Table of Contents
Overview of Military Occupation
Military rule over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem developed after 1967 as a system that combined security control, civilian administration, and legal regulation of a population that did not have full political rights in the occupying power’s system. This chapter looks at how that occupation has been organized and run on a day to day and year to year basis, rather than the broader political or moral questions, which are discussed elsewhere.
The occupation has always had two sides. On one side, the Israeli military and associated authorities created detailed mechanisms to control land, movement, resources, and public life. On the other side, Palestinians lived under a complex mix of military orders, local institutions, and later the Palestinian Authority, while often challenging or adapting to the system in various ways. Understanding the machinery of occupation helps explain how it has endured for decades and how it shapes daily realities.
Legal Framework of Rule
From the beginning, Israeli authorities built the occupation’s legal structure by combining international law concepts, inherited local law, and new Israeli military orders. In the West Bank and Gaza, Israel did not formally annex the territories, apart from East Jerusalem and some areas around it, which Israel unilaterally incorporated into its own municipal and legal system. Instead, the army created a regime known in Israel as the “military government,” led by a military commander for each area.
The legal foundation rested on two main ideas. First, the military commander claimed authority under the laws of armed conflict that regulate belligerent occupation. Second, Israel decided to keep much of the existing local law in force, including Jordanian law in the West Bank and Egyptian administrative rules in Gaza, unless military orders explicitly changed them. In practice, this meant that three layers coexisted: pre‑1967 law, Israeli military orders, and, in East Jerusalem, Israeli law and municipal regulations.
Military orders became a central tool. They were issued by the regional military commander, often in technical legal language, and could cover almost any aspect of life. Over time, thousands of such orders accumulated. Some changed criminal law, some defined what counted as state land, some regulated political activity, and others governed issues such as planning, water use, and labor. These orders had the force of law for Palestinians, but they did not apply in the same way to Israeli citizens living in settlements, who were usually subject to Israeli civil law through different mechanisms.
Institutions of the Occupation
The primary organ of rule in the territories, apart from annexed East Jerusalem, was the office of the military commander, supported by a civilian-military bureaucracy known for many years as the Civil Administration. This body sat under the authority of the Israeli army but dealt with civilian issues such as infrastructure, trade, building permits, education supervision, and population registration.
Within this structure, military officers and officials held powers normally exercised by civil ministries in a sovereign state. They oversaw the issuing of IDs, controlled who was registered as a resident, granted or denied family unification, and determined who could travel abroad or return. Local Palestinian municipalities and village councils continued to function to some extent, but their authority was always limited by Israeli military control and could be suspended, overruled, or reshaped through new orders.
In East Jerusalem, administration took a different form. Israel extended its municipal boundaries and applied Israeli law, so Palestinian residents there came under Israeli ministries, the Jerusalem municipality, and Israeli civilian courts. Many Palestinians in East Jerusalem received permanent resident status rather than full citizenship, which gave them social benefits and some rights but also left them vulnerable to revocation of residency if they were deemed to live outside the city or violate certain conditions.
Over time, especially after the Oslo Accords, parts of the military administration’s authority were handed over to the Palestinian Authority in designated areas. However, the Israeli military kept ultimate control over borders, airspace, major roads, and much of the land, as well as the ability to enter most areas for security operations. The result was a layered system in which Palestinian institutions operated under overarching Israeli military power.
Control of Land and Resources
Land has always been at the center of the occupation’s administrative system. Israeli authorities developed a range of legal and bureaucratic methods to classify, reclassify, and allocate land. One key tool was the declaration of certain areas as “state land” based on Ottoman and later laws that set criteria for private ownership and cultivation. If land was not registered as privately owned or was deemed uncultivated for specific periods, it could be treated as state land under the interpretation used by the military authorities.
Once land was classified as state land, it could be placed under the control of Israeli bodies and, in many cases, allocated for settlements, military zones, or infrastructure. At the same time, other categories such as “closed military zones,” “nature reserves,” or “firing zones” were often used to restrict Palestinian access to large areas, especially in rural parts of the West Bank. These classifications could be imposed through military orders without standard procedures that apply inside Israel proper.
Control of resources followed similar patterns. Water management is one example. Israeli military orders centralized authority over drilling and water infrastructure, required permits for new wells, and created joint bodies in which Israel held decisive power. This allowed tight regulation of Palestinian access to water for agriculture and household use, while Israeli settlements received direct links to the national water system. In many fields, Palestinian development depended on permits that were difficult to obtain, slow to process, and easily denied.
Ownership and taxation records, planning maps, and land registries were kept under Israeli control. Palestinians who wanted to prove ownership, transfer land, or build often had to navigate both old legal categories inherited from earlier regimes and new rules introduced by Israeli orders. Disputes over land frequently ended up in Israeli civil courts or military courts, where interpretations of law, security concerns, and settlement interests all played a role.
Movement and Permit Systems
Regulation of movement became one of the most visible features of military occupation. Initially, movement between the West Bank, Gaza, Israel, and neighboring countries was more open than it later became. Over time, a dense system of checkpoints, roadblocks, barriers, and permits evolved, especially from the late 1980s and again after the Second Intifada.
The permit system is administrative rather than purely judicial. Palestinians often need permits to travel between different areas, to enter Israel for work or medical treatment, to farm land that lies behind physical barriers, or to leave the territories through international crossings. Permits are issued by Israeli military or security offices, usually after security screening. Criteria can be broad and are not always transparent, and denials are often based on classified information that individuals cannot easily challenge.
Physical control complements this paper system. Checkpoints staffed by soldiers or private security companies, road gates, and sometimes temporary “flying checkpoints” regulate passage along key routes. The separation barrier, where built, adds another layer, with separate procedures for residents in its vicinity, farmers whose land lies on the other side, and people seeking to cross for work or family reasons.
There are also designated roads that primarily serve Israeli settlers and the military, where Palestinian access is restricted or subject to additional controls. Curfews, closure orders, and area‑wide lockdowns are tools the military can impose using its powers under occupation. These are issued as orders which can apply to particular towns or whole regions for specified or sometimes open‑ended periods, usually justified in terms of security.
Security, Policing, and Courts
Security and policing in the occupied territories are primarily under the authority of the Israeli army and security services, though Palestinian police forces operate in parts of the West Bank under arrangements agreed with Israel. For Palestinians, many issues that would normally fall under civilian police are instead handled by the military or border police. Arrests, searches, and raids are usually carried out under military orders that define broad powers for security forces.
The court system reflects this split. Palestinian residents of the West Bank, except most of East Jerusalem, are generally tried in military courts for a wide range of offenses, including security charges, political activity, and some ordinary criminal matters. These courts apply military orders as their main body of law. Procedures differ from those in Israeli civil courts, for example in rules of evidence, pre‑trial detention, and the use of administrative detention, in which individuals can be held without formal charges based on secret evidence, subject to periodic review.
Israeli settlers in the West Bank, by contrast, are usually tried in Israeli civil courts under Israeli criminal law, even though the alleged offenses may take place in the same geographic area. This dual legal structure is a characteristic feature of the administration of the occupation and has significant practical effects on arrest procedures, sentencing patterns, and rights of the accused.
Security measures also include a network of intelligence gathering, informant recruitment, and coordination between different Israeli agencies. Many administrative decisions, such as travel bans, work permit denials, and house demolitions as punishment for certain acts, are grounded in security files that are not generally disclosed fully to those affected. Appeals exist but are constrained by the use of classified material and the courts’ deference to security considerations.
Administration of Civil Life
Beyond security, the occupation’s institutions regulate routine civil life. Education, for example, is largely provided through Palestinian institutions, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, and private bodies, but the content of curricula, import of textbooks, and movement of teachers and students can be affected by Israeli regulations. Health systems are run by Palestinian authorities and organizations, yet they depend on Israeli approvals for movement of patients, medical staff, equipment, and supplies, especially when specialized treatment is only available in Israeli or foreign hospitals.
Economic activity also requires engagement with the military administration. Businesses need licenses, import and export are subject to Israeli customs and security inspections, and many sectors are regulated through arrangements that tie the Palestinian economy to Israel’s. Work permits for Palestinians to enter Israel or settlements are an important part of the labor market. These permits can be issued, renewed, or cancelled by Israeli authorities based on a mix of economic needs and security assessments.
Population registration is another key administrative tool. Israel maintains the central population registry for the West Bank and Gaza, and for many years it controlled updates such as changes of address, family unification requests, and registration of children. Without official registration, individuals may find themselves unable to obtain IDs, travel documents, or permits, which limits access to services provided by both Israeli and Palestinian institutions.
In building and planning, Palestinians who live in areas under full Israeli control need permits from the Civil Administration to construct homes, agricultural structures, or infrastructure. The planning system often restricts Palestinian development to limited zones, while unpermitted construction can be subject to demolition orders. By contrast, Israeli settlements and associated roads, utility lines, and public facilities are usually planned and approved through Israeli institutions with different standards and timelines.
Administration in Gaza
Gaza has passed through several phases of administration. From 1967 until the early years after Oslo, it was directly run by the Israeli military government similar to the West Bank. During that time, Israeli commands oversaw municipal affairs, land use, and security, often working through local leaders and municipal councils. Refugee camps were served in part by UN agencies, but major decisions remained in Israeli hands.
After the Oslo process began, parts of Gaza came under the Palestinian Authority, which took formal responsibility for education, health, local policing, and some taxation, while Israel controlled borders, airspace, and the movement of goods and people. Israeli settlements and military zones within Gaza remained under full Israeli control until Israel withdrew its settlers and permanent military bases in 2005.
After that withdrawal, Israel no longer maintained permanent military government offices inside Gaza, but it kept extensive control from outside over crossings, maritime access, and airspace. The internal administration of Gaza shifted further once Hamas took de facto power, leading to a split with the Palestinian Authority. Despite this internal change, many aspects associated with occupation, such as control of population registry data, restrictions on imports and exports, and approval for certain movements, remained in the hands of Israeli authorities, although the precise legal characterization of this situation is a subject of dispute in international debates that are discussed elsewhere in the course.
Bureaucracy, Fragmentation, and Everyday Governance
A striking feature of the occupation’s administration is its fragmentation. Different zones have different rules. The West Bank is divided into areas that fall under varying degrees of Palestinian and Israeli control. East Jerusalem is run under Israeli municipal structures. Gaza is administered internally by Palestinian actors but constrained externally by Israeli authorities. Within each of these parts, special regimes apply to settlements, military zones, and border regions.
This fragmentation is reinforced by bureaucracy. Ordinary tasks, such as registering a birth, moving house, opening a business, or applying for a building permit, often require dealing with multiple offices on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. Language barriers, changing procedures, and security screening add complexity. For many Palestinians, the main face of the occupation is not only the soldier at a checkpoint but also the clerk at a coordination office, the anonymous official who signs or refuses a permit, and the military legal adviser who drafts an order that affects a village or neighborhood.
At the same time, the system depends in part on cooperation and coordination. Israeli and Palestinian officials work together in certain committees, local Palestinian institutions implement policies within the constraints set by military authorities, and international organizations mediate or facilitate administrative processes such as humanitarian access. This cooperation is often fragile and subject to breakdown during periods of heightened conflict, which in turn alters how the occupation is experienced on the ground.
Adaptation and Change Over Time
The administration of the occupation has not been static. Security events, peace initiatives, and internal Israeli and Palestinian politics have all shaped how the system operates. Waves of violence often lead to tighter controls, new orders, and expansion of measures such as closures and administrative detentions. Periods of negotiation may bring partial relaxations or new coordination bodies.
Technological changes are also visible in administration. Over the years, databases, electronic ID systems, biometric information, and more automated screening tools have been introduced. Surveillance, both physical and digital, has become part of the way movement, permits, and security assessments are managed. These developments reflect broader global trends in governance and security but take on a particular meaning in an occupied context.
Although the basic structure remains one of military command at the top, subordinate civilian and security branches, and subordinate Palestinian authorities in some areas, the details continue to evolve. Understanding those details is essential to grasp how occupation shapes political possibilities, economic opportunities, and personal lives, and why the system has proven both durable and contested.