Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem

From Battlefield Gains to Military Rule

The Six Day War transformed Israel’s control over territory. Within six days, Israel gained the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinai from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria. What followed in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem was not annexation in the same formal sense as within Israel’s pre‑1967 borders, but the establishment of a long term military occupation. This chapter looks at how that occupation began and took shape, and why these territories came to play such a central role in the conflict.

In June 1967, Israeli forces moved rapidly into the West Bank and Gaza, defeating Arab forces and taking administrative control. Israel did not immediately decide on a long term political solution for these territories. Instead, it set up a military government that would, at first, be presented as temporary. Yet over time, decisions about law, land, and people created structures that lasted decades and shaped everyday reality for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Military Government and Legal Duality

Right after the fighting ended, Israel established military commands for the newly occupied areas. In the West Bank, the Israeli army set up the “Judea and Samaria” command, a name that reflected historical and biblical terminology. In Gaza, a separate command administered the Strip. In East Jerusalem, Israel quickly applied a different model and integrated it more directly.

In the West Bank and Gaza, rule rested on “military orders.” These were legal directives issued by the Israeli military commander and had the force of law. They existed alongside remnants of previous legal systems, including Jordanian law in the West Bank and Egyptian and British Mandate regulations in Gaza. The military commander held the authority to suspend, amend, or override these older laws.

For Palestinian residents, this created a dual legal reality. Israeli citizens living in the same general area, particularly in settlements that would emerge later, remained subject to Israeli civil law and courts. Palestinians living nearby were subject to military law and military courts. The distinction was not only legal, but practical, shaping who could appeal which decisions, where, and with what rights or protections.

Land issues became a central field of military legal activity. Military orders allowed large tracts of land to be declared “state land,” “absentee property,” or closed military zones. Often, the status of land depended on how it had been registered under previous regimes, and whether farmers could prove continuous private use. This legal structure laid the groundwork for future settlement expansion, but in the immediate post‑war years it mainly demonstrated that Israel was reorganizing the land under its own rules, rather than simply administering it as it had been left.

Population under Occupation

When Israel took control in 1967, it suddenly governed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were not citizens of Israel and who had no say in Israeli political institutions. In the West Bank and Gaza, most residents remained in their homes, although some fled during and after the fighting, becoming refugees or “displaced persons” on top of those displaced in 1948.

Israel conducted censuses in the newly occupied territories. People who were counted and registered could receive identity cards that allowed them to live and move within the territories under Israeli control. Those who had fled during the war and were outside at the time of the census often struggled to regain residency. Their absence, once formalized, had long term consequences for family reunification and property rights.

At the municipal level, Israel allowed some existing local structures to continue functioning. Mayors and village councils often remained in place, especially in the early years. However, they operated under the oversight of the military administration, which could remove local leaders, approve or deny local regulations, and control budgets and planning decisions. In Gaza and parts of the West Bank, refugee camps continued to be managed in part by the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, but entry, exit, and broader conditions were still subject to Israeli military decisions.

The gap between formal “temporariness” and the emerging reality of long term control quickly became visible. Israel did not offer citizenship collectively to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time, it controlled borders, natural resources, and major infrastructure. For people on the ground, the occupation felt less like an interim arrangement and more like a new system of rule.

East Jerusalem: Annexation and Redefinition

East Jerusalem was treated differently from the outset. Within weeks of the war, Israel expanded the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and applied Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration to the enlarged area. This was not only the Old City and nearby Palestinian neighborhoods, but also additional land that had previously belonged to the West Bank under Jordanian control.

Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem received a status that is often described as “permanent residency” in Israel. This allowed them to live and work in the city, access Israeli social services, and move more freely within Israel than many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. However, they were not automatically given Israeli citizenship. Many remained Jordanian citizens or stateless, and the path to Israeli citizenship was controlled by Israeli authorities.

The expansion of municipal borders also had symbolic and practical consequences. It merged previously separated areas of the city into one entity under Israeli rule, while bringing new land under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality. Over time, this facilitated the building of new Israeli neighborhoods in and around East Jerusalem, and redefined the demographic and political landscape of the city.

Internationally, the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem was not recognized. Most countries continued to see East Jerusalem as occupied territory under international law. They maintained their embassies outside Jerusalem, often in Tel Aviv or surrounding cities, and treated the status of the city as something to be decided in future negotiations. This created a disjunction between Israel’s internal legal view of East Jerusalem as part of its “unified capital” and the view held by most of the international community.

Administrative Control of Land and Resources

Beyond controlling people, the occupation involved deep control over land and key resources. The West Bank contains important aquifers, agricultural lands, and strategic highlands. Gaza, though much smaller, is a densely populated strip with its own coastal and agricultural zones. After 1967, Israel controlled the external borders of these territories, including airspace and, for Gaza, territorial waters.

One of the first tasks of the military administration was to map and survey land. Where private ownership could be clearly proved, it was sometimes recognized. However, large areas were declared state land based on Ottoman and later laws that treated uncultivated or unregistered land as belonging to the state. Because the state was now represented by the Israeli military commander, this meant that land could be managed and allocated under Israeli authority.

Control of resources such as water was centralized. Wells, drilling permits, and irrigation became subject to military approval. In practice, this often meant that Palestinian communities faced restrictions on developing new water infrastructure, while Israeli authorities gained leverage over patterns of agriculture, urban growth, and industrial activity.

Movement control was another central tool. Israeli forces established checkpoints and controlled crossings between the West Bank, Gaza, and surrounding countries, as well as between these territories and Israel itself. At first, movement could be relatively open compared to later decades, but from the beginning it was subject to permits and military regulation. This allowed Israel to influence where Palestinians could work, study, and seek medical care, and also allowed it to respond to security incidents by tightening or loosening restrictions.

Early Settlement Presence under Occupation

Although the broader story of settlements belongs elsewhere in the course, the initial years after 1967 already saw the beginnings of a new Israeli civilian presence within the occupied territories. This happened under the legal and administrative framework of the occupation itself.

In some cases, Jewish communities that had existed before 1948, such as in part of the Old City of Jerusalem and nearby areas, were reestablished with Israeli government support. In other cases, new settlements began as military or paramilitary outposts that later developed into civilian communities. The distinction between military and civilian presence was sometimes blurred, since the land formally remained under the authority of the military commander, even when used to house civilians.

This early settlement activity reinforced the perception among many Palestinians that the occupation was not simply a temporary security measure. It suggested a deeper territorial project, in which land under military administration could gradually shift toward more permanent Israeli control. At the same time, within Israeli politics there were already diverse views and debates about the future of these territories, whether they should be traded for peace, integrated in some form, or held indefinitely.

In East Jerusalem, the building of new Jewish neighborhoods across the former armistice line began relatively soon after the war, on land expropriated or reclassified under Israeli law. These neighborhoods were integrated into the urban fabric of Jerusalem as understood by Israeli authorities, but were viewed by many Palestinians and foreign governments as part of the occupied territory.

Everyday Implications of the New Regime

The occupation immediately altered daily life in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, even before later developments made it more complex. Palestinians who had previously dealt with Jordanian or Egyptian authorities now had to navigate Israeli military offices for permits, licenses, and disputes. Hebrew language, Israeli bureaucratic procedures, and unfamiliar legal norms became part of everyday interactions with power.

Economically, the opening of Israel’s labor market to workers from the West Bank and Gaza created new patterns of dependency and integration. Many Palestinians began to commute to jobs inside Israel, while goods and services moved across the new lines that had been battlefronts only months earlier. At the same time, this integration occurred on terms set by the occupying authority, which could restrict access or change regulations for security or political reasons.

In East Jerusalem, Palestinian residents experienced both incorporation and exclusion. They gained some access to services and infrastructure from the Israeli municipality, but also faced land expropriations, housing restrictions, and political disenfranchisement at the national level. The physical landscape of the city began to change, as new roads, housing projects, and public institutions were built with the aim of consolidating Israeli control.

In the countryside of the West Bank and in Gaza’s crowded camps and towns, the presence of Israeli soldiers and bases became part of the visible environment. Even when the military was not directly intervening, its potential presence shaped how people thought about organizing politically, protesting, or simply moving from place to place.

The Occupation as a Turning Point

The occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem after the Six Day War marked a turning point. It expanded Israel’s control far beyond its pre‑1967 lines and placed a large Palestinian population under its direct authority without granting them equal political rights within the Israeli system. It also introduced new legal and administrative mechanisms that would frame political debates, resistance, and diplomatic efforts for decades.

For the Palestinians living under it, the occupation was not only a legal category, but a daily reality of permits, soldiers, economic dependence, and uncertain future status. For Israel, it created new security concerns, demographic questions, and ideological divisions over whether and how these territories should be kept, traded, or transformed.

The structures established in the months and years right after the war, from military orders and residency rules to border controls and the special treatment of East Jerusalem, provided the basic framework that later chapters of this course will explore in more detail, as resistance developed, settlements expanded, and international responses evolved.