOs to operate in Gaza under the new framework and that MSF is among several organizations that will not be authorized.
Other reports said dozens of international nonprofits were notified that their licenses would lapse on January 1, 2026, if they did not complete registration introduced in March, with an appeals process available, according to a report by the Post’s Mathilda Heller.
MSF has warned that the policy will damage healthcare delivery.
In statements carried by international wire coverage, the organization said the new rules risk preventing it from providing lifesaving medical care. It also rejected claims about staff affiliations, saying, “MSF would never knowingly employ people engaging in military activity.”
MSF representatives emphasized the scale of their work in Gaza during the war and argued that the humanitarian response cannot absorb another shock.
Israel’s government has heard these arguments for years, and Israelis have lived with the consequences for longer.
A serious state regulates access to an active combat theater. A serious state conducts vetting when the theater is governed by a terror organization that uses civilian space as a tactic.
Hamas embeds itself in hospitals, schools, and aid environments because this strategy complicates military action and fuels international pressure.
Hamas benefits from blurred responsibility inside Gaza. Hamas benefits when the world treats Gaza like a natural disaster with paperwork in the way.
Israel has facilitated aid throughout this war under fire and under scrutiny. Israel has coordinated crossings, managed inspections, and handled the diplomatic heat when shipments were delayed or categories of goods were restricted.
Israel has then been blamed when convoys were looted inside Gaza, when distribution networks collapsed, and when armed actors interfered after trucks passed the border.
Staff vetting is at the center of the dispute because it is at the center of the risk. Hamas has every incentive to penetrate aid ecosystems, whether through direct recruitment, intimidation, or quiet leverage over local hires and contractors.
Israel cannot outsource that risk. Israel’s security services cannot sign off on “trust us” while Hamas runs the territory and treats humanitarian space as part of its battlefield.
The government’s approach also sends a message to partners abroad. Israel welcomes humanitarian work that is professional, accountable, and insulated from terror exploitation.
Israel rejects humanitarian cover that enables diversion, intimidation, or infiltration. Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli captured that distinction in a public statement that said humanitarian assistance is welcome, while exploitation of humanitarian frameworks for terrorist purposes is unacceptable.
Approval should be efficient for organizations that comply. Rejection should be grounded in clear standards and documented deficiencies. Information handling should be professional and secure, especially when sensitive staff data is involved.
A process that looks arbitrary will weaken Israel’s case abroad and complicate coordination on the ground. A process that looks rigorous and predictable will strengthen it.
MSF has a powerful brand, and its absence will draw attention. Israel should meet that attention with confidence. The government is enforcing oversight in a territory ruled by a terror army, not denying Gazans access to medicine.
The war in Gaza has already taught one lesson: Hamas exploits every opening. Israel’s policy reflects that lesson and translates it into governance. Oversight of NGOs in Gaza belongs in the category of basic national security, and the decision to enforce it now fits the moment.
Israel’s responsibility includes protection for its citizens and compassion for Gaza’s civilians. The government can deliver both through a clear regulatory framework that keeps aid moving and keeps Hamas from turning humanitarian access into an operational advantage.
That is what this step represents, and it is about time.