Israel Rewrites the Rules in Judea and Samaria: Enforcement, Land Rights, and a Shift in Policy
- J.P. Katz
- 2 hours ago
- 5 min read
Timestamped Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Recent Legislation in Judea Samaria
06:00 Impact of Government on Illegal Construction
10:17 Understanding Legislative Changes and Their Implications
20:45 The New Law on Land Purchases by Jews
30:34 Risks and Challenges for Arab Land Sellers
40:36 Future of Housing and Development in Judea Samaria
Full Article
In a wide-ranging conversation on the Tribecast, JP Katz sat down with Naomi Kahn, Director of the International Division at Regavim, to discuss what she describes as unprecedented legislative and policy shifts in Judea and Samaria. The developments include aggressive enforcement against illegal construction and the nullification of a decades-old "Jordanian Law 40" that barred Jews from purchasing land in the territory.
According to Kahn, the past weeks have marked a dramatic change in both tone and action on the ground.
Seizing Equipment, Stopping Illegal Construction
The first major shift involves enforcement. A new order empowers authorities to impound heavy machinery used in illegal building projects. Kahn says the policy began immediately.
“The same day the order was discussed, heavy machinery was being seized,” she noted, citing incidents in Gush Etzion and neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem, including Beit Hanina.
Beyond equipment seizures, authorities have carried out what she describes as unprecedented demolition of illegal structures—particularly light construction units often viewed as precursors to permanent expansion.
The numbers, according to Regavim’s 2025 mapping, are striking: a reported 50 percent decline in new illegal construction starts in Area C compared to 2024, alongside a sharp increase in demolitions of existing unauthorized structures.
Kahn contrasts this with what she calls rampant construction under the previous Bennett-Lapid coalition government. Under the current government, she says, enforcement has shifted from reactive to proactive.
While critics argue enforcement often fluctuates with political winds, Kahn believes something more durable is taking shape: a broader consensus following October 7 that subcontracting security or ignoring territorial realities poses risks.
“Keeping territory under control is what governments are required to do,” she said. “That’s why they exist.”
The Power of Military Orders
To outside observers—particularly Americans—the mechanism behind these changes can seem confusing. Judea and Samaria are not governed under regular Israeli civil law. Instead, authority rests with the military commander of Central Command, whose orders carry the force of law.
Kahn likens these military orders to legislation within sovereign Israel. While technically reversible, they are powerful policy instruments.
She draws a historical parallel to 1967, when Israel decided not to extend sovereignty formally over the territory captured in the Six-Day War. That decision, she argues, still shapes daily life nearly six decades later.
Such policy decisions, even absent new Knesset legislation, can have lasting structural impact.
Repealing Jordanian Law 40
The second major development may prove even more consequential: the effective nullification of Jordanian Law Number 40.
The law, enacted during Jordan’s occupation of the territory between 1948 and 1967, prohibited the sale of land to non-Jordanians or non-Muslims. Though Jordan later repealed the restriction within its own borders, the law technically remained in force in Judea and Samaria under Israel’s military governance framework.
Rather than strike it down, Israeli authorities for decades created a workaround. Israeli companies could purchase land through corporate entities registered in the territory, which would then transfer ownership. The process was costly, bureaucratic, and subject to legal challenges. Kahn argues that maintaining the workaround amounted to tacit acceptance of discrimination.
“Your laws express your values,” she said. “Why should Jewish rights be subject to a workaround?”
With the recent policy change, private land transactions are expected to become significantly more streamlined. Lawyers anticipate reduced bureaucracy, fewer ministerial approvals, and lower transaction costs. Importantly, the change applies to private land—not state land—and does not alter zoning requirements or planning laws.
Transparency and the Land Registry
Another reform aims at land registry transparency. For decades, property records in Judea and Samaria were not fully accessible to the public. Authorities feared that disclosure could expose Arab sellers to retaliation from the Palestinian Authority, where selling land to Jews can carry severe penalties, including imprisonment or worse.
Kahn contends the secrecy had unintended consequences. Fraudulent sales proliferated, with buyers discovering too late that sellers lacked legal title.
By making the registry accessible, authorities hope to reduce fraud and normalize real estate transactions. While implementation may take time, the initial military order will allow property owners and buyers to access records more easily.
Housing, Zoning, and Planning
The changes have sparked discussion about affordable housing. If individuals can more easily purchase large tracts of land, could that translate into lower housing costs?
Kahn tempers expectations. Ownership does not equal automatic building rights. Zoning laws, environmental protections, archaeological considerations, and security planning all apply.
Judea and Samaria contain some of the densest archaeological layers in the world. Construction often requires extensive surveys and excavations. Environmental factors—such as protection of the mountain aquifer—also constrain development.
Moreover, Israel has begun investing heavily in infrastructure planning for Area C, including roads, water systems, and electrical grids. Kahn says that in the past two years, planning efforts have surpassed those of the previous five decades combined.
In contrast to earlier decades of dispersed single-family construction, newer plans emphasize denser development to conserve land and reduce costs.
The Bureaucracy Question
JP Katz raised concerns about institutional gridlock—particularly in the Negev and the Galilee—where planning committees have stalled Jewish community expansion for decades. He referenced a previous interview with Akiva Bigman who researched 30 years of elected government decisions to start new communities in the periphery within the 1948 borders. The government decisions were both on the right and on the left of the political spectrum. However, the new communities were prevented from moving forward by what Bigman referred to as “Israel’s institutional bureaucracy.” Could similar bureaucratic resistance undermine development in Judea and Samaria?
Kahn acknowledges the risk. Regavim has filed petitions challenging planning regimes such as VATMAL, fast-track housing committees that she argues have disproportionately benefited illegal construction while constraining Jewish growth.
“Too many of these decisions happen when nobody’s looking,” she said.
Regavim’s broader mission, she explains, is to push land-use policy into public debate before entrenched bureaucracies can quietly shape outcomes.
A Turning Point?
Taken together, the enforcement measures, repeal of discriminatory land restrictions, and registry transparency signal what Kahn sees as a structural shift rather than a temporary policy swing.
She argues that a growing cross-party consensus now recognizes the security and legal implications of neglecting Area C. Recent Knesset votes rejecting Palestinian statehood reflect, in her view, a changed political climate.
Whether these reforms prove durable will depend on future governments and evolving geopolitical pressures. But for now, Israel’s approach to land, law enforcement, and property rights in Judea and Samaria appears to be entering a new phase—one aimed at asserting jurisdiction, simplifying commerce, and reshaping the legal landscape of a territory long defined by ambiguity.
The coming months and years will reveal whether these changes represent a momentary swing of the pendulum—or a lasting redefinition of policy.
Comments