اخبار فلسطين – وطن نيوز
فلسطين اليوم – اخبار فلسطين اليوم
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-06-17 11:01:00
Exclusive – Quds Network: The city of Hebron is once again turning into an arena for Israeli electoral propaganda, after the Minister of Finance in the extremist occupation government, Bezalel Smotrich, announced, in an unprecedented step, the cancellation of the Hebron Agreement, the “Redeployment Protocol,” signed in 1997 between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the occupation, in the context of what he described as “correcting the historical mistake, continuing the settlement regulation revolution, strengthening governance, and deepening Israeli sovereignty.” Official Palestinian institutions, as well as national and Islamic factions and forces, were quick to condemn the decision, while a brief statement issued by the occupation Ministry of Foreign Affairs sparked controversy after denying the validity of Smotrich’s announcement, stressing that “there is no truth to Smotrich’s announcement of completely canceling the Hebron Agreement.” However, Smotrich did not back down from his position, as his announcement came during the inauguration of the “Nahal Doron” settlement, which is planned to be established on lands west of the city of Dura, south of Hebron, before he published on his official Facebook page the phrase: “The Hebron Agreement has been cancelled.” The announcement was also shared by Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz and Chairman of the Hebron Settlements Council, Eliram Azoulay. The decision, if implemented, would go beyond undermining the powers of the Hebron Municipality in parts of the city to actually abolishing them in favor of the Hebron Settlements Council. It also opens the door to imposing complete Israeli control over the Ibrahimi Mosque, instead of the current control over parts of it, even though its total area exceeds two thousand square meters. The decision also falls within a broader process aimed at subjecting the city of Hebron administratively to the Settlements Council, in preparation for its annexation to the Negev Development Authority, based on a draft law approved by the Knesset in the first preliminary reading on May 22, 2024. The Governor of the Hebron Governorate, Khaled Dudin, said, in an interview with the Quds Network, that the decision announced by Smotrich represents a practical application that has begun to enter into force to target the city of Hebron by canceling the Hebron Agreement. He added, “Smotrich’s statement reflects the behavior of gangs that has nothing to do with any laws or regulations, but rather expresses a fascist and criminal person.” Dodin explained that the land seized by the occupation to establish the “Nahal Doron” settlement, from which the cancellation of the agreement was announced, is privately owned Palestinian land, and there are no sales or diversions to the settlement groups. Regarding the Ibrahimi Mosque, which is considered an essential gateway to implementing the decision, Dodin stated that the decision violates international law, stressing that even if the Hebron Agreement is cancelled, this does not give the occupation the right to seize control or impose control over the Ibrahimi Mosque, given that the Mosque and the Old City in Hebron are occupied areas. He added that Israeli law does not apply to the city of Hebron, and that this measure is legally invalid and rejected. Dodin continued, saying: “Smotrich’s decision is rejected, and we will not recognize it. All decisions issued against Hebron are unilateral, and for us it is as if they did not happen.” He pointed out that the Ibrahimi Mosque is registered with UNESCO on the World Heritage List, and that the Old City in Hebron is purely Palestinian, and the city of Hebron is part of the territories occupied in 1967 according to international law, which means that Smotrich or anyone else does not have any legal authority to change the systems in place before that date. Dodin considered that Smotrich’s statements come in the context of the upcoming Israeli elections, explaining that “as the elections approach within Israel, we witness a new escalation, new crimes, and repeated attacks by the occupation and settlers, and Smotrich represents the pinnacle of the extreme right in this context.” He added that what is happening is an electoral project that does not change reality at all, and aims to mobilize the settlers’ votes through steps on the ground. Dodin asked: “Does Smotrich even have the authority to sign the decision to cancel the Hebron Agreement? We have not been informed of anything, and what is happening are unilateral measures implemented by the occupation, whether it is related to canceling the Hebron Agreement or controlling the Ibrahimi Mosque.” He pointed out that these procedures take place without any official notification, and perhaps even without the knowledge of the occupation government itself. He stressed that these are electoral steps taken by an extremist figure, as he described it, adding, “We do not recognize or endorse these decisions, and we will not submit to them because they will not change reality at all.” Regarding the legal path, Dodin explained that the Hebron Municipality and Governorate will not go to the Israeli courts, because they consider them part of the occupation system, stressing that Hebron is occupied territory and not subject to Israeli judiciary. On the other hand, he stressed the continued movement towards international pressure to stop these measures, in addition to strengthening the popular presence in the Ibrahimi Mosque and the Old City. The mayor of Hebron, Yousef Al-Jaabari, said in an interview with the Quds News Network that Smotrich’s statements come as a continuation of the attack on the historic Hebron Municipality building and its seizure in the Ain Askar area in the Old City in the middle of last month, indicating that the primary target of these decisions is the Hebron Municipality, which is the body responsible for providing services to the entire city in accordance with the Hebron Agreement. Al-Jabari added that there are clear occupation practices aimed at intensifying the settlement presence in the heart of the city of Hebron, in addition to assaulting all municipal powers, pointing out that the municipality is today waging a direct battle with the Israeli occupation government to prove its presence. He stressed that the Hebron Municipality works within existing agreements, which are older than this occupation. He continued that the Hebron Protocol was signed under American auspices, and was signed by the current head of the occupation, Benjamin Netanyahu, which means that Smotrich goes beyond both Netanyahu and the American administration in his positions, which reflects the seriousness of the statement, he said, calling on the world to shoulder its responsibilities. He explained that there are existing international conventions that prevent any Israeli party from establishing a municipal body for settlers as an alternative to the existing Hebron municipality. Al-Jabari considered that the Judaization measures taking place in Hebron are taking place in the heart of the city itself, and not in areas classified as C, noting that this reflects Smotrich’s electoral goals aimed at winning the votes of the settlers under the pretext of the religious importance of the city. He added that Smotrich seeks to appease the settlers by establishing settlement outposts and seizing more buildings, and when that did not achieve the desired effect on his popularity, he turned to seizing one of the most important buildings of the Hebron municipality, then lands belonging to it, leading to an attempt to control the powers of the municipality, in the context of sending a political message to the settlers that is to provide gains in a city that they consider sacred, similar to Jerusalem, which is presented as being twins in status and importance. In response to a question about the mechanisms for confronting the decision, Al-Jaabari explained that if the matter was related to seizing a building only, it would be confronted through the judiciary, but what is happening today is the withdrawal of powers and the cancellation of agreements, for which there is no judicial path. He stressed that what is required is the intervention of the parties that concluded or sponsored the agreements, given that the Hebron Protocol granted the Hebron Municipality its powers over the entire city, and that the American administration, along with the European supporter, were among the sponsors of this agreement, and therefore they must bear their responsibilities regarding what is happening. He pointed out that the municipality is working at the external level to mobilize an international position towards developments in Hebron, through twinning relations with municipalities and international institutions, in addition to moving through embassies and diplomatic channels through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As for the Palestinian official level, Al-Jabari stressed the necessity of holding an urgent meeting of the Palestinian government at the headquarters of the Hebron Municipality, as it is the minimum required, provided that it issues an official position confirming that the Hebron Municipality is an elected Palestinian municipality. He explained that this step would constitute a direct response to attempts to establish a parallel municipal body or cancel the agreement, and would strengthen the concept of Palestinian sovereignty through the municipality and its institutions. Al-Jaabari concluded by saying that the Hebron municipality faces an Israeli government that supports settlement within the city itself, in addition to support from American associations that pump billions of shekels with the aim of establishing a municipal entity inside Hebron, which, as he put it, requires providing similar financial and political support to strengthen the steadfastness of the city and its residents in the face of these measures. In an analytical reading of the decision, researcher on Israeli affairs Adel Shadid, in an interview with the Quds Network, believes that what Smotrich announced is not considered a new decision as much as it is a political announcement of a previous government decision taken months ago under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, which was presented today on an occasion that Smotrich considered an appropriate platform to announce it. Shadid points out that the decision falls within a political path aimed at isolating the Old City of Hebron from its demographic and geographical surroundings, and treating it as an area with an Israeli administrative character, which reflects a trend towards reshaping the reality of the city. Regarding the Palestinian interaction, the researcher believes that what is required is a multi-level action, starting with considering the decision as a violation of the provisions of the Hebron Agreement annex within the Oslo Accords, which requires confronting it politically and legally, in addition to corresponding field steps on the ground. He also calls for reconsidering the nature of the relationship with “Israel,” and not continuing to deal with it as a “partner,” but rather as an occupying force, as he put it, while reconsidering some of the articles of the National Charter that were previously amended. Shadid adds that the implementation of the decision, if applied in practice, may open the door to the gradual imposition of Israeli sovereign facts, through the transfer of powers from Palestinian institutions to Israeli entities, making Hebron, in some of its service and administrative aspects, closer to the pattern of managing cities within the occupation, which falls within the concept of actual annexation. Regarding the timing of the decision, he explains that it may be linked to a settlement context and symbolic occasions, noting that its announcement coincided with an event related to the establishment of a new settlement near Hebron. But he stresses that the most important thing is what will result from implementation, which may include reducing the role of the Hebron Municipality, local government institutions, and planning and registration departments, and gradually transferring powers to Israeli parties, thus opening the way for broader settlement expansion, including demolition and new construction operations for the benefit of the settlers, at the expense of the Palestinian presence, according to his estimate. The researcher believes that this path, if it continues, will lead to a systematic process of displacement, displacement and Judaization in the city, with direct repercussions on the Ibrahimi Mosque, which may be subject to the management of religious institutions and settlement municipalities, in light of previous Israeli legal developments, including the Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition submitted by the Hebron Municipality against the establishment of a settlement municipality in the region. Shadid adds that underestimating the feasibility of the decision does not reflect an accurate reality, as the implementation mechanisms, when they actually begin, will be supported by a complete Israeli security and administrative system, which gives the decision high applicability on the ground. He also considers that the official Israeli position, including the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the occupation government that denied Smotrich’s statements, reflects the distribution of roles within the Israeli political system, where the diplomatic discourse maintains the Hebron Agreement in form, while in practice it is emptied of its content through gradual executive steps. Shadid concludes that the decision is inseparable from a broader Israeli internal political context, and may be part of calculations related to the upcoming elections, with the aim of creating field facts that are difficult to undo in the future, especially with regard to settlement projects and Judaization in the city of Hebron.
