An Israeli war veteran who lost his leg during the 2014 Gaza conflict has filed a negligence lawsuit against United Airlines in the United States, alleging that the carrier and its contractors failed to provide essential mobility assistance at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport and instead forced him to hop on one leg through the terminal to reach his flight. The case, lodged in a federal district court in Illinois, spotlights both the legal obligations of airlines under international aviation law and the practical realities disabled travelers face when flying to and from Israel amid the lingering backdrop of the Gaza war and a volatile regional security landscape.

Alleged Ordeal at Ben Gurion Airport

The plaintiff, identified in court filings only by the initials YK, is an Israel Defense Forces reservist who sustained catastrophic injuries during the 2014 Gaza War, known in Israel as Operation Protective Edge. His injuries, which included the loss of a leg and serious damage to his hand, spine, and other parts of his body, left him reliant on a powered mobility device for everyday movement. Now residing in Illinois, he traveled from Chicago O’Hare to Tel Aviv in November 2025 for what was intended to be a short, routine visit.

According to the complaint, the outbound journey from Chicago to Tel Aviv proceeded without incident. United Airlines staff allowed YK to use his powered wheelchair all the way to the aircraft door, and he boarded with the assistance he needed. It was only on the return leg, at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, that events allegedly took a troubling turn. Airport staff and personnel acting on behalf of United reportedly insisted that his mobility device be checked in at the counter rather than remaining with him until the gate.

The lawsuit claims that, once deprived of his chair, YK was left without any meaningful alternative assistance to navigate the terminal. Rather than providing an airport wheelchair, escort services, or other forms of support, staff allegedly told him to make his own way to the departure gate. Faced with limited options and determined to catch his flight, he says he was forced to move through the airport on his remaining leg, a process that caused him intense physical pain and, he contends, worsened his preexisting medical conditions.

In written pleadings, YK asserts that the ordeal left him with “significant physical pain, bodily injury, and aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions” directly attributable to United’s conduct at Ben Gurion. His attorneys argue that what should have been a straightforward accommodation for a known disability instead became an avoidable and degrading experience at one of the region’s most important international hubs.

Central to the lawsuit is the Montreal Convention, the principal international treaty governing airline liability for passengers on cross-border flights. The convention, which the United States and Israel have both ratified, sets out when and how passengers can seek compensation for injuries sustained in the course of international air transportation, including while boarding, disembarking, or during related operations at foreign airports. YK’s legal team contends that the events at Ben Gurion fall squarely within the treaty’s definition of an “accident” for which the carrier can be held liable.

The complaint argues that requiring a one-legged amputee to relinquish his powered device at check-in, without arranging a safe and reasonable alternative, amounted to an “unexpected or unusual event” inconsistent with normal operations. By allegedly failing to coordinate wheelchair assistance or provide an escort to the gate, the airline and its agents are said to have breached the duty of care owed to a disabled passenger and violated obligations under both international and domestic accessibility standards.

While the precise amount of damages sought has not been publicly detailed, the lawsuit calls for compensation for physical and emotional harm, medical aggravation, and associated losses. Because the claim is rooted in the Montreal Convention, the case may also test how U.S. courts interpret the scope of “bodily injury” and “accident” in the context of disability-related service failures in a foreign airport, an issue that has periodically surfaced in aviation litigation but rarely involving such stark allegations of a passenger hopping through a terminal on one leg.

Legal observers note that the case could further refine how far an airline’s responsibilities extend when its customers depend on specialized mobility equipment. Although the convention was drafted long before battery-powered wheelchairs and complex assistive devices became commonplace, recent disputes have increasingly involved their handling and the consequences when they are separated from their owners at crucial moments in the journey.

United Airlines, Accessibility, and Past Scrutiny

United Airlines, headquartered in Chicago, has not publicly commented in detail on the specific accusations in YK’s lawsuit, citing the standard practice of declining to discuss ongoing litigation. However, the carrier, like many major airlines, has faced mounting scrutiny in recent years over its treatment of passengers with disabilities, particularly those reliant on customized wheelchairs and scooters that are essential to their independence.

High-profile incidents, reported by consumer advocates and disability-rights organizations, have highlighted instances where mobility devices were damaged, misplaced, or inadequately substituted, sometimes with severe consequences for passengers’ health. In one widely discussed case unrelated to the new Tel Aviv claim, a passenger’s specialized wheelchair was destroyed and she later died following complications that advocates linked to prolonged use of an ill-fitting replacement chair. That episode drew national attention to how airlines manage both the equipment and the immediate needs of disabled travelers when something goes wrong.

The new Tel Aviv lawsuit adds another layer by focusing not on damage to the mobility device, but on the alleged lack of human assistance in the critical period between check-in and boarding. For disability-rights groups, such cases underscore what they describe as systemic weaknesses in training, staffing and procedures, particularly at overseas stations where multiple contractors, rather than the airline’s own employees, may be responsible for ground services.

Advocates contend that when a carrier accepts a reservation from a known disabled passenger for an international route, it assumes a duty to ensure an unbroken chain of assistance, irrespective of which subcontractor or airport authority provides each link in that chain. If the Illinois court accepts that framing, YK’s case could have ripple effects across the industry by reinforcing that the ultimate responsibility remains with the airline whose name is on the ticket, even in complex foreign operational environments.

Ben Gurion Airport at the Crossroads of War and Travel

Ben Gurion Airport, located near Tel Aviv, has long been both a strategic asset and a symbol of normalcy for Israelis amid recurring conflict. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza, the airport’s role has taken on new significance, as international carriers weighed security concerns, fluctuating demand and political pressures in deciding whether to maintain or suspend service. United itself has repeatedly halted and then resumed flights to Tel Aviv as security conditions shifted, especially during episodes of cross-border fire involving Gaza, Iran, and other regional actors.

During the height of hostilities, foreign carriers’ withdrawals left Israel’s flag carrier El Al and a handful of smaller airlines to shoulder much of the traffic in and out of the country. Fewer seats and heightened demand pushed fares sharply higher, sparking public outcry and a series of class action and regulatory disputes over alleged wartime price gouging. As the skies gradually reopened and U.S. and European carriers phased back service, the airport became a focal point for travelers eager to reconnect with family, business and religious destinations, even as air-defense alarms and geopolitical uncertainty lingered.

Against this backdrop, the experience alleged by YK resonates beyond a single passenger’s journey. War veterans, reservists and civilians with injuries from the conflict represent a visible and growing segment of the traveling public in and out of Israel. Their presence in the check-in lines and boarding queues is a daily reminder of the toll the Gaza war has exacted. To disability advocates, any breakdown in service for such travelers at Ben Gurion is not merely a customer-service lapse but a failure to honor those directly scarred by the conflict.

For international airlines, operating in this environment has demanded a delicate balancing act. Carriers must assess security risks and commercial viability, respond to shareholder and political pressures, and still deliver consistent service to passengers with diverse needs. The lawsuit against United suggests that, from the perspective of at least one injured veteran, that balance was not achieved.

A Growing Web of Aviation Disputes Involving Israel Routes

The new negligence claim arrives amid a broader wave of litigation tied to flights serving Israel during and after the Gaza war. In recent years, United and other airlines have been sued over alleged discriminatory treatment of passengers on Israel-bound routes, disputed justifications for last-minute cancellations or diversions, and questions over whether carriers should be responsible for compensation when conflicts or missile attacks disrupt travel plans.

In one case, United faced accusations in U.S. court that a Newark to Tel Aviv flight was turned around and ultimately canceled in a manner passengers described as discriminatory toward Jewish travelers. In another dispute, the airline came under legal fire after citing a purported curfew in Tel Aviv to justify a significant delay, only for Israeli airport authorities to publicly deny that any such curfew existed at the time. Those cases, while distinct from YK’s personal injury claim, contribute to an impression among some travelers that flights to Israel occupy a uniquely fraught legal and operational space.

Israeli carriers have not been immune. El Al and other domestic airlines are defending class-action suits alleging that they exploited their near-monopoly status during periods when foreign airlines suspended service, dramatically increasing fares as Israelis scrambled to travel during wartime. Those claims, pending in Israeli courts, argue that passengers were effectively captive to a limited set of options and that price hikes during a national emergency crossed legal and ethical lines.

The combined effect of these cases is to place Israel-related air travel under intense judicial and public scrutiny, from the pricing of tickets to the safety of routes and the fair treatment of passengers on board and on the ground. The United lawsuit involving a Gaza war veteran injects yet another dimension into that scrutiny, centering on how airlines handle disability assistance when the passenger’s impairment is itself a product of the long-running conflict.

Disability Rights, Veterans, and Airline Obligations

Travelers with disabilities already face a complex patchwork of protections when their journeys cross borders. In the United States, federal regulations require airlines to provide wheelchair assistance, accommodate service animals, and handle mobility devices with care, but enforcement can be inconsistent and typically stops at the border of U.S. jurisdiction. In Europe and Israel, separate rules govern assistance at airports and on board aircraft, often implemented by third-party contractors whose training and staffing levels can vary widely.

Veterans’ groups and disability advocates argue that the international system still leaves too many gaps. Passengers may receive robust support at a U.S. departure gate, only to find themselves effectively on their own in a foreign terminal where language barriers, different procedures and dispersed accountability complicate the provision of assistance. In YK’s case, his representatives assert that United cannot simply point to local airport staff to explain away what happened at Ben Gurion, stressing that the airline sold him a through-ticket and knew of his condition.

The lawsuit also highlights how disability and war intersect in the context of travel. Injured veterans often rely on sophisticated, customized wheelchairs that are difficult to replace on short notice. The physical strain of moving without adequate support, particularly over long distances inside sprawling hubs such as Ben Gurion, can trigger severe pain, long-term complications and psychological distress. For a passenger who has already undergone multiple surgeries and rehabilitation, an incident like the one alleged in Tel Aviv can feel like a reversal of hard-won progress.

Organizations representing disabled travelers have increasingly called for global standards that would require airlines and airports to coordinate assistance more seamlessly, share responsibility more clearly, and ensure that procedures are designed around the traveler rather than administrative convenience. The outcome of YK’s case could add legal momentum to those calls if the court finds that the existing framework, as applied by United and its agents, fell short of what international and domestic law demand.

Implications for Future Travel Between the United States and Israel

As flights between North America and Israel steadily ramp back up after cycles of war-related suspensions and resumptions, the aviation corridor linking Chicago, New York and other U.S. cities to Tel Aviv is likely to remain both commercially important and politically sensitive. Business travelers, diaspora families, religious pilgrims and aid workers all rely on regular, reliable service, and many carry with them the physical and emotional marks of recent conflict.

Airlines operating these routes are under pressure from multiple directions. Shareholders and advocacy organizations monitor their decisions on whether to fly during periods of heightened tension, sometimes accusing carriers of political bias if they suspend service for security reasons or, conversely, if they resume flights sooner than some believe is prudent. Governments issue travel advisories but generally leave operational decisions to the companies themselves, creating room for disagreement over what constitutes an acceptable risk.

Within this contested space, the treatment of vulnerable passengers, including war veterans with disabilities, is emerging as a key measure of an airline’s commitment to responsible operations. A negligence verdict against United in the Tel Aviv case could spur carriers to review how they coordinate wheelchair and escort services at foreign airports, especially where multiple contractors and changing security postures complicate the picture. Even a quiet settlement might prompt internal changes if executives judge that the reputational damage from similar incidents could be significant.

For travelers, the lawsuit serves as a stark reminder to communicate their needs clearly in advance, document interactions with staff, and understand the limited but evolving legal recourse offered by the Montreal Convention and national regulations. As Israel’s skies fill again with international traffic after years of war and disruption, the question of whether airlines can meet not just the demand for seats but the duty of care to those most affected by conflict will remain at the center of debates over the future of travel between the United States and Israel.