Israel’s nation-state law, explained

Israel’s Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, adopted by the Knesset in 2018, contains no clause that authorizes the State to treat Arab citizens differently and no clause that guarantees them equal treatment. On 8 July 2021 Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed 15 petitions against the law, and held that even a Basic Law may not deny the State’s core character as Jewish and democratic (HCJ 5555/18 Hasson v. Knesset).

A reader who hears that a law “legalizes discrimination” pictures a sentence that says so. The plain question is whether that sentence sits in the text itself or in the framework around it.

The text grants preference without granting permission. Clause 1(c) makes national self-determination “exclusive to the Jewish People,” and clause 7 calls Jewish settlement “a national value.” The framework explains why the question persists. The 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty also has no equality clause, the rule against Jews-only allocation of state land comes from a 2000 judgment rather than a statute, and section 10 of the 1992 law leaves every earlier statute outside its reach.

Key Findings

• The Knesset’s 2018 Nation-State Law makes national self-determination in Israel “exclusive to the Jewish People” (clause 1(c)) and calls Jewish settlement “a national value” (clause 7). Its text contains no equality clause and no clause authorizing differential treatment of citizens (Knesset, 2018).
• Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed 15 petitions against the law on 8 July 2021 and upheld it. In the same judgment it held that the Knesset is “not all powerful,” even when it enacts a Basic Law (Israeli Supreme Court, 2021).
• The Central Bureau of Statistics counted 2.157 million Arabs on the eve of Israel’s 78th Independence Day in 2026, 21.1% of a population of 10.244 million. This is the Bureau’s own preliminary reported total (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2026).
• The Knesset’s English text of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) contains the word “equal” zero times. Its section 10 preserves the validity of every law in force before it (Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022).
• In 2000 the Supreme Court held that Jewish-state values do not justify “discrimination by the State between its citizens, on the basis of religion or nationality.” It also held that allocating state land for Katzir on a Jews-only basis was not permitted (Israeli Supreme Court, 2000).

Does the Nation-State Law’s text authorize discrimination against Arab citizens?

Clause 1(c) of the Basic Law the Knesset adopted in 2018 makes the realization of national self-determination in Israel “exclusive to the Jewish People.” No clause in the text authorizes the State to treat its citizens differently, and no clause guarantees that they be treated equally.

The Knesset publishes the law in an English translation that it labels unofficial, including amendments through 1 May 2022. Every quotation below comes from that text. Four provisions carry the substance of the question.

Two absences sit beside those clauses. Both are facts about the text, not findings about how the State treats anyone. The Knesset’s 2018 text has no equality clause, and it has no individual-rights clause.

Clause 4 ranks the status of two languages. Its subsection (c) then limits that ranking by preserving the status Arabic held “in practice” on the day the law took effect. Clause 7 names a value and a direction of state action, to “encourage and promote” Jewish settlement. It specifies no instrument, budget or eligibility rule.

Clause 3, which states that “the complete and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” and clause 5 complete the law’s group-specific content. Under clause 5 the State “shall be open to Jewish immigration, and the ingathering of the exiles.”

Israel’s Supreme Court upheld the law on 8 July 2021 in HCJ 5555/18. The reasoning of that judgment, and the limit it set, appear in the last finding section below. The law’s wider text and its reception are set out in an earlier report on the Nation-State Law and claims of Jewish supremacy.

Who challenged the law as unconstitutional, and when?

Israel’s Supreme Court heard 15 petitions against the constitutionality of the Nation-State Law on 22 December 2020, sitting as the High Court of Justice under the lead caption HCJ 5555/18 Hasson v. Knesset. This is the challenge to the law in its strongest recorded form: a constitutional claim filed in Israel’s own highest court.

The panel that heard the petitions numbered 11 justices (Israeli Supreme Court, 2021). The petitions asked the Court to do something it had not done before: hold a Basic Law itself unconstitutional.

The directional point behind the challenge can be checked in the text. Clauses 1(c), 4 and 7 give the Jewish people and the Hebrew language a status that the Knesset’s 2018 text gives to no other group. The law carries no equality clause to set against them. Any reading of the law, for or against its validity, starts from that asymmetry.

Two bodies outside the court record put the concern in writing, each in its own register:

• The Israel Democracy Institute (2018). This Israeli research institute wrote to the government in 2018, while the measure was still a bill. It warned that the provisions on Arabic and on Jewish settlement could harm Arab citizens in substance as well as in symbol.
• The US Department of State (2019). In its 2019 report on international religious freedom in Israel, it recorded concerns from Arab organizations and leaders that the Jewish-settlement provision could encourage discrimination in housing and land allocation.

Both documents state an anticipated risk. The Institute’s letter predates enactment. What the State Department recorded was a concern attributed to Arab organizations and leaders, not a measured outcome.

The court record converts that concern into a legal question with a dated answer. The 15 petitions were dismissed on 8 July 2021, and the judgment set out the test any future Basic Law must meet (Israeli Supreme Court, 2021).

How many Arab citizens live under this constitutional order?

Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics counted 2.157 million Arabs on the eve of the 78th Independence Day in 2026, 21.1% of a total population of 10.244 million. This is the Bureau’s own preliminary reported total, up to date for 22 April 2026 and based on the 2022 census.

The Bureau counts population, not citizenship. The 2.157 million figure is therefore the Arab population the Bureau enumerates, not a count of citizens. The Bureau defines Arabs as Moslems, Arab Christians and Druze (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2026).

The same release reports 7.790 million Jews and Others, 76% of the 10.244 million. It also reports 296,000 foreigners, 2.9% of the total, using foreigner data for the end of 2025.

Two caveats come from the Bureau itself:

• The series changed in 2023. From 2023 onward its estimates include foreigners staying in Israel, so the series is not continuous with earlier years. A comparison between the 21.1% share and a share published before 2023 mixes two differently built series.
• The components do not reconcile exactly. The Bureau states that its total increase since the previous Independence Day does not equal the difference between the component figures.

The count gives the question its scale. The clauses quoted above define a status for the Jewish people and for Hebrew, and the Bureau’s Arab category, about one resident in five, falls outside that status.

Where does the right to equality sit in Israel’s Basic Laws?

The Knesset’s English text of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, adopted in 1992 and amended through 1 May 2022, contains the word “equal” zero times. Searches for “discrimin,” “race” and “nationality” also return no matches. The Knesset labels this translation unofficial and directs readers to the Hebrew, which governs.

The law lists six rights, and no others:

• dignity, life and body (sections 2 and 4)
• property (section 3)
• personal liberty (section 5)
• exit from and entry to Israel (section 6)
• privacy and intimacy (section 7)

The only textual route from this law to equality runs through section 1, the basic-principles clause. It states that basic rights “shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles included in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” (Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022). The clause points to the Declaration. It does not incorporate the Declaration, and it does not enact the Declaration’s equality sentence.

That sentence comes from the 1948 founding declaration. In the Knesset’s English text, the State “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its citizens irrespective of religion, race or sex.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs publishes the same sentence with “all its inhabitants” (Provisional Government of Israel, 1948). Both are translations of the Hebrew original, and neither English wording is the definitive text.

The Declaration also appeals “to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel” to take part in building the State “on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.” The Declaration is the text that names equality. The Basic Law refers to its “spirit” without adopting its words.

One consequence is a matter of dates and text, not interpretation. The 2018 law did not remove an enumerated equality right from Israel’s Basic Laws, because the Knesset’s text of the 1992 law never contained one. The gap in the written constitutional text predates the Nation-State Law by 26 years.

Where Israeli law does state an equality rule for state action, that rule was written by a court, as the next section shows.

Can Jewish-state values justify the state discriminating between citizens?

Israel’s Supreme Court held on 8 March 2000, in HCJ 6698/95 Ka’adan v. Israel Land Administration, that it did “not accept the approach that the values of the State of Israel, as a Jewish state, would justify, on the level of a general purpose, discrimination by the State between its citizens, on the basis of religion or nationality.”

The facts are set out in the judgment’s English text, published by the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project:

1. The State, through the Israel Lands Administration, allocated land in the Eron valley to the Jewish Agency.
2. The Agency, through a cooperative society, established the communal settlement of Katzir.
3. The society granted membership only to Jews.
4. The petitioners, an Arab couple, asked to build a home there.

A five-justice panel headed by President A. Barak decided the case (Israeli Supreme Court, 2000). The Court reached its holdings in several steps:

• The third-party rule (paragraph 34). “The State cannot escape its legal obligation to respect the principle of equality by using a third party that adopts a discriminatory policy. What the State cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly.”
• The declaration (paragraph 40A). The State “was not permitted, by law, to allocate state land to the Jewish Agency, for the purpose of establishing the communal settlement of Katzir on the basis of discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.”
• The compatibility finding (paragraph 31). “There is, therefore, no contradiction between the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and between the absolute equality of all of its citizens.”

The remedy was narrower than the declaration. Paragraph 40B required the State to “consider the petitioners’ request” on the principle of equality, and to decide whether it “can” enable them to build “within the framework of the law.” It did not order that they be admitted to Katzir.

Justice Y. Kedmi dissented on one point only. He would have made the ruling forward-looking. He wrote that he concurred with the President’s “fundamental approach regarding the position of the value of equality.”

Clause 7 of the Nation-State Law was enacted 18 years later. It reads: “The State views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation” (Knesset, 2018). Because Ka’adan predates clause 7, its text does not address the clause.

The record therefore holds two things side by side:

• a judge-made rule that the State may not allocate land through a body that admits only Jews
• a Basic Law clause that names Jewish settlement as a national value

What test must a law pass before it limits basic rights?

Section 8 of the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty allows its rights to be violated only “by means of a law that corresponds to the values of the State of Israel, which serves an appropriate purpose, and to an extent that does not exceed what is required,” in the Knesset’s English rendering. A violation may also rest on such a law “by force of an explicit authorization therein.”

Israeli state bodies render this clause in different English wordings. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted Israel’s 14th periodic report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2010. At paragraph 377 of that submission, they give the standard as “a statute which befits the values of the State and is intended for a proper purpose, and then only to the extent required.” This is the State’s own description in a report on its own compliance. The Hebrew is the operative text.

The phrase “the values of the State” has a stated content in the same law. Section 1a, the purpose clause, sets the law’s purpose as protecting human dignity and liberty “in order to embed the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, in a basic law” (Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022). The Ka’adan judgment cites the same clause as “s. 1” and renders it differently. Section 1 in the current text is the basic-principles clause, so the purpose clause is safest cited by name.

The structure of the text can be described without predicting any case:

• The entry point. The limitation test is where the values of the State enter the review of a statute that limits an enumerated right.
• What the 2018 law adds. The Nation-State Law places in a Basic Law of its own a statement of some of those values: self-determination “exclusive to the Jewish People” and Jewish settlement as “a national value.”
• The duty on authorities. Section 11 obliges “each and every government authority” to respect the rights in the 1992 law.

The text does not state how that weighing comes out. The only judgment in this record that reads “the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state” against equality is Ka’adan (Israeli Supreme Court, 2000). It found “no contradiction” between those values and “the absolute equality of all of its citizens.”

Which laws sit outside Basic Law review entirely?

Section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, enacted in 1992, states: “This Basic Law shall not affect the validity of any law that existed prior to the inception of the Basic Law.” No statute in force before 1992 can therefore be invalidated under the rights the law enumerates.

The Supreme Court applied the clause in HCJ 8091/14 HaMoked v. Minister of Defense, delivered 31 December 2014. The case concerned Regulation 119 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945. The English text is a Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project translation, not the Judicial Authority’s own; the Hebrew is authoritative.

Justice E. Hayut wrote that Regulation 119 “currently forms part of Israel’s positive law, and its validity is maintained by virtue of the Preservation of Laws clause under section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, even if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Basic Law” (Israeli Supreme Court, 2014).

The judgment has two halves:

• The petition failed. The Court wrote, “we cannot grant the Petition.”
• The Court set a condition. At paragraph 27 it held that proportionality “does not allow us to continue to assume forever” that the measure achieves deterrence “unless all of the data that properly confirms that hypothesis is presented to us for our review.”

The clause matters here for its reach, not for the regulation it was applied to. Section 10 does not depend on the 2018 Nation-State Law. It shields an entire class of earlier legislation, whatever that legislation says, from the 1992 law’s own rights review.

The limit on the Basic Law therefore depends on the date of a statute, not on its content. Section 9, a separate clause, exempts the security forces from the law’s limits except by statute or regulation (Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022).

A statute that distinguishes between groups and predates 1992 keeps its validity under section 10, whether or not it would pass section 8. The next section shows which such statutes exist.

Did Israeli statutes distinguish Jews from non-Jews before 2018?

Section 1 of the Law of Return, enacted in 1950, reads in the English text the Knesset publishes: “Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh.” A translator’s note defines an oleh as “a Jew immigrating, into Israel.” The Knesset marks this page neither official nor unofficial.

Amendment No. 2 of 1970 added two sections that do opposite work (Knesset, 1950, amended 1970):

• Section 4B defines the term. It reads: “For the purposes of this Law, ‘Jew’ means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”
• Section 4A extends the rights. It gives the same rights to “a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew.” It excepts “a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.”

The Supreme Court described this law in Ka’adan in 2000: “members of the Jewish nation were granted a special key to enter,” but “once a person has lawfully entered the home, he enjoys equal rights with all other household members” (Israeli Supreme Court, 2000).

A second statute governs marriage. Section 2 of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-1953 states: “Marriages and divorces of Jews shall be performed in Israel in accordance with Jewish religious law” (Knesset, 1953). That page is the text as enacted in 1953, not the consolidated law. Every operative section speaks “of Jews,” and the law legislates nothing about other communities.

Both statutes predate 1992, so section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty preserves their validity. Group-specific provisions sat in ordinary Israeli law 68 and 65 years before the 2018 Basic Law. A broader survey of such statutes appears in an earlier report on Israeli laws called Jewish supremacist.

Can a Basic Law itself be struck down in Israel?

Israel’s Supreme Court dismissed the petitions against the Nation-State Law on 8 July 2021, in HCJ 5555/18 Hasson v. Knesset, and upheld it. In the same judgment it held that the Knesset, acting as constituent authority, is “not all powerful.” Even by Basic Law, it may not deny or facially contradict the core character of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

The judgment has two halves, and they point in different directions:

• The law stands. The 15 petitions failed, and clauses 1(c), 4 and 7 remain in force as enacted (Israeli Supreme Court, 2021).
• The Court set a ceiling. The test it stated asks whether an amendment denies the core democratic identity of the State, or inflicts mortal harm on the minimal core characteristics of its identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

The threshold is narrow by its own terms. The test reaches a Basic Law that strikes at a “minimal core,” not one that the Court reads as falling short of equality in some respect. The 2018 law passed it.

The Court named the materials from which it derived that limit, which it called the “elements of the constitution” developed since the founding:

1. the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
2. the Basic Laws
3. Knesset legislation
4. Supreme Court case law

That list connects the 2021 ruling to the earlier sections of this report. The Declaration supplies the equality sentence the 1992 Basic Law refers to only by its “spirit.” The case law includes judgments such as Ka’adan, where the equality rule for state land allocation was written (Israeli Supreme Court, 2000).

The question of whether a Basic Law can be struck down therefore has an answer in the record: in principle yes, on a test the Court itself set. That test applies to the Nation-State Law and to any later Basic Law, and the 2018 law is the first in this record to have been measured against it.

Methodology and limitations

The evidence comes from three source types, ranked in that order:

• Enacted instruments. Four Knesset texts (the 2018 Nation-State Law, the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the Law of Return with its 1970 amendment, and the 1953 Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law) and the 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
• Domestic court judgments. Three judgments of Israel’s Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, dated 2000, 2014 and 2021.
• An official statistic. The Central Bureau of Statistics release for Independence Day 2026.

Two further documents record concerns rather than outcomes: a 2018 letter from the Israel Democracy Institute, a research institute, and the US Department of State’s 2019 report on religious freedom.

Translation. Every statutory quotation is English, and the Hebrew governs in each case. The Knesset marks its Basic Law translations unofficial. Its Law of Return and 1953 pages are scans of the Laws of the State of Israel series and carry no marking either way. The Ka’adan, HaMoked and Hasson judgments are read in English through the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project, not through the Judicial Authority’s own text.

Wording disputes inside the record. The Declaration’s equality sentence reads “citizens” in the Knesset text and “inhabitants” in the Foreign Ministry text. Section 8’s limitation clause appears in at least two English renderings published by Israeli state bodies. The 1992 law’s purpose clause is numbered 1a by the Knesset and cited as section 1 in Ka’adan.

Dating. The 1950 and 1953 pages are texts as originally enacted, not the consolidated law in force. The Hasson judgment is cited for its outcome and its constitutional test only; its vote division is not drawn on.

What the record does not hold. No source here measures how clause 7 has been applied to a specific land or housing decision since 2018. The statements about effect are the Institute’s and the State Department’s recorded concerns, not measurements. The population figures are the Bureau’s own preliminary estimates. Because the series changed in 2023, they do not compare directly with earlier years.

Conclusion

Does the law itself say that discrimination is permitted, or does the permission come from the framework around it? On the text, it says neither. The Knesset’s 2018 law grants preference without granting permission, and the question of what is permitted is decided in the laws and judgments that surround it.

That surrounding framework is now on the page:

• The text. A Basic Law makes self-determination “exclusive to the Jewish People” and names Jewish settlement a national value, with no equality clause beside it.
• The earlier Basic Law. The rights law of 1992 lists six rights and uses the word “equal” zero times.
• The court-made rule. The rule barring Jews-only allocation of state land was written by judges in 2000, not by legislators.
• The preserved statutes. Section 10 keeps every pre-1992 statute valid whatever it says, which includes laws on immigration and marriage that have distinguished Jews from non-Jews since 1950 and 1953.
• The ceiling. The 2021 judgment upheld the 2018 law and, in the same breath, told the Knesset that a future Basic Law could go too far.

About 2.157 million people in the Bureau’s Arab category live inside that arrangement. For them, the governing rule of equality rests on a judgment, and the governing statement of national values rests on a Basic Law.

One open question follows from that structure. When a written Basic Law and an unwritten equality rule meet on the same parcel of state land, which one does the system treat as the constitution? Israeli society, and the Court that wrote the ceiling, are the ones who must decide what that ceiling is meant to hold.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty protect freedom of speech or religion?

No. The Knesset’s English text of the 1992 law contains the phrase “freedom of” zero times, and it guarantees no freedom of expression, assembly or worship (Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022). Its listed rights are dignity, life and body, property, liberty, exit and entry, and privacy.

Can emergency regulations suspend the 1992 Basic Law?

Section 12 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty bars emergency regulations from changing or suspending the law (Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022). The same section permits regulations that deny or limit rights under it during a declared state of emergency. The bar protects the law’s text; the permission reaches the rights the text lists.

Does the 1953 marriage law cover Jews who marry abroad?

Section 2 of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-1953 governs marriages and divorces of Jews performed “in Israel” (Knesset, 1953). The 1953 text contains no provision on marriages performed abroad and no interfaith provision. That silence is a feature of the text as enacted, not a rule about foreign marriages.

Does the 1953 marriage law define who is a Jew?

No. The word “Jew” carries no definition in any of the 1953 law’s eleven sections, and the law makes no cross-reference to the Law of Return (Knesset, 1953). The definition added to the Law of Return in 1970 applies “for the purposes of this Law” only.

Does the Population Registry use the Law of Return’s definition of a Jew?

Yes. Amendment No. 2 of 1970 inserted section 3A(b) into the Population Registry Law. It gives “Jew” “the same meaning as in section 4B of the Law of Return” for any registration or document under the Registry (Knesset, 1950, amended 1970). The same amendment carries the definition from the immigration statute into the national register.

How many immigrants has Israel received since 1948?

The Central Bureau of Statistics counted over 3.5 million immigrants who arrived between the establishment of the State and 2026. About 1.68 million of them (47.8%) arrived since 1990 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2026). These are the Bureau’s own reported totals; the Law of Return itself carries no count of any kind.

Sources

• Central Bureau of Statistics, 2026. Israel’s Independence Day 2026. Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel. https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2026/117/11_26_117e.pdf. Official record.
• Israel Democracy Institute, 2018. Letter to the Israeli Government on the Nation State Bill. Israel Democracy Institute. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/24232. Research institute publication.
• Israeli Supreme Court, 2000. HCJ 6698/95 Ka’adan v. Israel Land Administration, judgment of 8 March 2000. Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project English text. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/upload/opinions/Ka’adan%20v.%20Israel%20Land%20Administration.pdf. Official record (court judgment).
• Israeli Supreme Court, 2014. HCJ 8091/14 HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual v. Minister of Defense, judgment of 31 December 2014. Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project English translation. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/hamoked-center-defense-individual-v-minister-defense. Official record (court judgment).
• Israeli Supreme Court, 2021. HCJ 5555/18 Hasson v. Knesset, judgment of 8 July 2021. Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project English coverage. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu. Official record (court judgment).
• Knesset, 1950, amended 1970. Law of Return, 5710-1950, and Law of Return (Amendment No. 2), 5730-1970. The Knesset. https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/about/history/documents/kns1_return_eng.pdf and https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/about/history/documents/kns7_return_eng.pdf. Official record (enacted legislation).
• Knesset, 1953. Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-1953. The Knesset. https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/about/history/documents/kns2_rabbiniccourts_eng.pdf. Official record (enacted legislation).
• Knesset, 1992, amendments through 2022. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 5752-1992. The Knesset, unofficial English translation. https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawLiberty.pdf. Official record (enacted legislation).
• Knesset, 2018. Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. The Knesset, unofficial English translation. https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawNationState.pdf. Official record (enacted legislation).
• Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel), 2010. Israel’s 14th periodic report, submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. gov.il. Official record (a party’s filing to a UN body).
• Provisional Government of Israel, 1948. Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Official Gazette Number 1; Knesset English text. https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/about/pages/declaration.aspx. Official record (founding instrument).
• United States Department of State, 2019. 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Israel, West Bank and Gaza. U.S. Department of State. https://2017-2021.state.gov/report/custom/b2285305d9/. Official record.