Key Takeaways
- Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced the cancellation of parts of the 1997 Hebron Agreement, claiming Israel has taken over planning and construction authority at the Ibrahimi Mosque (Tomb of the Patriarchs) in Hebron.
- The Israeli Foreign Ministry countered that only planning powers for Jewish settlements and heritage sites were adjusted, insisting the Hebron Agreement itself remains intact.
- Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas’s office and Hebron Mayor Yusuf al‑Jabari, denounced the move as a unilateral breach of signed agreements and international law, warning it threatens regional stability.
- International bodies such as UNESCO have previously listed Hebron’s Old City and the Ibrahimi Mosque as World Heritage in Danger, underscoring the site’s sensitivity.
- Israeli peace groups and Palestinian leaders view the decision as part of a broader strategy toward de‑facto annexation of the West Bank, motivated by domestic political considerations.
On June 16 2026, Hebron’s mayor, Yusuf al‑Jabari, warned that any unilateral alteration to the long‑standing arrangements governing the city would constitute a serious breach with far‑reaching consequences for stability. His remarks came in response to a controversial decision by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who declared at an inauguration ceremony for the Doran settlement in the southern Mount Hebron area that “yesterday we cancelled the Hebron agreements.” Smotrich asserted that Israel had reclaimed planning and construction powers over the Ibrahimi Mosque—known to Jews as the Tomb of the Patriarchs—and adjacent areas, effectively scrapping provisions that had been in place since the 1990s.
The 1997 Hebron Agreement, brokered between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, divided the city into two sectors. Israel retained security control over Area H2, which encompasses the Jewish settlement and the Ibrahimi Mosque, while civil responsibilities—including planning, construction, and municipal services—remained under the Palestinian municipality of Hebron. Under this framework, Palestinians had authority over the entire city’s urban planning, a point that Smotrich’s announcement appeared to overturn.
However, the Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a rapid rebuttal via Twitter, stating that contrary to Smotrich’s remarks, the Hebron Agreement had not been canceled. It clarified that a cabinet decision made months earlier had only addressed planning and construction authority for Jewish settlements and Jewish heritage sites, citing what it described as a complete lack of cooperation from the Hebron municipality. The ministry emphasized that, beyond this limited adjustment, “no change has occurred” to the overall agreement.
The Palestinian Authority swiftly condemned the development. In a statement from President Mahmoud Abbas’s office, the move was labeled “unlawful” and a violation of both the signed agreements and international law. The PA urged the international community, especially the United States, to intervene immediately to halt what it described as “this most dangerous step.” Hebron Mayor al‑Jabari echoed this sentiment, noting that the agreements constitute “a political framework governing Hebron’s administrative, security and service arrangements,” and that any unilateral modification outside existing international understandings amounted to a serious breach with significant repercussions.
The Ibrahimi Mosque itself remains a flashpoint. Following the original 1997 protocol, settlers seized control of half the site, and the mosque has since been a focal point of tension. In 2017, UNESCO inscribed Hebron’s Old City and the Ibrahimi Mosque on both the World Heritage List and the World Heritage in Danger list, recognizing the site’s cultural significance and its vulnerability to conflict‑related damage.
Israeli peace organizations reacted sharply. Peace Now accused Smotrich of being a “pyromaniac” trying to ignite the West Bank after the government’s purported failures on other fronts. The group characterized the move as a politically motivated, dangerous, and irresponsible step by a politician willing to jeopardize Israel’s interests and security to gain favor with the extreme right.
Palestinian leaders and analysts argue that the decision fits into a broader pattern of Israeli actions aimed at establishing de‑facto control over the West Bank, effectively moving toward annexation without formal legal declaration. They warn that eroding the delicate balance established by the Hebron Agreement could exacerbate tensions, provoke further violence, and undermine prospects for a negotiated two‑state solution. The international community’s response, particularly from bodies tasked with safeguarding UNESCO‑designated sites, will be critical in determining whether the situation escalates or can be defused through diplomatic pressure.