On Sunday, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved several measures relating to the West Bank. Inevitably, these measures have drawn both support and criticism. Unfortunately, they also led to a wave of poor journalism. Rather than providing the full context, outlets like CNN (“Israel tightens grip on West Bank ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to US,” by Tal Shalev and Ibrahim Dahman, Feb. 8) and the New York Times (“Israel Gives Itself More Control Over Occupied West Bank,” by David Halbfinger and Isabel Kershner, Feb. 9) produced one-sided narratives that omitted basic, but important, context.
Here is the context they left out.
The Cabinet Decisions
Details of the policy changes are still somewhat murky, but several developments have drawn the most attention.
Repealing the Jordanian Law: In the words of CNN, the Cabinet adopted “measures that will make it easier for settlers to purchase land in the occupied West Bank, a move designed to…entrench the Jewish population.” The New York Times similarly described the move as one to “make it easier for Jews to buy land in the territory.”
Neither outlet explained exactly how the measure did so: by repealing a law that banned the sale of land to Jews.
One might ask, “How could such a law exist in the Jewish state?” During Israel’s War of Independence (1947-49), Jordan captured and illegally annexed the entirety of the West Bank, and in the process, ethnically cleansed the territory of its Jewish population. Shortly after, Jordan adopted a law banning the sale of land to non-nationals, with an exception provided (article 4, section 2 of the law) for some non-citizens so long as they were of Arab origin. In other words, to purchase land, one had to be of the correct racial criteria, thereby further entrenching the exclusion of Jews – including those ethnically cleansed during the war – from the land. Notably, this is where the Wall Street Journal’s coverage (“Israel Assumes Broad New Powers in the West Bank,” by Anat Peled, Feb. 9) also went awry. The paper falsely claimed that the law merely prevented “the sale of West Bank land to outsiders.”
When Israel captured the territory in a defensive war in 1967, it voluntarily agreed to apply Geneva Convention rules there, even though Israel did not consider itself to be an occupying power. These rules call for the “occupying power” to maintain the “penal laws” previously in force. Consequently, many laws remain on the books that trace back to Jordanian, British, and even Ottoman rule.
Once Israel took the territory, the law meant that Jews could not legally purchase land there. The Cabinet decision simply put an end to this holdover discriminatory law.
Notably, while Israeli law prohibits discrimination based on race or religion in the sale or lease of land, the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) has adopted an even more extreme line than the Jordanian occupation did. Under PA law, the sale of land to Jews is prohibited under penalty of death.
Astonishingly, while the New York Times acknowledged this law, it did so only to blame Israel for any forthcoming punishment. Referencing another Cabinet decision which unsealed land records, the Times argued that “keeping land records sealed also could protect Palestinian sellers from prosecution or worse.” In other words, the Times took issue not with the PA’s enforcement of antisemitism via the death penalty, but with an Israeli law enhancing public transparency in land records.
Building Licensing in Hebron: Continuing the theme of reversing anti-Jewish history, the Cabinet also moved building licensing authority in the Jewish area of Hebron from the local municipality, controlled by Palestinians, to the Israeli Civil Administration. Licensing for Palestinian Arab areas of Hebron remains under the control of the PA.
The city of Hebron.
Here, too, some historical context is necessary. Hebron is the world’s oldest Jewish community, mentioned 87 times in the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible). In 1929, Arabs carried out a pogrom against the Jews of Hebron, murdering 67. By 1936, the entire Jewish community had been murdered, fled, or was evacuated by British authorities who feared further violence. In 1948, Jordan captured the city. It was only when Israel recaptured Hebron in 1967 that Jews were permitted to return to their ancient community.
Thus, when the New York Times describes the Jewish area simply as “a small but aggressive Jewish settlement…at the center of the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank,” it is crafting a materially deceptive narrative that retroactively rewards the Arab ethnic cleansing. Jews are not “settlers” in Hebron; they are residing in a historically Jewish city in their indigenous homeland.
Enabling Enforcement for Environmental and Archaeological Sites: Another Cabinet decision expanded Israeli enforcement powers over water security, environmental hazards, and archaeological sites in parts of the West Bank where the PA has been granted administrative powers and, in some parts, some subordinate security powers. Both the New York Times and CNN depict this as a move toward enabling Israeli authorities to demolish Palestinian structures. In truth, they are a response to longstanding and unaddressed security issues.
Take, for example, the problem of hazardous waste burning by Palestinians in the territory. According to the Israeli State Comptroller, in 2022 Palestinians were using 123 illegal dumping sites in the West Bank, with 77 of those sites causing hazardous health and environmental effects on Israeli (and Palestinian) communities, including 39 sites burning on a “daily to weekly basis.” Just last month, in the village of Shoham, benzene levels were over five times the permitted level and residents were warned to stay indoors. Water, too, has become an environmental security concern. Over the years, thousands of illegal water connections have been made by Palestinians with millions of cubic meters being stolen in the West Bank, primarily by Palestinian Arab farmers.
Similarly, Jewish archaeological sites have been under persistent attack by Palestinians. For example, in October 2000, when Israel handed over control of Joseph’s Tomb to the PA, rioters immediately stormed, pillaged, and set fire to the building. The tomb has been repeatedly attacked and damaged ever since, as have other significant Jewish holy sites, such as Rachel’s Tomb.
The Meaningless International Law Card
Another contextless assertion in Western reporting on the Cabinet decisions has to do with “international law.” The New York Times, for example, declared in the first sentence that the decisions are “widely considered a violation of international law” without elaborating on how said decisions violate international law. CNN, too, confusingly declared that Israeli settlements “are considered illegal under international law, the United Nations, and by much of the international community.”
One could say they are considered illegal by actors within the UN, but neither CNN nor UN actors are authoritative arbiters of what is and isn’t a violation of international law. UN actors, as well as the far-left activists cited by the New York Times for the proposition, are merely political actors with their own viewpoint. The United States, Israel, and numerous legal scholars fundamentally disagree with their interpretation and believe Israeli settlements to be entirely lawful.
In fact, one basis for disputing the “illegal” charge lies in another agreement both media outlets assert Israel has violated with its Cabinet decision: the Oslo Accords. The New York Times, for example, claims – again without elaborating – that the Israeli measures “flout important agreements that Israel signed under the Oslo peace process…” But the Oslo Accords, which Palestinian leadership agreed to and which were endorsed by the same UN and “international community,” not only did not prohibit settlements, but actually legitimized them pending a final peace agreement, declaring, for example, that “The Palestinian side shall take all measures necessary to prevent such hostile acts directed against the Settlements [and] the infrastructure serving them…”
Here, the New York Times denied agency to Palestinians in yet another way. Whereas under the Oslo Accords Israel maintained ultimate security powers throughout the entirety of the West Bank, thereby lending a plausible justification for the recent Cabinet decisions, the PA has consistently flouted its own obligations and even loudly rejected the agreements. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas famously declared Palestinians could “no longer continue to be bound” by the Oslo Accords in a 2015 speech at the UN. Furthermore, instead of “tak[ing] all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism,” as required under the agreements, the PA has actively incited and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israelis.
Ultimately, there may be many legitimate reasons to criticize the Cabinet decisions. But there are also legitimate reasons to support those decisions – reasons media outlets like CNN and the New York Times omitted. Media consumers deserve the facts and the context, not journalists deciding for them what to think.