Smotrich’s Hebron move raises Oslo questions

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also serves as a minister within the Defense Ministry, has announced a significant policy shift affecting the occupied West Bank city of Hebron. The decision transfers planning and construction authority in the H2 sector, including the area surrounding the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs, from the Palestinian municipality to Israeli authorities, a move Smotrich described as effectively ending key provisions of the 1997 Hebron Protocol.

The announcement has triggered strong Palestinian condemnation and renewed international concern over unilateral changes to arrangements established under the Oslo peace process. While Israeli officials have presented the measure as an administrative correction that strengthens governance over Jewish settlements and religious sites, Palestinian leaders argue that it undermines legally binding agreements, alters the status quo in one of the region’s most sensitive cities, and further complicates prospects for a negotiated political settlement.

What is the Hebron Protocol?

The Hebron Protocol, signed on 17 January 1997 by Israeli Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was one of the most significant follow-up agreements to the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords.

Recognizing Hebron’s unique religious, political, and demographic complexity, the protocol established a special administrative framework unlike that of any other Palestinian city in the West Bank.

Under the agreement, Hebron was divided into 2 administrative sectors:

H1: comprising roughly 80% of the city and home to the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, came under Palestinian civil and security control.

H2: accounting for approximately 20% of Hebron, including the Old City, the Ibrahimi Mosque (known to Jews as the Cave of the Patriarchs), and several Israeli settlements, remained under Israeli security control while many civil responsibilities, including municipal planning and construction, remained with the Hebron Municipality.

The arrangement sought to balance Israel’s security concerns with Palestinian municipal governance while preserving the broader framework of the Oslo peace process.

What has changed?

Smotrich announced that Israel had completed the legal procedures to remove the Hebron Municipality’s planning and construction authority over H2, particularly around Israeli settlements and religious heritage sites.

According to the Israeli government, these responsibilities will now be exercised directly by Israeli planning bodies operating through the Civil Administration.

The minister described the move as “a historic correction,” arguing that it was unreasonable for planning decisions affecting Israeli communities and holy sites to depend on the Palestinian municipality.

He also framed the decision as another step toward expanding Israeli governance and strengthening what he called Israeli sovereignty in “Judea and Samaria;” the biblical term used by many Israeli officials to refer to the West Bank.

However, Israel’s Foreign Ministry later clarified that the Hebron Protocol itself had not been formally annulled, stating that the latest decision concerns planning and construction powers rather than the cancellation of the entire 1997 agreement. The ministry characterized the measure as a targeted administrative change rather than the abolition of the protocol.

Why Hebron matters

Hebron occupies a unique position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is home to approximately 220,000 Palestinians and several hundred Israeli settlers living under extensive Israeli military protection within the city’s historic center.

At the heart of Hebron lies the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs, revered by Muslims, Jews, and Christians as the burial place of Abraham and other biblical patriarchs.

The site has long been a focal point of political, religious, and security tensions. Following the 1994 massacre in which an Israeli settler killed 29 Palestinian worshippers, Israel imposed strict security measures and divided access to the shrine between Muslim and Jewish worshippers.

The surrounding area is characterized by military checkpoints, movement restrictions, and frequent friction between residents and settlers, making any administrative changes especially sensitive.

Palestinian response

The Palestinian Authority (PA) condemned the Israeli decision as a unilateral violation of signed agreements and international law.

Palestinian officials argued that transferring planning authority to Israeli institutions changes the political and legal status of Hebron and weakens commitments established under the Oslo framework.

President Mahmoud Abbas’s office called on the international community, particularly the United States (U.S.), to intervene and pressure Israel to reverse what it described as a dangerous escalation.

Hebron Mayor Yousef al-Jabari similarly argued that the decision bypasses internationally sponsored agreements that have governed the city’s administration for nearly 3 decades. Municipal officials warned that reducing Palestinian administrative authority could affect governance, municipal services, infrastructure planning, and future urban development within the city's most sensitive areas.

Part of a broader policy direction

The Hebron decision fits into a broader series of measures promoted by Smotrich and other members of Israel’s current governing coalition aimed at increasing Israeli administrative control in the West Bank.

Over recent months, the government has advanced policies affecting land registration, settlement expansion, heritage management, planning procedures, and enforcement powers across the territory.

Supporters argue these measures improve governance, strengthen Israeli communities, and address longstanding administrative obstacles.

Critics, however, contend that they amount to de facto annexation by gradually transferring responsibilities traditionally associated with military occupation into permanent civilian Israeli institutions without formally changing the territory’s legal status.

The latest decision has therefore become part of a wider debate over whether Israeli policy is steadily moving away from the temporary arrangements envisioned under Oslo toward a more permanent administrative reality.

Political context ahead of elections

The timing of Smotrich’s announcement has also attracted political attention.

Israel is preparing for national elections, with right-wing parties competing for support among voters who favor expanded settlement activity and stronger Israeli control over the West Bank.

Observers note that Smotrich has consistently advocated extending Israeli sovereignty over the territory and has made settlement expansion a central element of his political platform.

Opposition groups, including the Israeli organization Peace Now, argue that the decision serves domestic political objectives by appealing to nationalist voters during the election campaign. Government supporters reject that characterization, maintaining that the policy reflects long-standing ideological commitments rather than short-term electoral considerations.

As Israelis and Palestinians continue to dispute the legal and political significance of the move, Hebron once again finds itself at the center of broader questions about sovereignty, governance, settlement policy, and the future viability of a negotiated two-state solution.