Israeli policies that have reshaped the West Bank’s geography are producing a spatial reality that reveals a clear pattern. Palestinians face restrictions on urban expansion, while the spaces and corridors connecting their population centers are subjected to direct and tight control. Direct displacement tools such as mass military evictions or forced deportations are no longer the only means employed. Instead, a deeper strategy known as “structural confinement” has been adopted.
This strategy relies on “archipelago architecture,” defined as a spatial-planning framework that fragments contiguous territory into isolated, self-contained Palestinian urban enclaves “islands” surrounded and separated by a contiguous network of settlement infrastructure, bypass roads, and military zones, which allows for daily physical presence within Areas A and B while preventing any expansion into Area C. In essence, this policy directly imposes the “Area C model,” with its mechanisms and restrictions, on Areas A and B, stripping them of their structural autonomy.
Settlements and emerging outposts, along with bypass roads, link settlement blocs into a contiguous network. As a result, Palestinian communities are not only isolated from one another, but natural population growth within these enclaves also becomes an internal pressure that erodes the economy and quality of life, leading to a “silent displacement” that clears vital areas for settlement expansion without direct military cost.
Systemic Encroachment: Administrative, Military, Pastoral, and Buffer-Zone Mechanisms
The assertion that “the Area C model extends to Areas A and B” is not merely theoretical; it is a practical reality implemented through four administrative and executive mechanisms that have stripped Palestinians of their civil authority. The first mechanism is the withdrawal of administrative and enforcement powers related to environmental and archaeological matters, transferring them to Israel’s Civil Administration. The unilateral decision issued in February 2026 by the Security Cabinet (Cabinet Decision B/228) represents a strategic shift, granting the Civil Administration oversight and enforcement authority within Areas A and B under the guise of preserving the environment, water, and antiquities. This was evident in the Knesset’s allocation of 113 million shekels to archaeological projects encompassing sites entirely within Area A, such as restoration and excavation projects at Solomon’s Pools near Bethlehem, effectively removing civilian protection from these areas.
The second mechanism relies on direct military confiscation within Area A to serve settlement infrastructure. In July 2026, the Central Command of the Israeli military issued 15 military seizure orders to confiscate approximately 200 dunams of land. For the first time since the Oslo Accords, these orders were used to construct a transportation corridor connecting settlement blocs and transferring the control mechanisms of Area C directly into the heart of the civilian administrative zone.
The third mechanism is evident in the expansion of pastoral settlements, which operate as illegal settler outposts centered around livestock grazing to rapidly seize vast areas of open land. Field documentation shows that settlers have established at least 26 outposts and pastoral farms within Area B alone. This intimidation has deprived Palestinians of access to over 100,000 dunams officially under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, distributed as follows: 15,600 dunams in Area A, 55,000 dunams in Area B, and 28,200 dunams in nature reserves near Bethlehem. This effectively renders the remaining agricultural land in Areas A and B functionally empty.
The fourth mechanism lies in the imposition of security zones along bypass roads, where Israeli military forces establish restricted zones ranging from 50 to 150 meters on either side of the road. When these security zones intersect with areas classified as A or B, municipalities are stripped of their civil authority, and the Civil Administration issues demolition and stop-work orders for Palestinian buildings adjacent to these roads, thus applying the regulations of Area C to the outskirts of cities and villages.
The Extension of Area C model in Action: The “Noa” Settlement Case
The rapid formalization of the “Noa” outpost in the Jenin Governorate demonstrates how military land confiscation in Area A is used to build regional settlement infrastructure. Established north of Qabatiya and officially recognized on 31 August 2026 in under five months, the “Noa” outpost became the eighth settlement established in Jenin in under a year under the “Samaria Regional Council’s” “settlement contiguity” plan.
Situated in the area previously evacuated under the 2005 Disengagement Plan, the location was ‘reopened’ following the Knesset’s March 2023 repeal of key provisions, allowing settlers to return to the settlements of “Ganim”, “Kadim”, “Sanur”, and “Homesh”. The “Noa” settlement is located approximately 260 meters from Route 6010 and about 4.6 kilometers from “Kadim”, utilizing an existing road network to close the geographical gap between the surrounding settlements. These roads connect to Route 6010, linking the new settlement belt in the east with the “Mevo Dotan” and “Emek Dotan” blocs in the west, thus completing the encirclement of Palestinian population centers in the Jenin Governorate and separating its urban center from its agricultural and economic surroundings towards Tubas and the Jordan Valley.
Under the Oslo Accords, the division of land created a compressed spatial reality where densely populated Palestinian towns in Areas A and B are surrounded by Area C lands exploited for settlement infrastructure. Developments in Jenin exemplify how this dynamic systematically strips Areas A and B of their autonomy and subjects them to the operational practices of Area C.
Economic Strangulation and Service Collapse
The economic consequences of this spatial confinement are immediate. Palestinian cities rely on their surrounding rural areas for agricultural products, markets, and trade routes. Losing access to extensive areas of vital agricultural, pastoral, and nature reserve lands reduces local productive capacity, increases reliance on imports, and diminishes the local production base. Simultaneously, confining the population to limited areas increases pressure on housing, water, electricity, waste management, and other municipal services. As land available for construction shrinks, the task of local authorities becomes more difficult. They not only face increased demand for services but also operate within a limited area that they cannot fully expand.
The expansion of bypass roads creates a stark structural dualism, establishing a high-speed “network of contiguity” for settlements while imposing severe spatial friction on Palestinian movement. By forcing intra-district travel (such as between Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarm) through restricted choke points, iron gates, and military checkpoints, this physical infrastructure drastically increases commute times and transportation costs. This “friction of distance” not only fragments daily social life between population centers in Areas A and B, but also inflates the cost of supply chains and local commerce, effectively turning short physical distances into prolonged economic and temporal burdens.
On a broader level, connecting settlements with roads and military zones is dismantling territorial contiguity across the West Bank. As this network expands, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain geographical and economic contiguity between Palestinian centers. This effectively entrenches the de facto annexation of the West Bank without a formal political declaration.
Applicable Legal Framework
While the Oslo Accords created a temporary administrative breakdown dividing the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, these divisions were explicitly designed as short-term transitional arrangements intended to gradually transfer full jurisdiction back to the Palestinian Authority. Executing military land requisitions or deploying permanent infrastructure inside Area A and Area B violates these agreed-upon jurisdictional boundaries, effectively eroding the interim legal framework while consolidating permanent de facto annexation in contravention of international law.
The applicable legal framework governing the Israeli policies of unlawful permanent territorial control of the occupied West Bank is authoritatively clarified by international jurisprudence, specifically the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 2024 Advisory Opinion. In this landmark ruling, the ICJ affirmed that Israel cannot rely on the interim administrative arrangements of the Oslo Accords to exercise jurisdiction in a manner that conflicts with its imperative obligations under the international law of occupation. The Court concluded that Israel’s continuous settlement expansion, land confiscation, and systemic spatial control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) breach fundamental rules of international law, rendering its ongoing presence unlawful and requiring an immediate cessation of all new settlement activities.
This finding is built on the broader binding body of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Law of Belligerent Occupation anchored in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907. Under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power is explicitly prohibited from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Furthermore, Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations strictly prohibit the confiscation of private property and restrict the requisitioning of land unless strictly required for immediate military necessity. Issuing military confiscation orders to build bypass roads, expand outposts like “Noa”, or establish permanent military posts within Palestinian populated zones violates these provisions by converting temporary security measures into permanent civilian settlement infrastructure.
In addition, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is significant as it guarantees fundamental rights that are directly influenced by policies of urban and spatial development and restriction. These rights include the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to housing, the right to work, and the right to freedom of movement and residence. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) complements these protections, particularly with respect to the inherent right to self-determination and safeguarding against systemic discrimination and the abuse of administrative and military power.