Politics of Archaeology in Israel and Palestine

The legal basis for archaeological regulation in the region traces to the 1922 Palestine Mandate. Article 21 required that a law of antiquities be enacted and set out foundational principles: equal treatment in excavation and archaeological research for nationals of League of Nations member states; authorization requirements for digging; permits limited to those with sufficient archaeological experience; and equitable terms for expropriating land of historical or archaeological interest.[3] The article also addressed the sale and export licensing of antiquities and established penalties for damage to them.[3]

Organized archaeological work in Jerusalem predates the Mandate by decades. Nineteenth-century surveys led to increasingly systematic mapping and investigation, while archaeological work under the British Mandate became more formally regulated and scientific. Following the 1967 war, large-scale excavations were conducted at the foot of the Temple Mount, in the Jewish Quarter, and on Mount Zion.[4]

After Israel's establishment in 1948, the Israel Department of Antiquities was established in July of that year.[4] Following the 1967 war, Israeli teams conducted an emergency survey of the newly administered territories, including Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights.[4] The Israel Antiquities Authority was established in 1990, a development that transformed the discipline from what one scholar calls a volunteer-driven "national hobby" into a professionalized field, while simultaneously expanding the workforce to include Arab citizens, religious Jews, and new immigrants.[5]

Palestinian archaeological institutions developed in parallel. In the early 2000s, a Palestine Department of Antiquities was established, and archaeology courses were introduced at Bir Zeit and al-Quds universities.[4] The department's director, Hamdan Taha, has said that the department employed around 130 people, carried out several dozen rescue excavations annually in Palestinian Authority-administered areas, and maintained about ten ongoing research excavations with foreign partners.[6] Taha has also stated that all periods of local history — including the period of the biblical Israelites — form part of Palestinian history.[6]

The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip established the primary legal framework governing archaeological authority in the territories. It provided for the transfer of archaeological powers and responsibilities from Israel's military government and Civil Administration to the Palestinian side, encompassing site protection and preservation, management, supervision, licensing, and other archaeological activities.[7] For Area C — under full Israeli administrative and security control — the agreement provided for gradual transfer during further redeployments, while reserving certain matters for permanent-status negotiations.[7]

The agreement also assigned the Palestinian side specific duties: to safeguard archaeological sites, respect academic freedom, issue excavation licenses without discrimination subject to academic considerations and applicable law, and ensure, as the text states, "free access to archaeological sites, open to the public without discrimination."[7] A joint committee of experts was established to handle matters of common interest, and both sides were required to notify one another of newly discovered sites and to raise concerns about sites regarded as holy or archaeologically significant.[7]

On the question of artifacts, the agreement required Israel to provide archaeological records for areas transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction, including lists of excavated sites and descriptions of artifacts found since 1967.[7] The Palestinian demand that Israel return archaeological artifacts found in the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 was explicitly recorded in the agreement but assigned to final-status negotiations rather than resolved at the interim stage.[7] Both sides also undertook to cooperate against the theft and illegal trade or transport of antiquities.[7]

In practice, jurisdiction differs by area and by population. The agreement provided for the gradual transfer of archaeology-related powers in Area C, while Palestinians and Israelis in Judea and Samaria remain subject to overlapping bodies of Jordanian and Mandatory-era statutes, Israeli military ordinances, Palestinian Authority law, and Israeli law, depending on their location and status.[7][8]

No site in the region concentrates the intersection of archaeology, religion, and politics more intensely than the Temple Mount — the holiest site in Judaism and the location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, sacred to Islam. After 1967, Israel applied Israeli law in East Jerusalem, including at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, but left Muslim religious administration and day-to-day management to the Islamic Waqf while retaining security and policing powers.[9] The resulting informal status quo is characterized by a fundamental legal disagreement: Israel's position is that its antiquities and planning laws apply and require approvals for construction and excavation within the compound, while the Waqf does not recognize Israeli sovereignty or the applicability of Israeli law there and identifies alternative legal bases for its authority.[9]

Disputes over construction and excavation at the compound have repeatedly become flashpoints. Israel began excavating what became known as the Western Wall Tunnel in 1969; the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research notes that initial work was conducted without archaeological supervision and was not part of an organized research project.[9] When the Netanyahu government opened a northern exit to the tunnel in September 1996 despite Waqf opposition, Palestinians interpreted the move as a violation of the status quo and a threat to the mosques above; the opening sparked widespread riots in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and contributed to a partial breakdown of post-1967 arrangements.[9]

Excavations in the southern area near the Temple Mount uncovered remains from multiple periods — Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Second Temple, and early Roman — and the excavated area became the Jerusalem Archaeological Park.[9] The Waqf nonetheless opposed these excavations partly because it feared that finds from the Jewish period could strengthen claims to Jewish ownership or control, illustrating how research revealing remains from multiple historical periods can still carry acute political weight.[9]

On the other side of the archaeological ledger, the Waqf and the Northern Islamic Movement developed Solomon's Stables into the Marwani prayer hall beginning in the 1990s. In 1999, work described as creating a large entrance involved heavy equipment and the removal of approximately 62,000 tons of earth containing archaeological finds; the work was not archaeologically supervised and significantly damaged earlier layers.[9] Israeli authorities faced criticism for permitting equipment into the compound and for failing to halt the work, with enforcement constrained by fears of violence.[9] The State Comptroller's 2011 report subsequently found deficiencies in supervision and enforcement during 2001–2007, including work carried out without required permits; and Israel Antiquities Authority inspectors, who had previously been able to enter structures within the compound, were barred from doing so after the 1996 tunnel dispute and had not regained access as of 2011.[9]

The differing accounts of what the status quo requires compound these disputes. Israeli officials generally describe it in terms of Muslim administration and worship, Israeli security and policing, and non-Muslim access without Jewish prayer in practice. Palestinian and Jordanian actors, as described by the Jerusalem Institute, often treat the pre-1996 arrangement as the reference point and view the 1996 tunnel opening, later changes to visitation, and associated archaeological works as an erosion of that arrangement — linked to fears of "Judaization," division of the compound, and changes to Muslim control.[9]

The City of David lies south of the Temple Mount beneath and within Silwan and is identified with ancient Jerusalem. Excavations have uncovered water tunnels and defense systems dating to Canaanite and Jebusite periods, later eighth-century BCE additions traditionally attributed to King Hezekiah, clay seals bearing the names of officials mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah, a large pool, and a stepped route leading toward the Temple area.[2] Debate remains over whether particular structures can be tied to King David or used to confirm specific biblical narratives.[2]

The site has become a major tourist destination where archaeological interpretation, Jewish historical and biblical significance, Palestinian residents' lives, and modern political claims converge. The Ir David Foundation presents the site as a place of Jewish national and biblical importance, while Emek Shaveh and Ir Amim criticize its political framing and argue that insufficient attention is given to local Palestinian residents. Emek Shaveh's alternative tours promote joint ownership of the finds and sensitivity to local inhabitants.[2]

A 2020 survey by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found that 85% of Silwan respondents called the nearby excavations "very bad," compared with 50% in adjacent Abu Tur and 25% elsewhere in Jerusalem — though each of the two neighborhood subsamples contained only 100 respondents and should be interpreted with appropriate caution.[10] Critics argue that the excavations and associated tourism promote a Jewish-centered account of Jerusalem's past while giving insufficient attention to Palestinian residents and other historical periods. Supporters present the discoveries as evidence of Jerusalem's deep Jewish past and its connection to the Temple.[2]

A further planning dispute involves the al-Bustan section of Silwan, where a proposal to demolish 22 houses to create what was described as a "King's Garden" has been connected to the idea that the area extends the archaeological garden of the City of David. Archaeologist Yonatan Mizrahi has written that significant archaeological remains are not expected in al-Bustan, that no excavation had been conducted there, and that while some biblical scholars associate the area with the biblical King's Garden, the identification cannot be proven archaeologically.[11]

A peer-reviewed study of the City of David heritage-tourism site, based on 43 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and textual analysis of historical documents and contemporary materials, investigated the decisions and processes involved, stakeholder perceptions, and the role of archaeological excavations in the development of conflict. The study proposed a framework for analyzing heritage-tourism sites in conflict zones.[1]

Archaeology in Israel has from the state's earliest decades been entangled with national identity and public life. During the first 25 years of the state, the discipline was prominent in Israeli public culture and helped connect contemporary society to the ancient past and the land.[5] Participation was concentrated among Ashkenazi Jews, residents of major cities, and members of the labor-settlement movement, while religious Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and Arab citizens were less involved — a composition that later shifted as secular-Zionist cultural dominance weakened, social change advanced, and the professionalization of the field increased opportunities.[5]

Specific sites became powerful symbols. The Masada story, for instance, became a model of Jewish bravery and the willingness to fight for autonomy.[2] After 1967, Israeli archaeologists excavating in the Old City found remains associated with Second Temple-period life, while questions about the origins of Jewish rule and the Davidic Kingdom remained more contested among scholars.[2] The Jewish Quarter excavations in the Old City — led by Nahman Avigad following a political decision to demolish and rebuild the quarter, which had been badly damaged during and after the 1948 War of Independence — uncovered remains from the Iron Age, Roman period, and Crusader period; these were subsequently incorporated into the Jewish Quarter's tourist presentation.[12]

Archaeologist Rafi Greenberg draws a distinction between what he calls "small archaeology" — the professional work archaeologists conduct — and "big archaeology" — the popular narratives and non-professional language used to present the field to the public, which helps attract public and financial support.[12] Construction of Jewish neighborhoods east of the Green Line, including Ramat Eshkol, Ma'alot Dafna, French Hill, Gilo, East Talpiot, and later Ramot, exposed extensive Jewish burial grounds, especially from the Roman period, prompting rescue excavations of surrounding sites.[12] Greenberg argues that rescue excavations could be prompted by political development even when archaeologists understood their work as a practical response to circumstances rather than a political initiative.[12]

A proposed identification of a large structure in the City of David area as King David's palace illustrates how interpretive disputes within archaeology become public controversies. Eilat Mazar excavated the structure and a tower in 2005 and suggested they could fit the biblical account; Israel Finkelstein and other critics questioned the early dating and challenged the identification of the structure as David's palace.[2] The broader scholarly question of what archaeological evidence establishes about the House of David and the extent of a Davidic kingdom remains unresolved.[2]

Palestinian institutions have developed their own archaeological and heritage programs alongside, and sometimes in conflict with, Israeli-administered activities. The Palestinian Authority's Tourism and Antiquities Ministry has reported approximately 69 excavations across the West Bank in a single year and has added 14 sites to UNESCO's tentative World Heritage list.[13] PA officials have framed heritage work as the protection of Palestinian culture and as a response to Israeli measures they fear could expand control over historically significant places.[13]

At Tel Balata, the site of ancient Shechem near present-day Nablus, a joint project by Dutch and Palestinian archaeologists under the auspices of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities — supported by the Palestinian Tourism Ministry, the Dutch government, and UNESCO — aimed to convert the site into an archaeological park and to introduce Nablus residents to its antiquities.[6] The site had seen excavation episodes under Ottoman, British, and Jordanian rule but had deteriorated during decades of conflict and restrictions on movement.[6]

In Gaza, archaeological heritage has been affected by conflict and limited institutional capacity. The PA ministry estimated that approximately 226 heritage and historic sites had suffered damage, with 13 experts involved in mapping losses through satellite imagery and an estimated 26 million euros needed to restore the cultural heritage sector.[13] These assessments were attributed to the ministry and were reported amid the war, alongside competing accounts of damage, responsibility, and heritage protection.[13]

International heritage institutions, particularly UNESCO, have repeatedly become arenas for political contests over sites in Jerusalem and Hebron. In February 2007, UNESCO announced it would send experts to inspect a contested archaeological excavation in Jerusalem's Old City after consulting Israeli and Islamic authorities.[14] Israel described the excavation as necessary to search for artifacts before renovations to a walkway linking the Western Wall plaza to the Temple Mount, a site UNESCO had listed among its World Heritage properties.[14]

In October 2016, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee passed a resolution titled "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" by a vote of 10 in favor, eight opposed, two abstentions, and one absent.[15] The resolution referred to the Temple Mount/Holy Sanctuary solely as "Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif" and did not explicitly mention Jerusalem's significance to all three monotheistic religions, a formulation that drew sharp criticism from Jewish organizations who argued that the resolution denied the site's Jewish historical and religious importance.[15]

In July 2017, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee designated the Old City of Hebron, including the Tomb of the Patriarchs, a World Heritage Site in Danger through an emergency procedure, passing the draft resolution 12 votes in favor, with six abstentions and three opposed.[16] Jewish organizations condemned the decision, arguing it treated Hebron as a Muslim-Palestinian site alone and denied its Jewish and Christian historical and religious significance.[16]

The administration of archaeological sites in Judea and Samaria has become a focal point for disputes about legal authority, sovereignty, and the proper limits of Israeli civilian governance in the territories. Under the Oslo framework, archaeological powers were to be transferred to the Palestinian side, with responsibilities in Area C transferred gradually during further redeployments.[7] A later proposal initiated by MK Amit Halevi sought to give an Israeli civilian antiquities body responsibility for sites in the West Bank. Halevi cited looting and vandalism, while the Civil Administration's Staff Officer for Archaeology, the Archaeological Council, the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and an Israel Antiquities Authority representative opposed or questioned the measure. A Ynet opinion writer characterized the proposal as a step toward applying Israeli sovereignty and law; that was the author's political interpretation.[17]

A 2026 INSS analysis by Udi Dekel and Tammy Caner reported that the Israeli government had decided to extend enforcement powers on water, environmental, heritage, and archaeological matters beyond Area C into Areas A and B. The authors characterized the change as a move toward ongoing administrative intervention that reduces Palestinian Authority autonomy and planning authority.[18] The same analysis reported that planning and construction authority in the settlement area of Hebron and at the Tomb of the Patriarchs compound had been transferred to the Civil Administration, bypassing the Hebron municipality, and that an Israeli administrative body with permanent authority and funding had been established for Rachel's Tomb.[18] The authors interpreted these moves as a shift from agreed frameworks toward direct Israeli management at sites of religious and historical significance.[18]

At Tel Shiloh — a site identified with ancient Jewish worship before the Jerusalem Temple, with Byzantine church ruins and reported Christian and Islamic associations — an Israeli court ruled in July 2019 that administration could remain with the Benjamin district council, with Civil Administration involvement, rather than being transferred directly to Israeli national authorities.[8] Israeli NGOs Emek Sheveh and Yesh Din had argued that the council's administration focused on Jewish heritage to the detriment of the site's Christian and Islamic history.[8]

Debate over antiquities administration also invokes cultural-property law. The Ynet opinion article argued that international rules, including the Hague framework, restrict the removal of archaeological finds from territory in conflict, while advocates of expanded Israeli authority have framed their proposals as necessary to protect sites from theft and vandalism.[17] These are competing legal and policy positions rather than a settled conclusion in the cited source.

The role of private organizations in funding or conducting archaeological work has itself become politically charged. The U.S. State Department's 2016 International Religious Freedom Report recounted that an Israeli State Comptroller report found that the Israel Antiquities Authority had authorized Elad, described as a private Israeli settler group, to conduct an archaeological dig in Silwan.[19] NGOs alleged that the excavation improperly exposed Second Jewish Temple-period building remains by excavating through layers of Muslim Mamluk, Byzantine Christian, and Roman ruins.[19]

In May and June 2023, the Israeli government approved 340 million shekels, reported as approximately $93.9 million, for work described as preserving, salvaging, and developing antiquities and preventing antiquity theft in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, as well as for development of archaeological sites in East Jerusalem.[20] The State Department report attributed to +972 Magazine the interpretation that the funding was intended to ground settlements in biblical literalism and archaeology and to erode Palestinian claims; the stated program purposes were preservation, development, and prevention of antiquities theft.[20]

A 202-meter suspension bridge over the Hinnom Valley, opened to the public on July 30, 2023, linked an Elad-owned events center in Abu Tor/al-Thuri to Mount Zion.[21] The Israeli NGO Emek Shaveh characterized the bridge as part of a series of projects creating "Judeo-centric attractions" and settler strongholds in Palestinian space.[21] The same period saw controversy over an expansion plan for the Jerusalem Walls National Park, which includes sites important to Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions and was criticized by churches and other groups.[21]

The politics of archaeology in Israel and Palestine generate several recurring and overlapping controversies that span professional, institutional, and public dimensions.

Critics, including some Israeli archaeologists and NGOs, have alleged that the Israel Antiquities Authority and excavations in Jerusalem emphasize finds supporting Jewish claims while minimizing historically significant material from other periods and religious traditions.[20][8] The Israeli government's stated position, as presented in a U.S. State Department report, is that the Authority conducts impartial evaluations and is legally obligated to document, preserve, and publish excavation findings, and that its researchers have greatly intensified research into what it describes as "non-Jewish" periods including prehistoric, Early Bronze, Byzantine, Muslim, Mamluk, and Ottoman layers.[8]

Allegations that Israeli excavations in Silwan privilege Jewish-period remains are reported as criticisms rather than established findings.[20][8] Emek Shaveh's Yonatan Mizrahi argues that archaeological remains should not be used to prove ownership of a place by any people or religious group, presenting sites as significant both for their material remains and for the people who live nearby, and calling for local residents to participate in excavation, site care, and tours.[11] He also argues that tourism development in East Jerusalem has not generally involved all local residents and that much of the income flows to Israeli authorities and settler organizations managing the sites.[11]

An Emek Shaveh director, writing in an opinion piece in Maariv, argues that demands for extensive excavation can frame the Israel-Palestine region as a political contest in which "Arabs" destroy antiquities and "Jews" reclaim their past, and that subordinating archaeological research to a national project raises professional and ethical concerns about the finite nature of archaeological resources.[22] These are the author's arguments in an opinion context and represent one position in an active internal professional debate.

Archaeologist Greenberg characterizes some archaeological-park projects in Jerusalem's Historic Basin as connected to Jewish settlement and to efforts to reshape the demographic and spatial character of the city, with ideological organizations managing parks as state contractors.[12] Supporters of such projects, by contrast, describe development as legal, regulated, and protective of antiquities. These differing characterizations run through nearly every significant excavation and heritage project in the region and reflect genuine disagreements — among archaeologists, legal scholars, government officials, NGOs, and residents — about the proper aims of archaeological work in a contested landscape.