Hubbry Logo
Israeli Military OrderIsraeli Military OrderMain
Open search
Israeli Military Order
Community hub
Israeli Military Order
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Israeli Military Order
Israeli Military Order
Israeli Military Order
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An Israeli Military Order is a general order issued by an Israeli military commander over territory under Israeli military occupation. It has the force of law. Enforcement of such orders is carried out by Israeli military police and military courts instead of civil courts.[1]

Military Orders are still a basic instrument of Israeli rule of the Palestinian population in Area B and Area C of the West Bank. In contrast, Israeli civilians living in settlements in the area are usually subjected to civil courts.[1]

Palestinians living in Area A of the West Bank, under full control of the Palestinian Authority, are now mostly subject to its laws and civil jurisdiction. Between the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967 and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords in 1994, military orders were issued "in a constant stream," covering both criminal and civil matters as well as security and military matters.[2]

History

[edit]

Israel inherited the British-imposed 1945 Defence (Emergency) Regulations, applying to whole British Mandatory Palestine. The regulations included, inter alia, the establishment of military tribunals to try civilians without granting the right of appeal, allowing sweeping searches and seizures, prohibiting publication of books and newspapers,[3] demolishing houses, detaining individuals administratively for an indefinite period, sealing off particular territories, and imposing curfew.[4]

In 1948, the newly established state of Israel incorporated the Defence (Emergency) Regulations into its national laws, with the exception of modification necessitated by the creation of the State or its authorities.

Although, in 1951, the Knesset determined that the Defence Regulations were contrary to the basic principles of democracy and instructed the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee to draft a bill for their repeal, the regulations were not abolished. Any later prospects for partial repeal disappeared with the outbreak of the 1967 Six-Day War. The military governor in the Occupied Territories issued a military order "freezing" the legal situation then existing there. Since then the regulations and its system of military orders are extensively used in the Occupied Territories.[4]

[edit]

The Israeli Military Orders are enacted in accordance to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, ratified at the Hague Conventions. The Hague regulations authorize the military occupier of territories to implement new laws, intending to ensure ‘public order’ (translated from French). In reference to “Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State,” Article 43 of the Hague Regulations states, “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country”[5][6] The interpretation and application of this Article was initially analyzed by the Israeli Supreme Court.

Initial applications of the Hague Regulations

[edit]

One of the first applications of Article 43, which was deemed valid by the Israeli Supreme Court was the case of the Jerusalem District Electricity Company. The Court concluded that it was the military’s responsibility to address the economic welfare of the local population (in Jerusalem), and therefore should help meet the local demand for electricity for the Palestinians and Jewish settlers, specifically in the settlement of Kiryat Arba alike. However, the Supreme Court also validated the military’s prohibition of the “Al-Talia,” an Arab-centric weekly newspaper.

More significantly, the Supreme Court ruled that the military commander had the right to impose a “value tax”[7][8] needed to obtain resources in order to fulfil the ‘public order and safety’ clause of Article 43. Much to the petitioners’ dismay, the law remained valid. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in approval of the military’s confiscation of petitioners’ land, in order to build roads ultimately connecting the West Bank with Israel. The Court saw this as ensuring public order and growth. These cases all served to establish the role of the Hague Regulations, specifically that of Article 43, to be played in the context of Israel’s occupancy of the former Palestine.

Examples of military orders

[edit]

Officially beginning in 1967, the Israeli Military Orders are issued by the General Commanders and carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces and ultimately affect the infrastructure, law, and administration[9] particularly of the Palestinians of the region. Pursuant to Military Orders, the military is authorized to issue declarations holding more detailed orders; see for example Declaration s/2/03 (regarding the Separation Wall).

Orders to consolidate the occupation

[edit]
  • Military Order No. 1650 (2009): Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Amendment No. 2). This law modifies the definition of "infiltrator" in Military Order No. 329, and allows the IDF to arrest and imprison for seven years if the person "infiltrated" unlawful and for three years if lawful, but without a permit. An "infiltrator" is any person present in the West Bank without the appropriate permit, even if born in the West Bank or lawfully moved to it, for instance from Gaza or from abroad before a permit was required. Deportation of an "infiltrator" is considered an arrest. This broadened definition will allow thousands of Palestinians to be deported without a trial and without judicial review. Opposition to this law was voiced by the South African government (comparing it to pass laws of their apartheid), Richard Falk of the United Nations, The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, as well as Amnesty International.[10][11][12]
    • Military Order No. 329 (1969): Order Regarding Prevention of Infiltration. Defined "infiltrators" as “a person who entered the Area knowingly and unlawfully after having been present (on) the east bank of the Jordan, Syria, Egypt or Lebanon following the effective date”.
  • Military Order No. 947 (1981): This order created the Israeli Civil Administration in the West Bank. The head of the Civil Administration is appointed by the Commander of the IDF. It grants the Head of the Civil Administration the authority to draw up subsidiary legislation.[13] Its purpose, as stated in Section 2 of the Order, is to “administer the civilian affairs in the region in accordance with the directives of this Order, for the well-being and good of the population, and in order to supply and implement the public services and taking into consideration the need to maintain an orderly administration and public order in the region”.[14] All powers held by this Head of the Civilian Administration are ones delegated to him by the Area Commander, who can take away or grant power at their discretion. Although the chosen leader of the Civilian administration is someone of unspecified nationality, the headquarters is situated at Beit El, a restricted zone to which only Palestinians summoned or able to schedule an appointment could enter.
  • Military Order No. 34 (1967): Order Regarding Closed Territories (Amendment). ″The territory of the West Bank is hereby declared a closed territory.″ 8 July 1967[15]
  • Military Order No. 1 (1967): Declares the Gaza Strip and West Bank closed military areas.[16] A similar order was issued on 14 June 1967 for the occupied Golan Heights.[17]

Land

[edit]

Orders regarding the seizure of land has always been one of the most important means in the maintenance of the occupation. Initially, they were mainly issued for military reasons. Over the years, more and more land was seized for the establishment of settlements.[neutrality is disputed]

State land

[edit]

The IDF has issued numerous orders to confiscate Palestinian lands by declaring it "State Land"[neutrality is disputed]

  • Order No. 59 "Order Concerning State Property (Judea & Samaria)" (1967) established the 'Custodian of Government Property' to take control of land owned by the Jordanian Government (occupied in 1967). It also established the 'Custodian of Absentee Property' to appropriate land from individuals or groups by declaring it 'Public Land' or 'State Land'.[18]
In January 2009, the IDF issued four military orders (No. 484 to 487) to evacuate land of Nahalin, southwest of Bethlehem under the claim that the targeted locations are 'State Land'. In the previous four years, the military already confiscated Nahalin lands by 25 different orders,[which?] labeling them 'State Land'. Most of the land was in Area C, where Israeli settlers already occupied land of Nahalin since 1967.[18]

West Bank barrier

[edit]

In 2000, Israel started the construction of the West Bank barrier, about 80% of which on Palestinian land. The Palestinian lands were seized by numerous Military Orders. Often the Wall runs across villages dividing them in separate parts. For example, in Al Jib[19] and Beit Hanina.[20] Many are cut off from their agriculture land, like Beit Ijza.[21] Not only land for the Barrier itself, but also the land between the Wall and the Green Line (the Seam Zone) are confiscated, usually under the pretext of security:

  • Declaration s/2/03 (2003): This declaration confiscates Palestinian lands on the Israeli side of the West Bank barrier and declares the Seam area a "Closed Zone" for Palestinians. Only Palestinians who live near the seam zone (which is part of the Occupied Territories) are allowed to enter through a single specific gate and stay, provided that they possess a personal written permit, usually for a limited period. The Declaration does not apply to Israelis.[22]

Control over land transactions

[edit]
  • Military Order No. 811 and 847: allows Jews to purchase land from unwilling Palestinian sellers by using a “power of attorney.”
  • Military Order No. 58: makes land transactions immune to review so long as the transaction was carried out by an Israeli “acting in good faith.”
    • Military Order No. 58, Article 5: says any land transaction will not be voided even if it is proved the transaction was invalid.
  • Military Order No. 25 (1967): Order Regarding Land Transactions (Judea and Samaria). Forbids public inspection of land transactions. Restriction of land transactions in the West Bank.[23]

Settlements

[edit]
  • Military Orders No. 783: Order Regarding the Management of Regional Councils and 892: Order Regarding the Management of Local Councils (1979). Granting the Jewish local authorities the status of territorial enclaves of Israeli law; Israeli law is applied to the settlements.[24]

Water

[edit]

Following the onset of the occupation in 1967, Israel brought all water resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory under its military control, as stipulated by Military Order No. 92, issued in 1967. In line with the Oslo Accords—comprising the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements of 1993 and the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 1995, partial water governance responsibilities were transferred to the Palestinian Authority. Notably, the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, also known as Oslo II, continues to serve as the primary framework for regulating water use in the West Bank. Initially intended as a five-year interim arrangement upon its conclusion in 1995, the agreement remains in effect to date.[25]

  • Military Order of 7 June 1997 states that ″all the water resources that have been occupied again are the property of the state of Israel″.[26][unreliable source?]
  • Order No. 291 (1968). All pre-1967 land and water-related arrangements are declared invalid.[27]
  • Order No. 158 (1967): "Order Amending the Water Supervision Law" ordained that all wells, springs and water projects are under the full direct command of the Israeli Military Commander.[26] Every installation or resource built without a permit will be confiscated.[26][27]
  • Order No. 92 (1967) states that it ″gives the absolute authority of controlling all issues related to water to the Water Officer who is appointed by the Israeli courts.″ Military Orders 498 and 558 of 1974 and 1977 transferred all powers to the IDF in Gaza.[26][27]
The combination of these two orders 158 and 92 gave the Israeli authorities complete control over the entire water supplies in the West Bank and Gaza. Only the Head, appointed by the Area Commander, has influence in any issue regarding “transportation, extraction, export, consumption, sale, distribution, inspection of its use, purification, allotment of shares, the establishment of water projects, measurement, prevention of contamination, carrying out of studies and measurements in anything that deals with water matters, drilling wells, hearing of objections and all proceedings dealing with any of the above laws, etc., fixing and collecting fees, taxes and any payments for any of the above and any other matter which has not been mentioned specifically above which deals in any way whatsoever with water subjects.” For example, Article 4(A) of Order 158 specifically states that “it shall not be permissible for any person to set up or to assemble or to possess or to operate a water installation unless he has obtained a license from the Area Commander.”[28] And although the exact number of granted licenses is disputed, the percentage is relatively small.
  • Order No. 58 (1967) states that ″it is prohibited to construct any new water installation without a license and that the licensing officer has the right of rejecting any application for a license without having to give the justification for his rejection.″[26]
  • Order No. 948 states that every citizen in the Gaza Strip is compelled to obtain the approval of the Israeli military commander before implementing any water-related project.[26]

Agriculture

[edit]
  • Military Order No. 1051 (1983): This order establishes an agricultural fund, to be financed by the Civil Administration. This fund will compensate for any excessive agricultural product, its uses, as well as any extra money needed to organize the marketing of that product. The money will come from the issuance of a new tax.[29]
  • Military Order No. 1015 (1982): Concerning Monitoring the Planting of Fruitful Trees. Permissions for planting trees; impose fees for permissions. Permits expire in one year or each June 15.[30]
  • Military Order No. 818: establishes how Palestinians can plant decorative flowers.
  • Military Order No. 474: This order, an amendment to a Jordanian law requiring a certain amount of plants and trees to be maintained, states that the Area Commander can appoint inspectors to the specified areas, who may evict any violators of the law as well as take them to a police station.
  • Military Order No. 134: This order makes a certificate/permit from the Area Commander necessary in order to move a tractor from Israel into the West Bank as well as to operate a tractor or any other form of agricultural machinery. This offense is punishable with imprisonment, a fine, or both.[31]
  • Military Order No. 2 Concerning Quarantine (7 June 1967): This order prohibited the transport of any plant or animal to outside the West Bank. This offense is punishable with three years of imprisonment.[32]

Protests, gathering and political activities

[edit]
  • Military Order No. 101 (1967): Denies many basic freedoms that are required under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, it prohibits a gathering of more than 10 people unless the Israeli military receives advance notice with names of all participants, and enables some other activities (e.g. waving a flag or political symbol except by permission) that would generally be considered to be peaceful to become offenses carrying prison terms and fines.[10][33]
  • Military Order No. 537 (): Removes democratically elected Mayors of West Bank cities from their position.

Freedom of movement

[edit]
  • Military Order No. 418: This order served to abolish all local participation in the operations of local road planning. Previously, as laid out by the Jordanian planning law, various local institutions, such as the Engineers’ Union, would take part in a hierarchical structure and participate in the national planning committee. Instead, all planning was to be done by a military committee called the Higher Planning Committee, which was empowered to suspend any other plans or municipalities’ licenses and to exempt any person from the need to obtain a planning license.
  • Military Order No. 96: This order forbids the purchase of goods on a donkey.

Criminal Code and Military Court

[edit]
  • Military Order No. 1651 (2009): Replaces 20 military orders issued between 1967 and 2005, including Military Order 378, which established the creation of Israeli military courts in occupied territory. Provides the basis for arrest and detention, including administrative detention to detain Palestinians without charge or trial for prolonged periods, by the Israeli army and defines charges under military law. Redefines categories of age to make possible higher penalties for children.[10] Under this order "throwing stones at people or property can carry a ten-year jail sentence."[34]
  • Military Order No. 271: This order makes a certificate from the Area Commander necessary that affirms that any damage caused by an operation of the Israeli military or anyone working for the army was carried out “because of security needs.” Once obtained, the case can be heard by the Objections Committee.
  • Military Order No. 172: This order established the military Objections Committee, which began as a tribunal to hear appeals initially regarding property rights, but has expanded greatly since. Now, for example, the Committee will hear appeals against the decisions of the military government, as well as any matters regarding expropriation of land, “Absentee property,” natural resources, unregistered land, violations of Order No. 818 (regarding decorative flowers)
  • Military Order No. 164: This order requires permission to be granted for certain witnesses to appear and testify in court. However, this does not apply to any hearings before the Objections Committee (see Order No. 172).
  • Military Order No. 56: This order serves to ensure that all objections submitted concerning the traffic authority’s decisions to cancel, suspend, or refuse to renew licenses will be reviewed by the Objections Committee, which is to be made up of three military officers.

Import and export

[edit]
  • Military Order 1252 (1988): Concerning Merchandise Transport. This order sets the standard for moving any sort of goods across the lines of the West Bank. In order to transport any sort of “merchandise,” one must present their permit, which can be personal or general. As for punishment, one cannot be fined then tried in court, yet they can be tried, and then fined if deemed necessary.

Other military orders

[edit]
  • Military Order 107: bans publications including works on Arabic grammar, histories of the Crusades, and works on Arab nationalism.
  • Military Order No. 50: This Order strictly limits the people of the West Bank’s informative sources, as it “prohibits either the bringing to the area of any ‘newspaper’ or its ‘publication’ without a permit from the officer appointed by the Area Commander for the purposes of this Order.” The above definition of publication is used to include and prohibit all forms of publication, regardless of its origin, language, or the quantity it is in.
  • Military Order No. 854: This Order was established to control the matriculation of the West Bank’s academic institutions. Under No. 854, the military has total control over who may enter a university as a student, teacher, or administrator. All students must have obtained an identity card distributed by the Area Commander before enrollment.
  • Military Order No. 514: This order allows the Area Commander to appoint members of the committee, whose decisions are appealable to the Objections Committee, whose decisions serve as recommendations to the Area Commander, for situations regarding the Jordanian Pensions Law.
  • Military Order No. 348: This order establishes a special department in the West Bank that will make final decisions regarding property in the West Bank, as the ultimate authority.
  • Military Order 998: requires Palestinians to get Israeli military permission to make a withdrawal from their bank account.
  • Military Order 93 and amendment: gives all Palestinian insurance businesses to the Israeli Insurance Syndicate.
  • Military Order 128: gives the Israeli military the right to take over any Palestinian business which does not open during regular business hours.
  • Military Order 847: declares only Israeli notaries can authenticate signatures.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Israeli Military Order

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An Israeli military order is a form of primary legislation promulgated by the commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in territories under , such as the , deriving authority from the laws of belligerent occupation and functioning to modify antecedent legal regimes, impose security protocols, and regulate civil affairs. Issued commencing with the 1967 , when Israel assumed control over the from and Gaza from amid defensive hostilities, these orders—totaling over 1,600 by official compilations—adapt pre-occupation statutes to operational necessities, including the establishment of military courts, restrictions on gatherings perceived as threats, and mechanisms for land requisition to support defensive infrastructure. While enabling sustained order in environments marked by persistent armed resistance and terror campaigns, as evidenced by empirical data on thwarted attacks correlating with enforcement rigor, the orders have drawn contention for curtailing nonviolent expression and facilitating settlement security perimeters, though such measures reflect causal imperatives of territorial defense rather than discretionary overreach, with oversight via Israel's subjecting them to proportionality scrutiny under administrative law standards.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition

An Israeli military order is a issued by the of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) exercising authority as military governor in territories under belligerent occupation, primarily the (officially designated by as and ) and, until 2005, the [Gaza Strip](/page/Gaza Strip). These orders constitute the principal form of in such areas, regulating matters including security, public order, land allocation, resource management, economic activities, and criminal justice applicable to the non-Israeli population. Enacted unilaterally by the IDF without input from elected local bodies, they derive from the occupying power's obligations and rights under to maintain order and ensure the territory's temporary administration pending resolution of the conflict. The initial military orders emerged in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 , with Military Proclamation No. 1 issued on June 7, 1967, formally announcing Israeli occupation of the and and assuming administrative control "in the interests of security and public order." Over subsequent decades, thousands of such orders have been promulgated, sequentially numbered and often amended, addressing specific needs like prohibiting political gatherings of more than ten persons without permits (Military Order 101, August 1967) or centralizing control over water infrastructure to prevent unauthorized wells or installations (Military Order 158, November 1967). While enabling rapid implementation of security protocols amid ongoing threats, these instruments have been critiqued by organizations for imposing restrictions exceeding standard occupation necessities, though Israeli authorities maintain they align with the imperative to counter and preserve stability. In practice, military orders apply differentially: to Palestinian residents via military law enforced in IDF courts, while Israeli settlers in the same territories fall under Israeli civil law extended through separate orders. This dual system underscores the orders' role in facilitating Israel's security doctrine without full , with enforcement backed by powers and demolition of structures deemed illegal under order provisions. As of 2022, new orders continued to adapt to evolving conditions, such as expansions in jurisdictional oversight (Military Orders 2121 and 2122).

Territorial Application

Israeli military orders are issued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander for territories under military administration, with primary current application limited to the , officially designated as the Judea and Samaria Area excluding annexed . The territorial jurisdiction encompasses approximately 5,655 square kilometers of land west of the , where orders promulgated under the authority of the military commander hold the force of law, addressing security provisions, land use, judicial procedures, and administrative functions. For instance, Military Order No. 378 (1970), regarding security directives, establishes broad territorial and for military courts throughout the Judea and Samaria Area. Historically, following the 1967 , military orders were extended to all captured territories under IDF control, including the (until 2005), the (returned to between 1979 and 1982 per the ), and the (annexed via the 1981 , shifting to civilian jurisdiction). In Gaza, a separate issued analogous orders until Israel's unilateral disengagement on September 12, 2005, which involved the evacuation of all IDF forces and Israeli settlements, effectively ending internal despite retained external controls over , territorial waters, and border crossings. Post-disengagement, Israel maintains that no effective control exists within Gaza to sustain occupation law application, rendering military orders inapplicable to its internal governance. Within the , military orders apply uniformly across Areas A, B, and C as defined by the 1995 , though the Palestinian Authority exercises limited civilian autonomy in Areas A and B under overarching Israeli oversight. Orders such as No. 1651 (), consolidating provisions, explicitly target the Judea and Samaria territory, enabling measures like area closures and movement restrictions without altering the core territorial scope. This framework persists as of 2025, with the IDF Central Command's Judea and Samaria Division responsible for enforcement across the defined area. Exclusions include , where Israeli municipal and national laws were extended by legislation in 1967, bypassing military order mechanisms.

Distinction from Civilian Legislation

Israeli military orders are issued unilaterally by authorized IDF commanders, such as the head of Central Command for the , deriving their authority from the law of belligerent occupation under Article 43 of the 1907 Regulations, which empowers the occupying power to promulgate ordinances necessary to restore and maintain public order and civil life. In practice, this allows commanders to enact binding rules on administrative, security, and penal matters within occupied territories without prior approval from Israel's civilian institutions, as exemplified by Proclamation No. 2 of June 7, 1967, which vested legislative and executive powers in the military governor. This mechanism contrasts sharply with civilian legislation, which originates from the —Israel's elected parliament—through a deliberative process involving bill introduction, committee scrutiny, multiple readings, and majority votes, grounded in domestic statutes and Basic Laws subject to by the . The scope of military orders is territorially confined to areas under effective control, such as the West Bank (excluding annexed East Jerusalem), where they typically amend, suspend, or supplement antecedent local laws—like the Jordanian legal code predating 1967—rather than imposing Israel's full civilian corpus, thereby preserving a provisional character tied to the occupation's duration. Civilian legislation, by contrast, applies primarily within Israel's pre-1967 borders and to its citizens extraterritorially, with extensions to settlers in occupied areas achieved via specific Knesset enactments or hybrid military orders, resulting in a bifurcated system: Palestinians generally fall under military jurisdiction with procedural standards adapted for security exigencies, while Israeli settlers benefit from domestic civil protections. This separation underscores the military orders' role as an executive tool for immediate governance amid ongoing conflict, unencumbered by the permanence or democratic constraints of Knesset laws, though subject to limited High Court oversight for reasonableness and compliance with international norms. Sources critiquing this framework, such as reports from human rights organizations, often emphasize its potential for unchecked authority but overlook the causal imperatives of sustained threats to order in a non-sovereign domain, where empirical data on security incidents—e.g., over 1,000 attacks annually in the West Bank as documented in military assessments—necessitate responsive, non-legislative measures.

Historical Origins

Establishment Post-Six-Day War (1967)

Following the Six-Day War, concluded by ceasefire on June 10, 1967, Israel established military governments to administer the newly captured territories of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights, with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) assuming control as the occupying power. Military government units were rapidly deployed under IDF area commanders, who were designated as military governors empowered to exercise legislative, executive, and judicial authority in accordance with international law of belligerent occupation. This structure replaced the prior Jordanian administration in the West Bank and Egyptian control in Gaza, while immediately imposing measures to secure the areas amid ongoing hostilities and to prevent collapse of local services. The foundational legal instruments were proclamations issued concurrently with territorial advances. On June 7, 1967—the day Israeli forces entered key areas including and —Military Proclamation No. 1 declared the IDF's occupation of the region and assumption of complete administrative control, nullifying prior Jordanian governmental functions while preserving essential public order. Proclamation No. 2, also dated June 7, 1967, for the , explicitly regulated governance by maintaining in force all pre-occupation Jordanian laws and regulations unless suspended or amended by subsequent military orders, and authorized the military commander to promulgate binding orders on security, economy, and civil affairs. Analogous proclamations applied to Gaza on the same date, declaring closed military zones and vesting authority in the IDF commander, with Egyptian-era laws similarly upheld subject to override for military necessity. These initial documents, distributed via radio broadcasts, posters, and local media, numbered the territories as closed zones under Military Order No. 1 equivalents, restricting movement and establishing curfews to stabilize the immediate postwar environment. This establishment invoked Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, obligating the occupant to restore public order and civil life while respecting existing laws absent imperative security reasons, a principle cited to justify provisional military rule without immediate . By late June 1967, military governors had issued dozens of initial orders addressing urgent needs, such as Order No. 59 (July 31, 1967) on land classification and Order No. 101 (August 1967) restricting gatherings, laying the groundwork for a comprehensive order-based system that has since produced over 1,500 military orders governing the territories. The framework prioritized security against potential Arab guerrilla threats, as evidenced by the rapid setup of military courts and administrative staff drawn from IDF reserves with prior experience in similar roles. reports, while documenting subsequent repressive applications, confirm the proclamations' role in enabling selective application of to IDF personnel while subjecting local populations to military .

Initial Consolidation Phase (1967-1970s)

Following the , which concluded on June 10, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued Proclamation No. 1 on June 7, 1967, declaring the occupation of the (officially termed Judea and Samaria by Israel) and , and assuming full administrative and legislative authority under the military commander. This proclamation, supplemented by Military Order No. 1 on the same date, designated these territories as closed military zones, restricting access and movement to maintain security amid ongoing threats from displaced Jordanian and Egyptian forces. Proclamation No. 2, issued shortly thereafter in June 1967 and titled "Regarding Regulation of Administration and Law," preserved pre-existing Jordanian laws in the West Bank and Egyptian laws in Gaza unless explicitly amended or repealed by military order, while granting the IDF commander broad powers to legislate, adjudicate, and enforce measures for public order and life. The initial phase emphasized rapid stabilization to counter potential insurgency and ensure continuity of . Military Order 101, promulgated in August 1967, prohibited public gatherings, processions, and inflammatory publications without prior approval, aiming to suppress organized resistance following reports of activities linked to the (PLO), which had been formalized in 1964 but intensified post-war. Security-focused orders proliferated, including those authorizing administrative detentions without trial and property seizures for military needs, with over 100 orders issued by the end of 1967 alone to dismantle Jordanian-era administrative structures and integrate basic governance under IDF oversight. Military governors were appointed for each region—e.g., for and —to oversee local councils, while military courts were established to handle both civilian and security offenses, processing thousands of cases annually by 1968 to deter sabotage amid cross-border raids from . Economic consolidation involved selective integration to sustain local populations while prioritizing Israeli security interests. Military Order 31 of June 27, 1967, assumed control of taxation systems, exempting Israeli settlers from local duties to facilitate early settlement outposts, while allowing Palestinian laborers access to Israeli markets, which by 1970 employed over 50,000 from the territories daily, boosting wages but under military permits. Orders regulated currency, trade, and , such as prohibiting unapproved transactions to prevent speculation, with the Custodian of Absentee Property repurposed to manage seized assets from the war. By the early 1970s, amid the (1967–1970), orders expanded to include infrastructure repairs and health services continuity, issuing permits for schools and hospitals under supervision, though disruptions from curfews and searches persisted, reflecting the dual mandate of threat mitigation and provisional normalcy. This period saw approximately 300–400 foundational orders by 1977, laying the legal scaffolding for long-term administration without formal annexation, justified under Article 43 of the as temporary belligerent occupancy.

Adaptations During Periods of Unrest (1980s-2000s)

During the , which erupted in December 1987 amid widespread Palestinian protests, strikes, and violent acts including stone-throwing and Molotov cocktails targeting Israeli civilians and security forces, Israeli military commanders adapted the order system to restore order under heightened threat conditions. Existing powers under Military Order No. 3, particularly paragraph 86 authorizing street closures and movement restrictions, were invoked extensively to impose s, with some Gaza refugee camps enduring over 1,000 days of curfew by 1993 as a direct counter to organized disruptions of daily life and attacks that killed approximately 100 Israeli civilians and soldiers over the uprising's duration. orders, enabled by Military Order No. 378, proliferated to detain suspected organizers without trial, totaling more than 18,000 issuances from the intifada's onset through November 1997, reflecting a causal response to underground networks coordinating boycotts, tax refusals, and assaults that undermined public security. Additional adaptations included targeted prohibitions on gatherings under the longstanding Military Order No. 101 (prohibiting assemblies of more than 10 without permit), applied to suppress rallies and enforce compliance amid causal links between such events and escalated violence, though enforcement drew international scrutiny for breadth. These measures prioritized immediate threat mitigation over long-term governance, with military courts processing tens of thousands of cases annually by the early 1990s, adapting procedural timelines to handle volume while maintaining evidentiary thresholds for convictions related to incitement or affiliation with banned groups like the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising, declared unlawful via specific proclamations in 1988. Empirical data indicate over 1,000 Palestinian fatalities from clashes, often involving live fire in response to lethal threats, underscoring the orders' role in causal deterrence against tactics that included ambushes and firebombings responsible for civilian casualties. Sources such as human rights monitors, while documenting detentions, affirm the surge correlated with documented uprising violence, though institutional biases in reporting may underemphasize attacker intent. In the Second Intifada, commencing in September 2000 following the collapse of Oslo interim arrangements and marked by over 1,000 Israeli deaths from suicide bombings and shootings, adaptations shifted toward reasserting full military governance in territories previously partially ceded to Palestinian Authority control under the 1995 . Initially adhering to restrictions barring IDF entry into Area A (urban centers under PA civil and security oversight), commanders adapted by suspending these limits after persistent attacks, notably during in March-April 2002, where military orders facilitated mass arrests, infrastructure seizures, and reimposition of direct rule to dismantle militant networks responsible for bombings killing hundreds of civilians. This doctrinal pivot, framed legally as an "armed conflict short of war" by military jurists in 2000, expanded application of security orders for targeted operations, including preemptive detentions and infrastructure controls, with administrative orders exceeding 10,000 annually at peak. Further adaptations included declarations of closed military zones under general commander authority to secure the separation barrier's construction starting June 2002, enabling land requisitions and access restrictions to counter infiltration routes exploited in attacks that empirically reduced post-implementation, though contested in Israeli courts for proportionality. Punitive demolitions of assailant family homes, authorized via amended enforcement of Military Order No. 119 (concerning security provisions), numbered in the hundreds during 2001-2005, aimed at deterrence through familial disincentives amid causal evidence of familial ties in militant recruitment. These changes reflected pragmatic realism in sustaining civil continuity amid that targeted non-combatants, with military oversight adapting to integrate intelligence-driven precision over blanket measures of the prior decade, despite critiques from biased advocacy groups overlooking attack scales.

Hague Regulations and Article 43 Authority

The Hague Regulations, annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, establish core rules for belligerent occupation, emphasizing the occupying power's duty to administer captured territory temporarily while preserving local institutions. Article 43 specifically mandates: "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This provision grants the military commander legislative competence to issue binding orders, balancing restoration of order with a conservationist approach that limits changes to local laws except where militarily imperative or absolutely necessary to prevent disorder. The article's dual obligations—proactive maintenance of public order and safety alongside deference to pre-existing legal frameworks—form the doctrinal cornerstone for occupation governance, as affirmed in international legal scholarship and practice. Israel, though not a party to the 1907 Hague Convention, regards the Regulations as reflective of applicable to its administration of territories captured in the 1967 , including the and . Immediately following the occupation on June 7, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued Proclamation No. 1 via the Central Command, assuming administrative control and declaring that existing laws would remain in force subject to overriding military orders issued under the commander's authority. This proclamation invoked the framework of Article 43 to justify the military government's role in ensuring security and civil continuity, enabling the issuance of orders that could suspend, amend, or supplement Jordanian (in the ) or Egyptian (in Gaza) legislation as needed for public order. The Israeli Supreme Court has upheld this authority in rulings such as Military Prosecutor v. Kassem (1969), affirming that the military commander's powers derive from Article 43's mandate to legislate for order and safety, while requiring proportionality and adherence to international humanitarian law principles. Subsequent jurisprudence emphasizes that orders must serve legitimate occupation objectives, such as countering threats or facilitating governance, without effecting annexation or permanent alterations to sovereignty. This interpretation aligns with the article's intent to provide provisional administration rather than sovereign rule, though debates persist over the duration and scope of such authority in prolonged occupations.

Integration with Israeli Security Doctrine

Israeli military orders serve as the operational mechanism through which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) implement core tenets of Israel's security doctrine, particularly in maintaining defensive postures against asymmetric threats in occupied territories such as and . This doctrine, formalized in documents like the IDF Strategy, prioritizes deterrence, early warning, multi-dimensional defense, and decisive victory over substate actors, emphasizing intelligence superiority and proactive disruption of enemy capabilities rather than static territorial holding. Military orders, issued under the authority of the area commander, enable the establishment of temporary or ongoing security measures—such as checkpoints and movement restrictions—that directly support early warning by monitoring and interdicting potential threats, thereby preventing attacks before they materialize. For instance, checkpoints in and have demonstrably reduced weapons smuggling and illegal crossings, with data from 2012 indicating their role in thwarting terrorist incursions amid heightened violence. The integration reflects a shift in from large-scale conventional maneuvers to "campaigns between wars," where orders facilitate low-intensity operations to degrade terror infrastructure without escalating to full conflict. Established via No. 2 on June 7, 1967, the government framework vests the IDF commander with responsibility for public order and internal security, aligning with the 's offensive elements by allowing administrative detentions, area closures, and resource controls that neutralize immediate risks from groups like or . This approach preserves strategic flexibility, avoiding permanent while enforcing demilitarization and border controls to prevent territories from serving as launchpads for attacks, as outlined in assessments prioritizing threat prevention over territorial expansion. Furthermore, military orders embody causal realism in doctrine by linking civil administration to security imperatives, ensuring continuity of essential services under IDF oversight to mitigate unrest that could amplify threats. In periods of elevated tension, such as post-2000 adaptations, orders have been amended to expand civilian security coordination, reducing IDF troop deployments while sustaining doctrinal goals of deterrence through localized enforcement. This pragmatic integration underscores the doctrine's evolution toward joint civil-military mechanisms, where orders provide the legal agility needed for responsive threat mitigation in environments characterized by persistent hostility and non-state actors embedded in civilian areas.

Role of Judicial Oversight and Appeals

The Israeli (HCJ), sitting as the , exercises primary judicial oversight over military orders issued by IDF commanders in the occupied territories, reviewing petitions for administrative legality under principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and compliance with , including the Regulations. Affected Palestinian residents or organizations may petition the HCJ directly, as the Court has asserted since 1967 to scrutinize military commander decisions without requiring exhaustion of local remedies, leading to over 10,000 petitions adjudicated by 2020 on issues ranging from land seizures to security restrictions. In practice, the HCJ often defers to military assessments of necessity but has annulled or conditioned orders lacking sufficient evidence of security threats; for instance, in Ajuri v. IDF Commander (2002), the Court upheld temporary deportations to Gaza but mandated individualized review and time limits to prevent indefinite exile, emphasizing under occupation law. Similarly, in challenges to house demolition orders under Regulation 119, the HCJ has required prior warning procedures and proportionality assessments, striking down demolitions where outweighed individual culpability. For violations of military orders prosecuted as criminal offenses, oversight occurs through military courts in the , such as those at Ofer and Salem bases, where trials apply military law tailored to security contexts. Defendants, primarily , have a statutory right to convictions or sentences to the Military Court of Appeals within 14 days, with further petitions possible to the HCJ for under the Military Justice Law. This tiered appeals process has resulted in reversals in approximately 1-2% of cases at the appeals level, though overall conviction rates surpass 99%, which Israeli military prosecutors attribute to reliable intelligence-derived evidence, while groups like argue reflects procedural imbalances favoring prosecution. The HCJ's role extends to doctrinal guidance, as in rulings affirming the military commander's Article 43 obligations while subjecting them to Israeli Basic Laws' constraints, such as equality and , thereby integrating civilian judicial standards into occupation governance. Critics from NGOs, often aligned with advocacy against Israeli policies, contend this oversight is deferential and ineffective due to the Court's reluctance to second-guess operational intelligence, but empirical data shows substantive interventions, including barrier route adjustments in affecting dozens of orders.

Primary Objectives and Rationales

Ensuring Public Order and Civil Life Continuity

Following the 1967 , Israeli military orders were issued to fulfill the occupying power's obligation under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and civil life in the and , while respecting existing laws unless absolutely prevented by military necessity. On June 7, 1967, Military Order No. 1 declared that all Jordanian legislation and regulations in force in the prior to the occupation remained valid, with the military commander empowered to suspend, amend, or add provisions only as required for security or public order. This preservation of the civil legal order—encompassing , property rights, contracts, and local governance structures—prevented administrative vacuum and enabled continuity of essential functions, such as municipal operations and non-security judicial proceedings under Jordanian codes. To operationalize civil life continuity, Military Order 947, promulgated on November 26, 1981, established the Israeli Civil Administration as a dedicated body under the military government, tasked with coordinating civilian affairs including health, education, welfare, and infrastructure services for the Palestinian population. The Civil Administration, later integrated into the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), facilitates the provision of public utilities, medical supplies, and educational approvals, while interfacing with local Palestinian councils to sustain pre-occupation administrative routines amid security constraints. For instance, it oversees the transfer of funds for municipal salaries and coordinates agricultural quotas to support economic stability, thereby mitigating disruptions to daily civil operations that could otherwise erode public order. Public order maintenance through these orders emphasizes proactive governance to avert chaos, including directives empowering local police for routine enforcement where feasible, supplemented by Israeli forces for high-threat areas. This framework has sustained basic civil infrastructure, such as water distribution networks and operations, even during unrest periods like the (1987–1993), where targeted amendments to Jordanian penal codes addressed incitement without wholesale legal overhaul. Empirical data from the era indicate that over 90% of pre-1967 civil laws remained intact by the early 1970s, underscoring the orders' role in causal continuity rather than wholesale replacement. Such measures align with the duty by prioritizing empirical stability over ideological impositions, though critics from organizations argue they enable selective security overrides; these claims warrant scrutiny given the organizations' documented advocacy orientations.

Counter-Terrorism and Threat Mitigation

Israeli military orders authorize proactive measures to disrupt terrorist planning and operations in the administered territories, prioritizing the prevention of attacks against Israeli civilians and security forces based on intelligence assessments. These orders enable rapid administrative actions, such as detentions and restrictions, grounded in the military commander's authority under the laws of occupation to maintain security amid persistent threats from groups like and . Empirical data from the Second period (2000-2005) indicate that intensified use of such orders correlated with a decline in suicide bombings, from peaks of over 50 annually to near zero by 2006, attributed in part to incapacitation of networks. A core mechanism is , regulated by Military Order 1651 (2009), which permits the military commander to detain individuals for renewable periods of up to six months without trial or charge if there are reasonable grounds to believe they pose a security threat, often based on classified evidence of involvement in terrorist activities or plots. This order, amending earlier provisions like Military Order 1226, targets those planning attacks, facilitating logistics, or belonging to designated terrorist organizations, with over 3,000 such detentions reported in the by late 2023 amid heightened threats. Israeli authorities assert that these detentions have thwarted numerous imminent attacks, as intelligence often reveals plots uncovered through interrogations, though critics from organizations like contend the process lacks transparency; however, judicial review by Israel's has upheld its use when proportionate to demonstrated risks. Punitive house demolitions, implemented via military orders under security regulations such as those derived from Defense (Emergency) Regulations, serve as a deterrent against participation in attacks by targeting residences of perpetrators or planners. Authorized for cases where intelligence links the structure to terrorist acts, over homes were demolished between 2000 and 2005, with econometric analysis showing a local reduction in suicide attacks by an estimated 3 to 6 incidents per year in affected areas due to the policy's signaling of severe consequences. This measure resumed in after a hiatus, applied selectively to high-impact cases like vehicle ramming or attacks, contributing to overall threat mitigation by altering risk calculations for potential operatives. Restrictions on gatherings and movement, exemplified by Military Order 101 (1967), prohibit assemblies of more than ten persons without permits to curb incitement and riots that frequently escalate into terrorist violence, as seen during the when unauthorized protests facilitated stone-throwing and Molotov attacks on Israeli forces. Enforcement of such orders has enabled targeted closures of areas with high threat levels, disrupting operational coordination and reducing opportunities for ambushes, with data from U.S. State Department reports noting fewer incidents in controlled zones compared to ungoverned spaces. Collectively, these orders embody a of preemption, where causal disruptions to terrorist infrastructure—through detention, deterrence, and mobility controls—have empirically lowered attack success rates, though ongoing evaluations highlight the need for intelligence-driven proportionality to sustain legitimacy.

Facilitating Provisional Governance

Following the , Israeli military orders implemented a provisional governance structure in the and by assuming administrative control while largely preserving pre-occupation legal and institutional frameworks to sustain civil operations. Proclamation No. 1, issued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Central Command on June 7, 1967, declared the establishment of military government over the territories, citing security interests as the basis for suspending conflicting laws and ordinances. This was complemented by Proclamation No. 2 Regarding Regulation of Administration and Law, also from June 1967, which validated all Jordanian-era laws in force as of June 7, 1967, except where they contradicted military necessities, thereby enabling continuity in local administration, municipal functions, and essential services like water distribution and public utilities. These orders subordinated existing Palestinian institutions—such as municipalities, endowments, and non-security courts—to military oversight through appointed staff officers for , who coordinated with local officials to manage daily without immediate wholesale replacement. For example, military directives regulated tax collection to fund ongoing public services, licensed economic activities to prevent collapse, and oversaw and systems, ensuring schools and hospitals remained operational under modified curricula and staffing rules aligned with security requirements. This framework aligned with the occupying power's obligations under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations to restore and ensure public order and civil life, prioritizing causal stability over disruption amid ongoing conflict. By the late 1970s, evolving unrest prompted refinements, culminating in Military Order No. 947 on November 26, 1981, which created the as a dedicated entity under the military commander's authority to handle non-security domains like infrastructure, agriculture, and social welfare. This body employed civilian experts to administer permits, budgets, and development projects, professionalizing provisional rule and integrating economic incentives, such as labor access to , which supported from approximately 1 million in 1967 to over 1.5 million by 1987. Such measures maintained functional governance, averting anarchy while deferring permanent status resolutions, though critics from organizations contend they entrenched dependency without self-rule.

Major Categories of Orders

Security and Public Safety Measures

Security and public safety measures constitute a core category of Israeli military orders in the , aimed at preempting threats to order and mitigating risks from potential violence or terrorism amid ongoing conflict dynamics. These orders, issued under the authority of military commanders pursuant to the laws of occupation, include prohibitions on unauthorized assemblies and controls on population movement to prevent , disruptions, or attacks that could endanger civilians and forces. For instance, violations are penalized with terms of up to 10 years or fines, reflecting the emphasis on rapid enforcement to maintain stability in areas with historical patterns of unrest, such as during intifadas where gatherings often escalated into confrontations. A prominent example is Military Order No. 101, enacted on August 27, 1967, which criminalizes participation in any gathering, procession, vigil, or rally exceeding ten persons if deemed political or liable to incite hostility against , without prior military approval specifying participants and purpose. The order explicitly bars activities like displaying national flags or distributing political publications in public settings, with enforcement historically tied to suppressing organized protests that Israeli authorities associate with stone-throwing, Molotov attacks, or coordination for militant operations. While human rights organizations criticize its broad scope for stifling expression, the order's rationale aligns with security imperatives in a territory where, for example, over 23,000 search-and-arrest raids occurred between 2017 and 2023 to disrupt threats, underscoring causal links between unregulated assemblies and public safety risks. Freedom of movement controls further operationalize these measures through directives like Military Order No. 378 of March 31, 1970, empowering commanders to impose curfews, restrict travel between regions, or declare closed military zones—restrictions consolidated under Military Order No. 1651 of November 1, 2009, which updated prior security provisions. These enable temporary closures of roads or areas during heightened alerts, permit requirements for inter-regional transit, and barriers to entry into sensitive zones, directly addressing infiltration risks; for example, the order replaced earlier mandates to standardize responses to unauthorized entries that could facilitate arms smuggling or attacks. Such controls have been applied extensively, with access to about 20% of land prohibited via firing zone declarations as of 2023, prioritizing threat mitigation over unrestricted mobility in contexts of persistent asymmetric violence. Sources documenting these orders, often from advocacy groups with documented advocacy biases against Israeli policies, confirm the textual provisions but frame enforcement selectively, whereas operational data from security analyses link restrictions to reduced incident rates in controlled areas.

Restrictions on Gatherings and Protests (e.g., Order 101)

Military Order No. 101, formally titled the "Order Regarding Prohibition of Incitement and Hostile Propaganda," was issued by the Israel Defense Forces on August 27, 1967, two months after the occupation of the West Bank during the Six-Day War. It establishes restrictions on political assemblies to prevent activities that could incite hostility or disrupt public order in the administered territory. The order defines an "assembly," "procession," or "vigil" as any gathering of ten or more persons convened for a political purpose, including discussion, demonstration, or expression liable to be interpreted as political. Such events are prohibited without prior written permission from the local military commander, who may impose conditions through public proclamations. The permitting process vests discretion in the commander, who evaluates applications based on security considerations, including the potential for the event to support hostile organizations or harm public safety. Commanders may delegate enforcement authority to soldiers or police, and they retain powers to close public places or disperse unauthorized gatherings immediately. Violations, including organization, participation, or aiding such events, carry penalties of up to ten years' imprisonment, a fine of 10,000 Israeli pounds (as originally stipulated, later adjusted for ), or both; these are adjudicated in military courts. The order also extends to related acts, such as displaying political flags or symbols without permission, broadening its application to protest-related expressions. Enforcement of Order 101 has targeted unauthorized protests in the , often amid demonstrations against Israeli policies or settlements, where military assessments identify risks of violence, including stone-throwing or coordination with militant groups. Between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2019, the Israeli military prosecuted 4,590 under the order prohibiting gatherings, according to data provided by the army itself. Permits are infrequently granted for events perceived as oppositional, leading to routine dispersal of assemblies exceeding the threshold, with arrests facilitating threat mitigation in areas prone to unrest. The order remains in effect, integrated into the broader security framework governing the territory.

Freedom of Movement Controls

Israeli military authorities impose controls on Palestinian in the primarily through a network of over 500 permanent and temporary checkpoints, permit requirements, physical barriers, and area closures, established under the military government's security powers to mitigate threats from and armed attacks. These measures, intensified after the Second Intifada (2000–2005) during which Palestinian militants conducted over 140 suicide bombings killing more than 1,000 , enable screening of individuals and vehicles for explosives and weapons, contributing to a sharp decline in successful terrorist infiltrations. Quantitative analysis indicates that the and associated checkpoints prevented over 80% of attempted terrorist attacks originating from the since their implementation. The permit regime mandates that West Bank Palestinians obtain Israeli-issued permits for entry into Israel proper, (limited to three checkpoints for most), Israeli settlements, and the "" between the Green Line and the barrier, with approvals based on security vetting and denied to those with suspected militant ties. Exceptions apply to certain age groups for religious access to , but revocations occur following attacks, as seen after , 2023, when broad restrictions were enacted amid heightened threats. Military commanders derive authority from general orders under the Judea and Samaria Area's security , allowing ad hoc establishment of checkpoints without a singular codified order, though firing zones—designated closed military areas comprising about 20% of the —explicitly prohibit access via standing military declarations to prevent training disruptions and potential ambushes. Closures and curfews, often declared during operations or alerts, further limit movement; for instance, post-2023 attacks, the IDF added dozens of checkpoints, fragmenting Palestinian travel routes into isolated segments to disrupt militant logistics. While these controls impose delays and economic costs on Palestinian civilians—evidenced by reduced agricultural access and labor mobility—they correlate empirically with sustained low levels of West Bank-originated compared to pre-barrier peaks, underscoring their role in threat mitigation rather than arbitrary restriction. Israeli authorities maintain that easing measures occurs when security conditions permit, as in periodic permit expansions for work or medical needs, but persistent militant activity, including over 1,200 attacks in 2023, necessitates ongoing enforcement.

Resource and Land Administration

Israeli military orders in the establish a framework for administering land and resources under the Israeli Military Commander's authority, derived from the laws of belligerent occupation, with provisions to secure public order, allocate scarce resources, and prevent unauthorized use that could undermine security or infrastructure needs. These orders, numbering in the hundreds since , centralize control over land classification, water extraction, agricultural practices, and property transactions, often requiring permits from the Civil Administration—a body established by Military Order No. 947 in to handle civilian affairs in the region. Such administration prioritizes Israeli security requirements, including buffer zones around settlements and military installations, while restricting Palestinian to maintain demographic and operational stability. Declarations of state land constitute a core mechanism, whereby the military commander surveys and designates uncultivated or disputed tracts—often previously unregistered due to a halt on Ottoman-era land titling processes—as public or state land for temporary administrative use. This practice, invoked under military orders permitting seizure for , has resulted in over 1.5 million dunams (approximately 375,000 acres) classified as state land by the late , with ongoing declarations; for instance, on August 25, 2014, about 380 hectares near were declared via military order for potential settlement expansion or security perimeters. In 2025 alone, at least 53 such seizure orders were issued, totaling thousands of dunams in areas like and the , explicitly for buffer zones or firing ranges that indirectly support settlement contiguity. Critics, including legal advocacy groups, argue these declarations exploit the frozen registration system to retroactively claim lands lacking active cultivation, though Israeli authorities maintain they align with occupation law's allowance for utilizing without altering sovereignty. Water and agricultural regulations are enforced through orders vesting control in Israeli entities like the Water Commission, which oversee shared aquifers comprising about 80% of the 's supply originating from the territory. Military Order No. 92, issued August 15, 1967, empowered the military to regulate all water resources and usage, while Order No. 158 of November 1967 prohibited from developing new wells, cisterns, or pipelines without explicit approval, effectively channeling development toward Israeli-managed infrastructure such as the company. This has led to accessing roughly 20-30 million cubic meters annually from West Bank aquifers versus Israel's 400-500 million, per hydrological data, with agricultural impacts including permit denials for that limit crop yields and exacerbate during droughts. Complementary orders restrict farming practices, such as grazing on state lands or planting in security zones, and authorize tree removal for defensive barriers; in October 2025, Israeli forces cited military orders to uproot over 3,000 olive trees in the northern to enhance visibility and deterrence against attacks, though local reports claim higher figures tied to settler expansion. Oversight of transactions and barriers falls under edicts requiring approval for , leases, or transfers to prevent destabilizing changes in control, with a de facto freeze on comprehensive registration since enabling seizures via requisition orders for " needs." Transactions involving Palestinian-owned demand Civil Administration scrutiny to avert to unauthorized parties, though proposed 2024 legislation sought to ease settler purchases by removing quantitative limits on holdings, potentially formalizing oversight under civilian agencies. Barriers, including over 1,150 documented seizure orders from 1969-2019 for temporary or permanent use, enforce that segregates agricultural zones and curtails Palestinian access to 40% of farmland behind the security barrier, per permit data, rationalized as essential for threat mitigation but resulting in economic losses estimated at millions in annual olive and production. These measures, while providing verifiable benefits like reduced infiltration routes, have drawn international scrutiny for entrenching resource asymmetries, with Department reports noting their role in sustaining dual legal systems favoring Israeli interests.

Declarations of State Land

Declarations of state land in the are authorized primarily under Military Order No. 59, issued on July 31, 1967, by the Israeli military governor, which defines "state property" to include any immovable property not registered in the land registry or appearing abandoned or uncultivated, drawing on Ottoman Land Law provisions that treat periodically fallow land as revertible to the state after three years of non-use. This order established the role of a Custodian of Government Property to identify and seize such lands, halting ongoing Jordanian-era land registration processes initiated after 1967 to prevent disputes during . The declaration process involves surveys by the —a military entity managing civilian affairs—to assess cultivation status, followed by a public announcement in Hebrew and Arabic allowing 30 days for objections from claimed owners. Appeals proceed to a military committee, whose decisions can be challenged in Israeli military courts or, rarely, the ; however, approvals often hinge on evidence of continuous private use under pre-1967 laws, with seasonal or communal grazing frequently deemed insufficient to retain private status. Once declared, such lands—totaling nearly 2 million dunams (about 500,000 acres) historically—are allocated for public purposes, including military installations, infrastructure, and Jewish settlements, while Palestinian access is restricted. Major waves of declarations occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with settlement expansion, such as the 1981 case where the Israeli Supreme Court initially rejected a seizure for ideological reasons but upheld similar Ottoman-law-based claims elsewhere. More recently, on July 2, 2024, the Civil Administration declared approximately 12,700 dunams (2,965 acres) in the as state land—the largest such action since the 1993 —intended for agricultural and security buffers, though critics from organizations like argue it facilitates outpost growth despite international legal scrutiny under occupation rules. maintains these measures revive dormant Ottoman and Jordanian legal norms to utilize underproductive land amid security imperatives, without altering sovereignty.

Water and Agricultural Regulations

Military Order No. 92, enacted in August 1967, vested the Israeli military commander with authority over all water resources in the occupied , including groundwater aquifers shared with . This order effectively centralized control under military administration, superseding prior Palestinian or Jordanian regulatory frameworks. Complementing it, Military Order No. 158, issued in November 1967, prohibited from developing new water infrastructure—such as wells, cisterns, pumps, or pipelines—without explicit permission from Israeli water officials, with violations punishable by and fines. These measures extended to agricultural irrigation, requiring approvals that have historically been granted sparingly; for instance, between 1967 and 1995, only 10 new Palestinian wells were permitted in the , compared to extensive Israeli drilling. Military Order No. 291, promulgated in 1968, classified all water sources in the territories as state property subject to , further consolidating oversight of extraction, distribution, and allocation. In practice, this framework has allocated approximately 80-85% of groundwater to and settlements, leaving with access to about 15-20% as of recent assessments, often below the World Health Organization's minimum of 100 liters per capita daily. Order No. 1015, issued in 1982, reinforced these controls by mandating preservation of and agricultural crops, imposing restrictions on , pumping, and to prevent overuse or , with enforcement through military courts. Agricultural regulations under military orders intersect with water controls, as permits are prerequisites for viable farming in arid regions. Orders such as No. 393 (1970) empower commanders to restrict , including cultivation, if deemed necessary for , often applied to prohibit unpermitted farming on lands reclassified as state property or firing zones. This has curtailed Palestinian and crop production; for example, access denials and permit requirements have affected over 50,000 dunams of farmland behind the since 2002, reducing yields and forcing reliance on rain-fed . Additional directives regulate equipment like tractors (e.g., Order No. 134 requiring cross-border movement permits) and prohibit certain practices, such as unauthorized greenhouse construction, to align with broader . These provisions prioritize sustainable use amid shared aquifers but have been critiqued for asymmetry, with Israeli settlements receiving subsidized for intensive while Palestinian applications face high rejection rates—over 90% in some periods.

Oversight of Transactions and Barriers

Military orders in the impose stringent oversight on and property transactions, requiring prior authorization from Israeli military authorities to prevent unauthorized transfers that could affect or allocation. Military Order No. 59, issued on July 31, 1967, classifies certain properties as state —including those belonging to absentee owners or deemed unused—and mandates military approval for any dealings involving such assets, facilitating declarations of over 1.5 million dunams as state by the . This order has been applied to restrict private sales and transfers, with transactions often scrutinized to ensure compliance with and designations. Further controls stem from Military Order No. 291, enacted in 1968, which suspended ongoing land registration processes from the Jordanian era across the West Bank, halting the formalization of private titles and complicating subsequent sales or inheritances without military intervention. This freeze, maintained for decades, centralized transaction oversight under the military commander, who must approve changes in land use or ownership to avert encroachments on state-declared or security-sensitive areas; as of 2025, efforts to resume registration in Area C (60% of the West Bank) continue under military purview, potentially affecting millions of dunams. Physical and access barriers complement these transactional controls by delineating restricted zones where land dealings are prohibited. Military orders designate approximately 20% of the as closed firing zones or nature reserves, barring entry and transactions without permits, thereby preserving land for military training or potential state use. The , authorized under military orders citing security imperatives, encloses segments of land and requires oversight for any crossings or adjacent transactions, with over 700 obstacles—including earth mounds, gates, and checkpoints—regulating access as of 2023. These barriers, expanded to nearly 900 by 2025, enforce compliance by physically segmenting land parcels, limiting Palestinian oversight of resources within.

Judicial and Penal Framework

The judicial and penal framework of Israeli military orders in the occupied territories establishes a parallel legal system administered by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), applying security legislation derived from the British Mandate Defense (Emergency) Regulations and subsequent military enactments to Palestinian residents. This system, operational since the 1967 , vests jurisdiction over criminal and security offenses in military courts, distinct from Israel's civilian judiciary, to address threats posed by armed groups and maintain public order in areas lacking effective local governance. Military Order 1651 (Security Provisions) consolidates much of the penal code applicable to Palestinians in the , incorporating offenses ranging from and weapons possession to infiltration, with penalties including , fines, and, in rare cases, death sentences subject to confirmation. Military courts operate as courts of first instance at facilities such as Ofer Military Base near and Salem Military Base near , handling trials for offenses under law, while a of Appeals sits in . Judges, prosecutors, and investigators are IDF officers trained in law, ensuring proceedings adhere to evidentiary standards adapted for counter-terrorism contexts, including reliance on classified to prosecute cases involving bombings or rocket attacks that have empirically reduced civilian casualties in proper. Procedures mandate prompt hearings—typically within days of for remands—and allow for bargains, which resolve over 99% of cases via convictions based on confessions or material , reflecting the high evidentiary threshold met through interrogations rather than systemic fabrication, as evidenced by the rarity of acquittals on .

Military Courts and Criminal Procedures

Criminal procedures in military courts follow protocols outlined in Military Order 378 (Judges Law) and related enactments, requiring within 48 hours of detention, with extensions for investigation justified by security risks such as ongoing plots. Defendants receive legal representation, though Palestinian counsel face access restrictions, and trials incorporate Hebrew-language proceedings with Arabic translation, prioritizing efficiency in high-volume caseloads—over 10,000 annual prosecutions since the Second —to deter among repeat offenders linked to groups like . Appeals to the Military Court of Appeals can challenge verdicts on factual or legal grounds, with further review possible via Israel's , which has upheld core procedures as proportionate to the existential threats posed by , including data showing correlations between detentions and declines in attacks.

Detention and Infiltrator Provisions (e.g., Order 1650)

Detention provisions, including under Military Order 1226, permit indefinite holding without trial based on secret evidence of future threats, renewable every six months by military commanders and subject to judicial oversight, applied to approximately 450 as of early 2021 amid intelligence indicating planned operations. Military Order 1650, effective April 13, 2010, amends prior infiltration regulations to presume unlawful entry for individuals lacking valid permits in the , enabling expedited detention and potential deportation to Gaza or third countries for those tied to hostile entities, with penalties up to seven years' imprisonment for violations. This order targets cross-border movements exploited by militants—evidenced by post-2007 Gaza smuggling networks—and includes a 72-hour notice before expulsion, though critics from groups argue it risks arbitrary application; Israeli authorities maintain its necessity, citing prevented infiltrations that averted attacks, without verified mass abuses in implementation data.

Military Courts and Criminal Procedures

The Israeli military courts in the occupied were established under Military Order No. 378, issued in 1970, which defines their jurisdiction, applicable , and procedures for offenses committed in the territory. This order grants the courts broad authority over "security offenses" — including acts deemed threats to public order, such as membership in prohibited organizations, stone-throwing, or — as well as standard criminal matters like or , applying a modified version of the pre-1967 Jordanian supplemented by Israeli military regulations. The system extends to Gaza under similar orders until Israel's 2005 disengagement, after which courts handle the majority of cases involving Palestinian residents. Jurisdiction is territorial, covering offenses in the West Bank (Area C and parts of Areas A and B under Oslo Accords), with personal jurisdiction over Palestinian residents regardless of location at trial time; Israeli settlers, however, are typically prosecuted in civilian Israeli courts under a separate legal regime. Courts operate at three levels: magistrate (for minor offenses), juvenile (for those under 18, though procedures align closely with adult trials), and district (for serious cases), with appeals possible to a military court of appeals and, ultimately, Israel's High Court of Justice sitting as the Bagatz. Judges and prosecutors are Israeli military officers with legal training, often from the IDF's Judge Advocate General unit, ensuring alignment with military command structures. Criminal procedures begin with , frequently without warrants for suspected security violations under Military Order No. 1651, allowing indefinite interrogation periods — up to 90 days for adults and 40 for minors before charges. Indictments follow within 48 hours of detention (extendable by ), with remand hearings determining pretrial custody; evidence rules permit and secret not fully disclosed to defendants, though access is granted post-. Trials emphasize speedy resolution, often lasting minutes to hours, with plea bargains predominant — over 99% of cases resolve via guilty pleas, facilitated by reduced sentences for cooperation. Conviction rates exceed 99% annually, as reported in IDF data from 2010, though U.S. State Department assessments cite 95% in 2022, attributing high rates to evidentiary advantages like coerced confessions and limited precedents. Sentencing follows mandatory guidelines under military orders, with penalties up to for security offenses and fines or short terms for misdemeanors; orders bypass criminal procedures entirely for perceived threats, renewable indefinitely without trial. In 2023, over 9,000 faced military court proceedings amid heightened conflict, with juvenile cases numbering 500-700 yearly, often involving similar procedural shortcuts despite nominal protections like no physical mandates. Appeals succeed rarely, under 1% overturning convictions, underscoring the system's orientation toward security enforcement over adversarial contestation.

Detention and Infiltrator Provisions (e.g., Order 1650)

Military Order No. 1650, formally "Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Amendment No. 2)," was promulgated by the Israel Defense Forces on October 13, 2009, and took effect in the on April 13, 2010. It revises prior regulations, including elements of 1969-era orders like No. 100 and No. 329, which initially targeted unauthorized cross-border entries from neighboring states amid post-1967 security concerns over armed incursions. The amendment expands the "infiltrator" category beyond violent entrants to encompass any individual entering the without Israeli-issued authorization or remaining present without a valid residency permit, regardless of origin or prior lawful status. Key provisions authorize the IDF area commander to declare an infiltrator's presence unlawful and issue orders, executable immediately or after a specified period, often to the or point of origin. Infiltration offenses carry penalties of up to seven years' , with lesser terms for aiding or abetting; itself is framed as an administrative expulsion rather than criminal punishment, bypassing standard judicial oversight in initial stages. Detention is explicitly permitted pending deportation verification or execution, integrating with broader military custody powers under orders like No. 378 (Security Provisions), which allow holding without charge for security-related probes. This framework treats undocumented presence as a deportable infraction, enabling indefinite holds if removal is delayed by logistical or diplomatic factors. The order's permit-based residency regime stems from Israel's administration of West Bank population registries since 1967, requiring updates for , employment, or displacement—processes tightly controlled for intelligence on potential threats. Implementation has targeted cases like Gaza-origin Palestinians overstaying temporary West Bank entries, with documented expulsions including a 2010 instance of a Bedouin citizen deported to Gaza under its terms. While estimates suggested up to 35,000 affected individuals lacking updated permits as of 2012, widespread mass deportations have not materialized, partly due to domestic and international scrutiny; actual removals remain case-specific, often tied to suspected affiliations rather than routine enforcement. In practice, infiltrator detentions under Order 1650 intersect with administrative detention mechanisms, where IDF commanders can order holds based on classified intelligence of security risks, renewable every six months without trial under Military Order No. 1651 (amending judicial procedures). As of 2023, thousands of West Bank Palestinians annually face such detentions, though disaggregated data linking directly to infiltration charges is limited; the provisions prioritize rapid removal to mitigate risks from unmonitored mobility, a measure rooted in historical patterns of attacks involving cross-area travel. The order remains active, reinforcing a layered system where permit violations trigger both penal and expulsion responses.

Economic and Trade Directives

Israeli military orders post-1967 occupation incorporated the West Bank and Gaza Strip into Israel's de facto customs envelope, applying Israeli tariff schedules, standards, and border controls to all external trade. Goods imported into the territories required clearance through Israeli ports such as Ashdod or Haifa, subjecting them to Israeli duties, phytosanitary inspections, and security screenings to block prohibited items like weapons or dual-use materials. This framework, operative from 1967 onward, exempted intra-customs union trade—such as Palestinian exports to Israel—from duties, enabling access to Israel's larger market, while exports to third countries routed via Israel incurred additional logistical hurdles and costs estimated at up to 10-15% of value due to delays and compliance requirements. A dedicated order governs the monitoring of exports, regulating entry of dual-use goods—those with potential civilian and applications—into the territories through mandatory licensing and oversight by Israeli authorities. These provisions stemmed from immediate post-occupation needs to secure supply chains, as evidenced by the rapid issuance of economic orders alongside security proclamations in June 1967. Empirical data indicate this system curbed illicit imports, with Palestinian trade volumes expanding from negligible pre-1967 levels to over $1 billion annually by the 1980s, primarily with Israel, though critics attribute persistent asymmetries to enforced dependency rather than mutual benefit. Directives also extended to bolstering settlement economies by authorizing infrastructure development under Israeli civil law, including industrial parks, greenhouses, and export-oriented factories in designated zones. Military orders allocated utilities, roads, and subsidies—drawing from Israeli budgets—for these facilities, facilitating settlement exports under preferential trade deals like those with the , where goods from major blocs such as Ariel or qualified as Israeli-origin. Between 1967 and 1993, settlement economic output grew at rates exceeding 10% yearly in some sectors, supported by orders exempting settlers from local taxes while imposing them on , thereby channeling resources toward infrastructure that enhanced Israeli logistical control over the territory.

Import/Export Controls

Israeli authorities exercise comprehensive control over imports and exports in the through the military government's oversight of external borders and customs procedures, a framework established following the occupation to mitigate security risks from weapon smuggling and dual-use materials. All goods entering or exiting the territory must pass through Israeli-controlled ports, airports, and crossings, where they undergo inspection by customs officials and , effectively requiring Palestinian traders to secure Israeli permits for the majority of international shipments that transit via . The Paris Protocol on Economic Relations (1994), integrated into the , codified a partial whereby collects tariffs on destined for Palestinian areas and transfers net revenues to the Palestinian Authority after deductions for processing costs, while mandating prior notification to Israeli authorities for each request to enable vetting. This arrangement preserves 's veto power over shipments posing potential threats, such as those containing chemicals or electronics convertible to weaponry, reflecting ongoing military regulatory authority in Areas B and C where direct IDF jurisdiction applies. Pre-Oslo military administration similarly enforced authorization requirements for all cross-border , preventing unauthorized flows that could bolster hostile activities. Export controls mirror these measures, channeling Palestinian goods—primarily agricultural and light manufactures—through Israeli facilities for clearance, with restrictions on items suspected of or equipping militant groups; for instance, exports exceeding specified limits trigger scrutiny under broader financial oversight orders. These protocols have facilitated , with over 80% of Palestinian imports originating from or cleared via as of recent data, though delays and rejections occur when intelligence indicates risks.

Support for Settlement Infrastructure

Israeli military orders have authorized the allocation of land and resources for building roads, utilities, and housing infrastructure serving settlements, integrating them into Israel's national systems. A network of bypass roads, exceeding 700 kilometers as of 2023, connects over 130 settlements and outposts to major Israeli highways, constructed and maintained under to ensure settler mobility while separating them from Palestinian populations. Military Order No. 158, issued on April 19, 1967, placed all water resources under IDF control, enabling the extension of pipelines from Israel's national grid to settlements, which receive approximately 95% of their water from Israeli sources despite comprising less than 10% of the area's population. Similarly, military regulations on electricity, stemming from early occupation orders like No. 363 of October 3, 1967, permit direct connections to the , supplying settlements with reliable power equivalent to Israeli domestic standards, funded partly through state budgets. In recent years, orders have expedited infrastructure for outpost legalization and expansion. On April 25, 2024, Finance Minister directed the Civil Administration—operating under authority—to prepare budgets and service plans for extending water lines, roads, and to 32 unauthorized outposts, facilitating their upgrade to official settlements. A 2025 order extended Israeli laws to settlements, allowing high-density housing construction subsidized by tax incentives and infrastructure investments, such as improved sewage and transport links. These measures, administered via the 's economic framework, prioritize settlement viability amid ongoing security operations.

Controversies and Debates

Claims of Repression and Rights Violations

organizations and UN bodies have alleged that Israeli military orders in the enable systematic repression of Palestinian , particularly freedoms of assembly, expression, and association. A 2019 Human Rights Watch report documented over 1,600 military orders restricting these rights, including prohibitions on unauthorized gatherings of more than 10 people, which critics argue stifles political organization and dissent while permits are infrequently approved. Similarly, has claimed that such orders facilitate arbitrary restrictions on movement and public expression, contributing to a climate of control over daily life. Critics of the judicial framework assert that military courts, established under orders like Proclamation 378 in 1967, violate international fair trial standards by lacking independence, as judges, prosecutors, and investigators are . UN independent experts stated in July 2024 that these courts presume guilt, rely on coerced confessions obtained through prolonged interrogations without lawyers, and achieve rates exceeding 99% in bargains, often without access to . Defense for Children International-Palestine reported in 2023 that child detainees face systemic denial of legal representation during interrogations, amounting to arbitrary detention under the guise of security proceedings. has described the courts as maintaining an "illusion of judicial process" while endorsing without charge or trial, applied to thousands annually. Detention-related orders, such as Military Order 1650 enacted in 2010, have drawn accusations of enabling mass expulsions by reclassifying Palestinians lacking residency permits as "infiltrators" subject to or imprisonment without . warned at the time that the order threatened thousands with removal from their homes, potentially affecting families and communities en masse. The UN Special Rapporteur on in the occupied territories deemed it a breach of in 2010, arguing it undermines residency rights in occupied land. U.S. State Department reports have corroborated claims of widespread administrative detentions, allegations during interrogations, and enforced disappearances, with over 43 Palestinian deaths in custody noted in 2023-2024.

Defenses Based on Security Imperatives and Empirical Necessity

Proponents of Israeli military orders in the argue that they are essential for countering persistent terrorism threats, as evidenced by the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) reporting over 1,000 thwarted terror attacks in the and in 2024 alone, many involving planned stabbings, shootings, and bombings prevented through arrests and intelligence operations authorized under these orders. These measures, including detention provisions and movement restrictions, enable proactive disruption of networks affiliated with groups like and , which continue to recruit and operate despite Palestinian Authority claims of control. Historical data underscores the empirical necessity: during the Second Intifada (2000–2005), over 1,000 Israelis were killed in terror attacks originating primarily from the , with suicide bombings peaking at 59 in 2002 before dismantled infrastructure in major cities like and , leading to a sharp decline in such incidents to near zero by 2006 following intensified raids and barriers. The subsequent construction of the security barrier, completed in phases from 2002 onward, correlated with a 90% reduction in terror attacks from areas it secured, as shootings and infiltrations dropped due to physical denial of access, justifying orders regulating crossings and checkpoints as proportionate responses to verifiable threats rather than punitive excess. Israeli security analyses maintain that without these orders—rooted in the military commander's authority to maintain public order and safety under —the absence of a peace treaty or effective Palestinian would revert to pre-2002 chaos, where lax enforcement allowed terror cells to proliferate unchecked. Recent operations, such as those post-October 7, 2023, have further demonstrated efficacy, with intensified IDF presence yielding an unprecedented drop in realized attacks in 2024–2025 through targeted arrests, as Palestinian terror incidents fell amid dismantling of over 500 infrastructure sites. Critics' focus on rights curtailments overlooks causal links: empirical trends show that easing restrictions, as in partial withdrawals during the era, preceded surges in violence, reinforcing the orders' role in deterrence by denial.

Comparative Analysis with Other Belligerent Occupations

The Israeli administration of the through military orders represents the longest continuous belligerent occupation in modern history, initiated on June 7, 1967, following defensive victories in the against coalitions led by , , and , and persisting without a final peace settlement due to repeated rejections of negotiated resolutions by Palestinian leadership. In contrast, paradigmatic post-World War II occupations, such as the Allied control of from May 1945 to 1949 (with full sovereignty restored by 1955), emphasized rapid , currency reform via the 1948 introduction, and institutional rebuilding, achieving stable democratic transitions within a despite initial economic devastation including 20% industrial output collapse in 1945. The U.S.-led (CPA) in , operational from May 2003 to June 2004—a mere 14 months—issued transformative orders like Order No. 1 ( purging 50,000+ officials) and Order No. 2 (disbanding the 400,000-strong army without pensions), which empirical analyses link causally to insurgent mobilization, with monthly coalition casualties exceeding 100 by late 2004 and GDP contracting 40% in 2003 amid looting and infrastructure . Legally, Israeli military orders—over 1,600 issued by the —adhere to Hague Regulations Article 43 mandates for maintaining public order and respecting local laws (primarily Jordanian civil codes pre-1967), with amendments targeted at security threats like arms smuggling, differing from the CPA's sweeping socioeconomic restructurings that privatized state assets under Order No. 39 and opened markets to , exacerbating from 20% to 50% by 2005. Prolonged occupations elsewhere, such as Turkey's control of since July 1974 (50+ years), involve systematic settlement of 100,000+ Turkish civilians displacing and economic isolation via the unrecognized Turkish Republic of , yielding GDP per capita disparities where the north lags 40% behind the south. Russia's occupation and 2014 annexation of , spanning a decade, enforces through passport mandates and suppression of Tatar autonomy, resulting in documented arbitrary detentions exceeding 100 cases annually per monitors, without the partial legal continuity seen in Israeli administration of Arabic-language courts for non-security Palestinian matters. Empirically, Israel's framework correlates with socioeconomic advancements absent in more disruptive cases: West Bank GDP per capita rose from $165 in 1967 to $3,789 by 2019 (constant dollars), increased from 52 to 75 years, and infrastructure electrification reached 99% by 2000, facilitated by labor access to Israeli markets employing 100,000+ daily pre-Intifadas, versus Iraq's post-CPA (30% monthly in 2003) and 2.5 million internal displacements by 2007. Security-focused orders, including barriers post-2002 reducing attacks from 60 in 2002 to near-zero by 2007, reflect causal responses to empirically verified threats (e.g., 1,000+ Israeli civilian deaths in ), contrasting Cyprus's stalled bi-zonal talks amid Turkish settler permanence or Iraq's order-induced power vacuums enabling precursors. While academic and media sources often amplify Israeli critiques amid left-leaning institutional biases, comparative data indicate lower per capita violence rates (e.g., West Bank fatalities averaged 100-200 annually pre-2023 versus Iraq's 10,000+ civilian deaths in 2006 alone), underscoring adaptive necessity over ideological repression.
AspectIsraeli West Bank (1967-)U.S. Iraq CPA (2003-04)Allied Germany (1945-49)Turkish N. Cyprus (1974-)
Duration57+ years14 months4 years (zones)50+ years
Key Orders/PolicySecurity amendments to local law; autonomy (1993)De-Ba'ath, army disband; ; aid ($13B equiv.)Settler importation; TRNC declaration
Economic OutcomeGDP/capita +2,200%; infrastructure modernizationGDP -40%; unemployment 50%Industrial output +200% by 1950North-south GDP gap 40%; isolation
Security/HR ImpactAttacks reduced 90% post-barrier; annual deaths ~150; 100K+ total deathsStability via trials; low post-war violence; displacements unresolved
This table illustrates structural variances, with Israel's prolongation tied to absent consent for withdrawal amid hostilities, unlike transitional models yielding but highlighting occupation law's tension between temporariness and empirical security imperatives.

Empirical Impacts and Outcomes

Security and Stability Achievements

Israeli security forces, operating under the legal framework of military orders in the West Bank, thwarted 1,040 major terrorist attacks in the West Bank and in 2024 alone, according to the Shin Bet's annual assessment. This included a noted decrease in realized attacks despite an increase in attempted incidents, attributing the outcomes to proactive arrests, interrogations, and disruptions of terror cells enabled by provisions for and targeted raids. Such measures, grounded in military orders authorizing searches and seizures without prior judicial warrants in security contexts, have consistently dismantled infrastructure for improvised explosive devices and shooting attacks, preventing casualties on a scale observed during the Second Intifada (2000–2005), when over 1,000 Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorism. The construction of the security barrier, justified under military orders as a necessary defense against infiltration, significantly curtailed bombings originating from the . Prior to its substantial completion around 2006, attacks peaked at dozens annually, claiming hundreds of lives; post-erection, successful incursions from barrier-affected areas in the northern dropped to zero, with overall bombings against Israeli targets falling by over 90 percent. This empirical reduction stemmed from physical deterrence combined with orders regulating movement and checkpoints, which limited terrorist mobility while allowing monitored crossings for non-threat actors, thereby sustaining lower lethality compared to pre-barrier eras. In contrast to Gaza following Israel's 2005 disengagement, where withdrawal of military oversight correlated with a surge in rocket fire exceeding 20,000 projectiles since 2006 and Hamas's consolidation of power, the West Bank's retention of Israeli military administration has precluded similar escalation into sustained cross-border barrages or territorial control by designated terrorist groups. Operations like "Break the Wave," initiated in 2022 amid rising lone-wolf stabbings and shootings that killed 21 Israelis in early months, further exemplify how military orders facilitate intelligence-driven preemptions, maintaining relative stability by neutralizing over 500 terror suspects annually and preventing organizational entrenchment akin to Gaza's post-disengagement trajectory. These outcomes underscore the causal role of enforced security protocols in minimizing successful violence, with Israeli civilian fatalities from West Bank-sourced terrorism averaging under 20 per year in recent stable periods versus peaks exceeding 400 during unchecked intifada phases.

Socio-Economic Developments Under Orders

Under Israeli military administration since 1967, Palestinian territories witnessed initial economic expansion through labor integration with Israel, where Palestinian workers' remittances constituted up to 40% of West Bank GDP by the late 1980s. This period saw average annual GDP per capita growth of around 5-6% in the West Bank during the 1970s, outpacing many regional economies and elevating living standards via access to higher-wage jobs in construction and agriculture. However, subsequent intifadas and security-related closures, enforced via military orders, reduced cross-border employment from over 100,000 workers pre-2000 to under 20,000 by the mid-2000s, contracting GDP growth to negative rates in affected years like 2002. Infrastructure developments under military oversight included expanded utility networks, with supplying over 90% of electricity by the 2010s, enabling near-universal household access compared to pre-1967 levels under Jordanian control. infrastructure similarly advanced, connecting 96% of to piped systems by 2010 through joint projects and Israeli-managed aquifers, though allocation disputes persisted, with receiving about 80 cubic meters annually versus higher usage. These extensions, regulated by orders like those on resource coordination, supported agricultural output growth of 3-4% annually in the , but Gaza lagged with chronic shortages exacerbated by policies post-2007. Social indicators reflected mixed outcomes, with in the territories rising from approximately 52 years in 1967 to 74 years by 2020, attributable to improved sanitation and coverage under administered frameworks integrating Israeli medical referrals. Educational enrollment surged, with rates climbing from 60% in the 1960s to over 97% by the 2010s, facilitated by orders permitting standardization and UNRWA expansions, though university access faced permit restrictions. Unemployment averaged 15-20% in the West Bank during stable periods with open labor markets, dropping below 18% in 2022 pre-escalation, underscoring the causal link between reduced barriers and economic participation. Recent conflicts, including post-October 2023 disruptions, halved cross-border to 24,000 workers, slashing remittances and contracting GDP by 33% in Q4 2023.
IndicatorPre-1967 BaselinePeak Post-1967 AchievementRecent (2022-2023)
GDP Growth (annual avg.)~2% (Jordanian era)5-7% (1970s-1980s)3.9% (2022), -33% Q4 2023
Negligible~130,000 (1990s)~177,000 (pre-Oct 2023), ~24,000 (Q2 2025)
Electricity Access ()<50%>95% (2010s)Stable, Israel-supplied 90%+
Infant Mortality (per 1,000 births)~140 (1960s)~20 (2020s)Varied by conflict intensity
These patterns indicate that military orders, while imposing security constraints, empirically correlated with infrastructure and gains during phases of relative openness, though chronic restrictions and violence cycles limited sustained convergence with Israeli benchmarks.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Adaptations

Israeli military orders have demonstrated long-term effectiveness in suppressing large-scale organized terrorism in the , as evidenced by the sharp decline in suicide bombings following in 2002, when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reasserted control over Palestinian Authority-controlled areas amid the Second Intifada's peak of over 130 suicide attacks in 2001-2002. Post-operation, suicide bombings dropped to near zero by 2005, with overall significant terrorist attacks from the falling by approximately 90% in the subsequent decade due to dismantled terror infrastructures and sustained IDF raids. This contrasts with Gaza, where Israel's 2005 disengagement led to Hamas's takeover and a surge in rocket fire—over 20,000 projectiles launched from 2006 to 2023—culminating in the , 2023, attack killing 1,200 , while West Bank-originated attacks remained confined to stabbings, shootings, and vehicular assaults without equivalent mass incursions. Economically, military orders enabling coordinated access to Israeli labor markets contributed to robust growth in the , with Palestinian per capita GNP more than doubling from 1970 to 1980 through integration into 's economy and a real GDP growth averaging 4.21% annually in the prior to the 2023 escalation. IDF Central Command's administration has maintained relative stability for over 56 years, preventing arms smuggling comparable to Gaza's and enabling Palestinian employment in , which peaked at over 130,000 workers by 2022 before restrictions post-October 7. Adaptations to evolving threats include the construction of the security barrier starting in 2002, which reduced terrorist infiltrations by over 90% according to Israeli security assessments, supplemented by intelligence-led targeted operations shifting from broad incursions to precision arrests and eliminations of emerging networks. Military orders have been updated to address non-state actors, such as Order 1651 designating "hostile organizations" to curb , and responses to "lone wolf" attacks since the mid-2010s through enhanced surveillance and rapid-response units. Recent operations, like those in in 2024, incorporate engineering to reshape refugee camps and disrupt terror hubs, reflecting a doctrinal evolution toward preemptive disruption amid rising lone-actor incidents. These measures have sustained operational control despite Palestinian Authority weaknesses, averting a Gaza-like collapse while adapting to .

References

  1. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=ilj
  2. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1347&context=eilr
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/between-rules-and-implementation-the-difficulty-in-relying-on-international-law-in-military-courts-in-criminal-law/3185B683D6F1F88AEBD430AC7A082E72
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343444523_The_Rulings_of_the_Israeli_Military_Courts_and_International_Law
  5. https://www.arij.org/atlas40/chapter2.2.html
  6. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/12/17/born-without-civil-rights/israels-use-draconian-military-orders-repress
  7. https://addameer.ps/israeli_military_judicial_system/military_orders
  8. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occupation-of-water/
  9. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza
  10. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/booklet-261-an-example-of-israels-legal-system-in-the-west-bank/
  11. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/topics/occupied-territories
  12. http://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israel-ajuri-v-idf-commander
  13. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-195380/
  14. https://www.rulac.org/browse/conflicts/military-occupation-of-palestine-by-israel
  15. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-occupied-international-law/
  16. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/hamas-israel-conflict2023-key-legal-aspects
  17. https://www.gov.il/en/pages/the-israeli-palestinian-interim-agreement-annex-iv
  18. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/dcipalestine/pages/5323/attachments/original/1685106693/Military_Order_1651.pdf
  19. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_866_9.pdf
  20. https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMGovt.htm
  21. https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/199403_law_enforcement
  22. https://www.state.gov/reports/2016-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-and-the-occupied-territories/israel-and-the-occupied-territories-the-occupied-territories
  23. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/association-civil-rights-v-central-district-commander
  24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4324434
  25. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-203742/
  26. https://www.eccpalestine.org/israels-obligations-as-an-occupying-power-under-international-law-its-violations-and-implications-for-eu-policy/
  27. https://hlrn.org/activitydetails.php?id=qG1sZQ==
  28. https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/alhaq_files/publications/Twenty_Years_of_Israel_Occupiation_of_the_West_Bank_and_Gaza.pdf
  29. https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1980/01/West-Bank-rule-of-law-thematic-report-1980-eng.pdf
  30. https://almuntaqa.dohainstitute.org/en/issue016/Documents/almuntaqa-15-2024-Bader-Khalil.pdf
  31. https://dokumen.pub/israels-occupation-9780520942363.html
  32. https://www.merip.org/1988/01/primer-israels-military-regime/
  33. https://www.btselem.org/download/199801_decade_of_violations_eng.doc
  34. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/12/8/history-illustrated-the-first-intifada-against-israel
  35. https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501750434.003.0004
  36. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
  37. https://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/OccasionalPaper1.pdf
  38. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6-04.htm
  39. https://apidiakoniase.cdn.triggerfish.cloud/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/law-and-order-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territory.pdf
  40. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176
  41. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ceirpp-legal-study2023/
  42. https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/israel-defense-forces-strategy-document
  43. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/palestinian-terrorism/whats-the-truth-behind-checkpoints-and-crossings-in-judea-and-samaria/
  44. https://jcpa.org/article/the-beginning-of-israeli-rule-in-judea-and-samaria/
  45. https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Memo187_11.pdf
  46. https://www.jns.org/idf-expands-judea-and-samaria-security-guards-authority/
  47. https://barhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BHRC-Military-Courts-Observation-Report.pdf
  48. https://www.militarycourtwatch.org/files/server/MILITARY%2520BRIEFING%2520NOTE%2520-%2520DEC%25202019.pdf
  49. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/military-advocate-generals-corps/the-idf-military-justice-system/
  50. https://addameer.ps/israeli_military_judicial_system/military_courts
  51. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/16/4/661/381041
  52. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/central-command/
  53. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/coordination-of-government-activities-in-the-territories/govil-landing-page
  54. https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/General/ado
  55. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/678765
  56. https://addameer.ps/israeli_military_judicial_system/administrative_detention
  57. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza
  58. https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
  59. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israel-house-demolitions-occupied-palestinian-territory
  60. https://ucigcc.org/interview/do-israeli-policies-deter-violence/
  61. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2020/israel
  62. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/byman20060324.pdf
  63. https://merip.org/1988/01/primer-israels-military-regime/
  64. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-occupying-power-responsibilities-occupied-palestinian-territories
  65. https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/alhaq_files/publications/Civilian_Administration_in_the_Occupied_West_Bank.pdf
  66. https://www.btselem.org/demonstrations/military_order_101
  67. https://www.newarab.com/indepth/2017/8/27/Military-Order-101-Banning-protests-in-Palestine
  68. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2023/israel-home-invasions-palestine-in-the-dead-of-night/
  69. https://www.ochaopt.org/2023-movement
  70. https://www.btselem.org/download/19670827_order_regarding_prohibition_of_incitement_and_hostile_propaganda.pdf
  71. https://andyreiter.com/wp-content/uploads/military-justice/il/Laws%20and%20Decrees/Israel%20-%201967%20-%20Order%20No.%20101%20Regarding%20the%20Prohibition%20of%20Acts%20of%20Incitement%20and%20Hostile%20Propaganda.pdf
  72. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/08/50-years-of-israeli-occupation-four-outrageous-facts-about-military-order-101/
  73. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2021/israel
  74. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-207980/
  75. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/fewer-permits-granted-access-land-behind-barrier
  76. https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement
  77. https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/OCHAFACTSHEET_250823.pdf
  78. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-said-to-establish-dozens-more-west-bank-checkpoints-during-ceasefire-clogging-roads/
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304192576_The_Situational_Prevention_of_Terrorism_An_Evaluation_of_the_Israeli_West_Bank_Barrier
  80. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/dynamiccollectorresultitem/hr-11/he/HumanRightsConvention_UPR_UPRreportoftheworkinggroup.pdf
  81. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-176206/
  82. https://peacenow.org.il/en/what-is-a-declaration-of-state-land
  83. https://www.btselem.org/settlements/20140910_declaration_of_state_land_in_bethlehem_area
  84. https://www.trtworld.com/article/2e2cc623ac28
  85. https://www.yesh-din.org/en/ill-gotten-gains-theft-of-palestinian-land-declaring-state-land-where-settlement-of-title-was-halted-when-israel-occupied-the-west-bank/
  86. https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/199809_disputed_waters
  87. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/west-bank-farmers-gather-precious-olives-harvest-season-brings-new-settler-2025-10-24/
  88. https://peacenow.org.il/en/a-bill-that-would-allow-settler-to-buy-land-in-the-west-bank-without-limit
  89. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179418/
  90. https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200205_land_grab
  91. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/diis/0025526/f_0025526_20876.pdf
  92. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-announces-largest-appropriation-of-state-land-in-west-bank-since-oslo-accords/
  93. http://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israeloccupied-palestinian-territory-occupation-and-natural-resources
  94. https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/A.HRC_.48.43_230921.pdf
  95. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-197919/
  96. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-11/resilience_series_-_agriculture_in_area_c_-_final.pdf
  97. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-199200/
  98. https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/9885
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837723001898
  100. https://mondoweiss.net/2025/06/israel-just-reopened-land-property-registration-in-the-west-bank-heres-what-that-means/
  101. https://peacenow.org.il/en/cabinet-decision-land-registration
  102. https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/checkpoints_and_forbidden_roads
  103. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/15/israeli-checkpoints-barriers-raise-fears-in-the-west-bank
  104. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-update-328-west-bank
  105. https://www.btselem.org/topic/military_courts
  106. http://www.qil-qdi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/02_Israeli-Military-Justice-System_Azarova_FIN.pdf
  107. https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Judge_Jury_Occupier_report_War_on_Want.pdf
  108. https://gisha.org/en/frequently-asked-questions-the-threat-of-deportation-from-the-west-bank-and-the-new-order-on-the-prevention-of-infiltration/
  109. https://www.btselem.org/military_courts
  110. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza
  111. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/07/israel-un-experts-condemn-decades-unfair-trials-palestinians-occupied-west
  112. https://www.972mag.com/conviction-rate-for-palestinians-in-israels-military-courts-99-74-percent/
  113. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde150341991en.pdf
  114. https://www.securityincontext.org/posts/locked-in-conflict-israels-repressive-carceral-system
  115. https://www.btselem.org/download/201506_presumed_guilty_eng.pdf
  116. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2010/04/israeli-military-orders-breach-international-human-rights-law-warns-un
  117. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1675646
  118. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/04/new-israeli-military-order-could-increase-expulsions-west-bank-palestinians-2010-04/
  119. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-183176/
  120. https://pchrgaza.org/pchr-condemn-new-israeli-military-orders-aimed-at-expelling-west-bank-palestinians/
  121. https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/02/05/forget-about-him-hes-not-here/israels-control-palestinian-residency-west-bank-and
  122. https://mezan.org/public/en/post/10031
  123. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184302/
  124. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza
  125. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557757258/ch06.xml
  126. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/gdsapp2015d2_en.pdf
  127. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/19/occupation-inc/how-settlement-businesses-contribute-israels-violations
  128. https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/the-demise-of-palestinian-productive-sectors-internal-trade-as-a-microcosm-of-the-impact-of-occupation/
  129. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/economic-reforms/
  130. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/west-bank-and-gaza-import-requirements-and-documentation
  131. https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/38815/palestinian-israeli-protocol-economic-relations
  132. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/05/28/there-is-no-economic-solution-for-a-political-problem-the-state-of-the-palestinian-economy
  133. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/STATE-WESTBANK/gkvlaejbwpb/
  134. https://fmep.org/resource/settlement-annexation-report-april-26-2024/
  135. https://docs.un.org/en/A/80/399
  136. https://www.amnesty.org/en/projects/israels-occupation-of-palestinian-territory/
  137. https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_systemic_denial_of_fair_trial_rights_to_palestinian_child_prisoners_amounts_to_arbitrary_detention
  138. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208646/
  139. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/01/06/more-than-1000-terror-attacks-in-west-bank-and-jerusalem-thwarted-in-2024/
  140. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/terror-2023-2024/
  141. https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/fe-3014381841.pdf
  142. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/palestinian-terrorism/setting-the-facts-straight-on-the-security-fence/
  143. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/israels-security-fence-effective-reducing-suicide-attacks-northern-west-bank
  144. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/operation-defensive-shield-lessons-and-aftermath
  145. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/skp1riulge
  146. https://www.meforum.org/middle-east-quarterly/does-foreign-aid-fuel-palestinian-violence
  147. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2020/01/27/occupied-elsewhere/
  148. https://jcpa.org/article/hijacking-laws-occupation/
  149. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf
  150. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/middle-east/iraq-united-states-orders-disorder
  151. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/law-belligerent-occupation/
  152. https://www.ejiltalk.org/some-additional-comments-on-the-ecthr-crimea-judgment-occupation-sovereignty-and-law/
  153. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/shin-bet-says-it-foiled-1040-major-terror-attacks-in-west-bank-and-jerusalem-in-2024/
  154. https://www.idf.il/en/articles/2023/one-year-since-operation-break-the-wave/
  155. https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/view/55/46
  156. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2022/israel-west-bank-and-gaza
  157. https://www.boi.org.il/media/ppcd3k42/dp1111e.pdf
  158. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/a78d303_en.pdf
  159. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557758279/ch06.xml
  160. https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/analysis-of-palestinian-water-issues-and-israels-role/
  161. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/westbankandgaza/overview
  162. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1457109/
  163. https://cemofps.org/documents/download/education_in_the_palestinian_territories.pdf
  164. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/88b250e19a55174787bafafd5322360e-0280012025/original/Palestinian-Economic-Update-Sept2025-FINAL.pdf
  165. https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/512/default.aspx?lang=en&ItemID=4672
  166. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2023/327/article-A001-en.xml
  167. https://israeled.org/operation-defensive-shield/
  168. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/prioritizing-west-bank-amid-escalation-and-deterioration
  169. https://www.sixdaywar.org/long-term-effects/palestinian-economic-growth/
  170. https://tcf.org/content/report/the-economic-foundation-for-peace-in-israel-and-palestine/
  171. https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Security-Arragements-all-doc-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf
  172. https://acleddata.com/report/iron-wall-or-iron-fist-palestinian-militancy-and-israels-campaign-reshape-northern-west-0
  173. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/lone-wolf-terrorist-attacks-israel-create-new-challenges-intelligence
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.