On November 10, 2026, the High Court of Justice issued a conditional order in the principal petitions challenging the exercise of planning and building enforcement powers in the area known as the “Contractual Reserve.” The petitions were filed by our office, through Adv. Ghiath Nasser.
The decision followed a consolidated hearing on November 2, 2026, in four petitions, before a panel headed by President Isaac Amit and Justices Ofer Grosskopf and Daphne Barak-Erez. The Court directed the respondents to address questions concerning their authority to enforce planning and building laws, the military order restricting construction across approximately 167,000 dunams in Area B, and the order’s effects on the Palestinian communities in the area.
Background: Area B and planning powers
The area now referred to by the Israeli authorities as the “Contractual Reserve” extends, according to the boundaries defined by the State of Israel, across approximately 167,000 dunams south of Bethlehem and near the Dead Sea. It lies in Area B, where civil powers—including planning and building powers—were transferred to the Palestinian Authority under the 1995 Interim Agreement.
The petitioners argue that the Palestinian Authority exercised planning and building powers in the area for approximately three decades, while Israel did not carry out civil planning enforcement there. This changed in July 2024, when the commander of Israeli forces in the area signed an amendment to Proclamation No. 7 implementing the Interim Agreement. Under the amendment, the planning and building powers were taken from the Palestinian Authority in the area, which is within Area B. At the same time, the military commander issued Order No. 2198, a sweeping order restricting construction throughout the area, without addressing the communities that have existed there for decades.
The petitioners contend that the amendment and Order No. 2198 are part of a broader effort to take powers transferred to the Palestinian Authority in Area B and enable Israeli enforcement of planning and building laws there. In their view, this is not an isolated measure, but part of a wider effort to take control of civil governing powers in Area B and ultimately eliminate the distinction between Areas A, B, and C. They point, among other things, to the establishment of unauthorized outposts in Area B.
Order No. 2198 restricts construction and allows enforcement proceedings, while setting a cutoff date earlier than the order’s issuance. This raises questions concerning permits and structures that existed before the order, as well as plans approved by the Palestinian Authority while it held the relevant powers.
The petitioners argue that a blanket construction ban across such an extensive area, while disregarding the approximately thirty years during which the Palestinian Authority held planning powers and acted accordingly, could lead to the destruction of entire communities.
The dispute over the Wye River Memorandum
The orders are based, among other things, on the State of Israel’s interpretation of the 1998 Wye River Memorandum. As part of the transfer of additional areas to the Palestinian Authority, the memorandum provided that the Palestinian Authority would allocate land amounting to 3% of the Area B territory transferred as part of the redeployment—part of the 13% of Area C transferred overall—as “Green Areas and/or Nature Reserves,” in accordance with established scientific standards. It also provided that implementation of the arrangement would not prejudice the rights of existing residents in those areas, including Bedouins.
The dispute over the memorandum’s interpretation raises several fundamental questions: what it means to require scientific standards for designating green areas or nature reserves; whether land may be designated in this way without examining its environmental value; and what protection is afforded by the requirement that such designations not prejudice the rights of local residents, including Bedouins.
The petitioners argue that Israel lacks authority to enforce planning and building laws in Area B. They further argue that the Wye River Memorandum cannot be implemented contrary to its terms, including its requirements concerning scientific standards and the protection of local residents’ rights. In their view, the restrictions cannot disregard the rights and needs of the communities already living in the area.
Expert opinions submitted to the Court
The petitions are supported by an opinion from Professor Yael Ronen, an expert in international law. Her opinion examined the amendment to Proclamation No. 7 and Order No. 2198 in light of international law and the law of belligerent occupation. It concluded that the orders are unlawful and exceed the military commander’s authority. Among other things, the opinion states that the construction restrictions seek to prevent Palestinian construction for political reasons, without justification based on security or public order, and that retroactively invalidating building permits issued by the Palestinian Authority infringes residents’ property rights. It also emphasizes that actions taken by the Palestinian Authority while it held the relevant powers cannot be disregarded.
An additional expert opinion was submitted by Bimkom, mapping the Palestinian communities and patterns of construction and development in the area. According to the opinion, existing developed areas within the reserve covered approximately 18,000 dunams as of 2024—about 10% of the area designated by Israel as the reserve.
Questions referred to the State
The Court directed the respondents to explain, among other things, why they should not refrain from exercising enforcement powers within the reserve in light of their obligations under international law; why Order No. 2198 should not be canceled; why they should not refrain from enforcement proceedings against holders of building permits issued by the Palestinian Authority; and why they should not adopt an enforcement policy that takes account of the natural growth of existing communities.
The respondents’ affidavit is due on January 3, 2027. The Court also ordered that the interim orders issued in the proceedings remain in force, and stated that it would issue a supplementary decision concerning the individual petitions relating to the school.
Adv. Ghiath Nasser commented: “The Supreme Court once again demonstrates through this decision that it was and remains the last refuge of the weak, and that it is unwilling to disregard violations of international law, even in difficult and complex times.”
