Yonatan Mizrachi is an Israeli archaeologist, the founder and former executive director of the Emek Shaveh organization and a research associate at the Forum for Regional Thinking. Mizrachi's research focuses on the role of archaeology in nationalism and political conflicts. Yonim2@gmail.com
On June 2, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intervened to halt the legislative progress of the Heritage Authority Law for the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The bill had been the Israel Knesset Education Committee's central focus for weeks, drawing broad support among right-wing lawmakers. Netanyahu's unusual intervention signals that his office understood what the bill's proponents may have preferred to leave unsaid: The law was not about protecting antiquities, but rather about setting a precedent for Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
The decision to begin annexation legislation with an antiquities law is not coincidental. It reflects an Israeli settler movement strategy in which archaeological sites serve as instruments for blocking Palestinian development and construction. The effort is simultaneously meant to build public legitimacy for Israeli claims over the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, constituting the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
The bill sought to establish a statutory body under the Heritage Ministry responsible for all aspects of preservation, excavation, oversight and conservation of antiquities sites in the OPT. Crucially, the proposed entity was to operate under the heritage minister's authority and not under the Civil Administration, which fully manages civilian life in Area C under the 1993 Oslo Accords framework that split the West Bank into Areas A, B and C. The Civil Administration is subordinate to the Israeli military, as the West Bank is not part of Israel. The creation of this authority would have rendered obsolete the Civil Administration Archaeology Staff Officer, the body currently responsible for all archaeological activity in Area C.
The decision to begin annexation legislation with an antiquities law is not coincidental. It reflects an Israeli settler movement strategy in which archaeological sites serve as instruments for blocking Palestinian development and construction.
- Yonatan Mizrachi
It is within these subtle but crucial shifts that the legislative effort would have left a substantial mark on Israel's occupation and its evolution. Two watershed precedents would have stemmed from the Heritage Authority Law.
First, the law would have annexed all archaeological activity in the West Bank, effectively instituting de facto annexation. Understanding the Civil Administration's role within Israel's military occupation and rule of the West Bank, placing the Heritage Authority under the direct control of a cabinet minister would have extracted the management of antiquities from that military-civilian apparatus, transferring it to an elected government ministry. Knesset legislation would establish this authority, opening the door for similar civilian bodies to handle other aspects of West Bank governance, potentially rendering the Civil Administration superfluous.
Second, extending the law's jurisdiction across the OPT would have empowered the Heritage Authority to operate in Areas A and B, which under the Oslo Accords framework are governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in full and in part, respectively. The clear intent was to nullify Oslo by stripping the PA of its governing authority over archaeological activity in those areas. In turn, the Heritage Authority could have blocked Palestinian construction in Areas A and B by claiming concern for nearby antiquities.
Both the Israeli Antiquities Authority and its Palestinian counterpart already hold such powers, but the Heritage Authority would have been an Israeli government body capable of intervening in any construction project near an archaeological site. This matters enormously: Virtually every Palestinian village and town in the West Bank sits adjacent to, or directly atop, ancient sites. The implications for Palestinian development and construction would have been profound.
Beyond the sweeping power the Heritage Authority Law would have handed settlers in controlling land and blocking Palestinian construction, the debate over the bill illustrates once again the central role of antiquities in Israel's political culture. Since the founding of the state in 1948 and preceding it, archaeological excavations have been woven into the fabric of national identity. In the 1950s and 1960s, digs at Masada, in the caves of the Bar Kokhba fighters and at biblical sites like Hazor were presented to the public as revelations of the Jewish people's ancient heritage in the "Land of Israel."
The decision to begin annexation legislation with an antiquities law is not coincidental. It reflects an Israeli settler movement strategy in which archaeological sites serve as instruments for blocking Palestinian development and construction.
- Yonatan Mizrachi
Masada is instructive: Located in the Judean Desert, the site is best known as the fortress-palace built by Herod the Great and later as the final stronghold of a major Jewish revolt against Rome. The bulk of the ruins uncovered at the site date to Herod's reign, reflecting his grandiose building projects. Yet the narrative transmitted to generations of Israelis has centered overwhelmingly on the heroism of Jewish rebels who, according to tradition, chose collective suicide rather than surrender to the advancing Romans. As a result, the story of heroic resistance has often overshadowed the site's remarkable architectural and archaeological features.
Masada demonstrates how interpretations of the past are shaped not only by historical evidence but also contemporary political and ideological agendas. In this regard, after Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 following its victory in the Six-Day War, it conducted archaeological surveys and excavations across the OPT. At Susiya, in the southern Hebron Hills, an ancient synagogue was uncovered, leading the Israeli state to expropriate the Palestinian residents living at the site.
At Tel Shiloh, between Ramallah and Nablus, excavators unearthed biblical ruins beneath and alongside remains from the Muslim, Byzantine and Roman periods, but the dominant narrative presented at the site focuses on the Tabernacle, which contains no physical evidence of Jewish heritage. Still, for the Israeli government and site management, investing millions in programming designed to assert the Jewish people's connection to the site, and thus the land, has proven paramount.
It is against this backdrop that the Heritage Authority push was conceived. Israeli settlers and the bill sponsors in the Knesset argued that a government body was needed to protect antiquities and further develop the heritage of the Jewish people. Their goals were clear: Establish a civilian governing entity, insulated from military control, with authority over decisions affecting vast tracts of the OPT to further advance Israel's seizure and development of archaeological sites in ways that emphasize a Jewish past, thereby buttressing claims to historical rights across the land at the expense of Palestinians.
In this context, Netanyahu's decision to halt the bill underscores the gap between Israeli annexation ambitions and international realities, not limited to Israel's obligations under Oslo. More than any other Israeli leader, Netanyahu has championed the settler movement and opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state. His governments have invested tens of billions of shekels and advanced unprecedented measures to deepen Israel's control over the OPT, even allowing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to advance annexation efforts by transferring some Civil Administration bylaws to his dual role in the Ministry of Defense in June 2024. Yet when confronted with the consequences of this bill, both internationally and reportedly from within the army, he went against his far-right coalition partners, likely assessing that the move would be too costly at this stage.
The settlers who placed their faith in antiquities as a political instrument are discovering that even ancient ruins cannot make the Palestinians disappear. In this sense, Israeli annexation of the OPT is not viable under any political configuration. Yet the threat persists. For now, one can only hope that Israeli leaders will emerge who reject the settler movement's ambitions and act accordingly for a sustainable political solution. Until that change arrives, the specter of annexation will return to the Knesset in one form or another.
The views and positions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DAWN.
