The Supreme Court of Israel issued a ruling on Thursday concluding a lengthy case concerning claims that the state failed to comply with a previous judgment on food provisions for security prisoners.
The case followed a motion filed under the Contempt of Court Ordinance by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Gisha, which argued that the state had not fulfilled obligations set in an earlier ruling.
In the original decision from September 2025, the court held that the state must ensure security prisoners receive food meeting basic living standards under the law. It found existing conditions inadequate and required improvements.
In response, state officials, including the Minister of National Security, the Israel Prison Service commissioner, and the State Attorney, outlined steps taken to comply with the ruling. These included quarterly weight checks for all security prisoners, monitoring of underweight inmates, updating menus every three months, and establishing clearer procedures for food distribution.
They also said instructions were issued to allow “operational flexibility," enabling prison staff to provide additional food when needed based on professional judgment.
In their decision, the justices stressed that the obligation to provide adequate food applies to all security prisoners, not only those identified as underweight. They added that compliance requires both proper menu planning and actual access to food, including supplements where necessary.
However, the court found that the petitioners had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a widespread or systemic violation of the earlier ruling. It emphasized that the threshold for invoking contempt of court is high and that such proceedings are not intended to address individual complaints.
Instead, the court said that specific claims by prisoners regarding food shortages should be pursued through individual petitions, supported by concrete data such as body weight, nutritional condition, and responses to requests for additional food.
The justices also noted that classified materials were submitted by the state but determined they did not significantly affect the outcome.
The ruling concluded by underscoring that the state is obligated not only to declare compliance but to ensure these measures are effectively implemented over time.
Following the decision, Yehuda Foa, chairman of the organization Betzalemo, criticized the ruling, calling it “dangerous" and arguing it could incentivize attacks by improving prison conditions. He urged the court to prioritize public security over prisoners’ welfare.