Since Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in 1967, the management of archaeological and historical sites that preserve Palestinian culture, narrative, collective memory, and history has become a critical issue. Many of these sites are located within the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) and hold immense importance for Palestinian communities. Consequently, their management has expanded beyond issues of conservation and tourism to encompass land use, access, governance, and the rights of the population in the occupied territories to self-determination and sovereignty. Israel has long sought to use these sites of exclusive territorial control and national identity and narrative building. The very historic sites in Palestine have been weaponized against Palestinians through reinforcing exclusive ancient Jewish history claims and eliminating any Palestinian historic and religious layers. These sites in the oPt have been “integrated” as part of Israel’s tourism and settlement frameworks, without any Palestinian participation or agency over them, in violation of multiple international legal frameworks.
These violations have gained particular significance in light of recent actions affecting archaeological sites and their surrounding lands, including developments at Jabal al-Fureidis (Mount Herodium), which highlight the use of heritage management as a tool of annexation.
Jabal al-Fureidis at the Center of Consolidating Annexation and an Exclusive Jewish-Israeli Narrative
Jabal al-Fureidis (Herodium) is a prominent archaeological and historical landmark located south of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank. It is six kilometers away from Bethlehem. It was founded by Herod the Great (72-4 BC) at the end of the first century BC. Renowned for its historical significance and cultural value, it represents a vital part of the region’s heritage and collective memory. For Palestinians, the mountain reflects a continuous historical timeline from the Roman, Byzantine to the Islamic Periods, and a land shaped by long-standing generational agricultural presence. Historically, this site has been a symbol of heritage and a tourist destination since the Ottoman era, through the British Mandate, Jordanian guardianship, and now under Israeli occupation. It holds the memory of the palestinian farmers and bedouin tribes who have cultivated these lands for centuries. For Palestinian Christians, the site is tied to Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion in Palestine.
More recently, Israel has further entrenched its control over the site of Jabal al- Fureidis; On June 3 2026, the Civil Administration of the Israeli occupation began seizing approximately 320 dunams of land surrounding Jabal al-Fureidis, claiming that the seizure is intended to “preserve and protect heritage and archaeological sites.” Prior to the seizure the area surrounding the mountain was subject to documented patterns of Israeli administrative measures that consolidate its territorial control over the entire area, including the “Herodion Park” project, fencing of the site, restriction on Palestinian access, and the declaration of approximately 170 dunams as “state land” under civil administration control. The justification states that centralized administrative and legal oversight is required to prevent archaeological site deterioration, regulate excavation activities, and protect archaeological resources from damage or unauthorized exploitation. Within this framework, heritage sites are portrayed as global cultural assets that require specialized supervision and organized governance to preserve their historical and scientific value. The Palestinian Archaeological Society expressed concern about this decision, describing it as part of a systematic policy aimed at controlling Palestinian cultural heritage and repurposing it to serve the settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The management of antiquities in the West Bank cannot be separated from the broader political and legal context, where administrative divisions and the Oslo Accords have become a framework used to restrict Palestinian access to archaeological sites while simultaneously expanding Israeli control over them under a legal and administrative guise.
Archaeological Sites in the Context of Settlement Expansion and Administrative Control in Bethlehem
The territorial division of the West Bank established a distinct administrative and legal framework that continues to shape governance, land management, and authority over sites. The significance of this division in the context of this research lies in its definition of the administrative and legal framework governing Jabal al-Freidus, which falls within Area C under full Israeli control. This directly impacts how the site is managed and decisions are made concerning it. Since October 7th 2023, Israeli authorities have been expanding and consolidating settlement outposts by incorporating them into official regional councils, such as allocating land near Beit Sahour to the Yitzef settlement under Military Order 783. Since the start of March 2026, new military and administrative procedures that have impacted thousands of dunams of Palestinian land and archaeological sites across the West Bank, including parts of Bethlehem, have been reported. This measure is part of a comprehensive pattern of administrative decisions and land designations within the region. The areas surrounding Jabal al-Furedis have been classified as “state land,” which reflects a gradual consolidation of control achieved through a series of legal and administrative processes. Collectively, these policies suggest a methodical approach to territorial change. These actions are connected to the development of new infrastructure, the growth of settlements, and the annexation of more land in regions under Israeli administrative control.
Legal Analysis
The legal framework regulating the protection of cultural heritage in occupied territories establishes general rules and even specific limits on the ways that the occupying power can manage archaeological sites such as Jabal al-Fureidis (Herodium). The 2024 Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful under international law. This underscores that Israel’s control over institutions and archaeological sites should not be seen as normal administration but must instead be considered within strict legal limits. In practice, Israel’s management of sites like Herodium raises legal concerns, particularly when Palestinian access is restricted or control is centralized under Israeli authorities.
The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict is key in this area. It obliges the occupying power to protect cultural sites and to refrain from using or administering them in a manner that could endanger their value or integrity. Therefore, administrative actions must be taken to preserve the site without neglecting the cultural and historical ties the local population has with it. But centralizing control or limiting Palestinian access and participation in the implementation of this protection raises legal issues. In this case, ‘protection’ can be used to control land rather than preserve heritage.
This framework is further strengthened by Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It prohibits the confiscation or destruction of any public or private property except in the case of imperative military necessity. While not direct destruction, changing land use, denying access, or incorporating archaeological sites into larger development schemes that alter regional governance can lead to legal issues.
Under the 1907 Hague Regulations, Article 55 states that the occupier is entitled to administer public property except where this is to be regarded as permanent sovereign property or to be used for long-term political or territorial gains. It is difficult to distinguish between temporary administration and actual appropriation when archaeological sites are integrated into long-term plans or when they are linked to limiting local access or expanding settlements.
According to Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, preventing people from accessing or managing their heritage may constitute a violation of their right to culture.
Overall, the problem lies not in protecting the archaeological sites themselves, but in how they are managed. If control of Jabal al-Feridus leads to restricted access or the exclusion of residents, this raises legal questions about the extent to which the occupying power respects international law.
Conclusion
The case study of Jabal al-Fureidis demonstrates that the management of archaeological sites within the occupied territories cannot be comprehended in isolation from the overarching political and legal context of the West Bank. Rather than solely focusing on the protection and preservation of cultural heritage, this management is intricately linked to mechanisms of land control and the reorganization of land use within an administrative and legal framework imposed by the occupying authority. The procedures related to the site demonstrate that justifications based on “heritage protection” and “public interest” can lead to significant changes in the geographical landscape. These changes may include restricting access for residents and reclassifying the land surrounding the site. When viewed in the context of settlement expansion in the Bethlehem area, these actions are not isolated incidents; rather, they are part of a gradual pattern of reshaping land control.
The evidence examined here suggests that the management of Jabal al-Fureidis extends beyond heritage preservation and forms part of a broader pattern of unlawful consolidation of control over occupied territory in the West Bank. While international law permits an occupying power to administer cultural property, such administration must remain temporary and serve the interests of the occupied population. “Policies that restrict Palestinian access and participation raise serious concerns” regarding compliance with international humanitarian law and cultural rights obligations. “
References: