Activists report increase in Israeli army orders preventing volunteer work in West Bank

A police checkpoint blocks activists from helping with the olive harvest in the West Bank, November 2025

Matan Golan reports in Haaretz on 30 November 2025:

The Israeli Military has increasingly issued orders declaring closed military zones and movement restrictions to prevent activists from aiding the olive harvest in Palestinian villages in the West Bank, organizers said.

The IDF has issued at least 22 orders restricting Israeli activists from participating in the harvest season, which extends from mid-October to mid-November.

Ten of the “closed military zones” were issued around the village of Burin, near Nablus. In one instance, hundreds of Israelis were set to aid in the harvest but were prevented from doing so due to the IDF order.

Hundreds of activists hold signs after the Israeli military declared the West Bank village of Burin a “closed military zone,” preventing them from assisting with the village’s olive harvest, November. Credit: Moti Milrod

A movement restriction order, issued by both the military and Israel Police, prevents the passage of certain vehicles. Vehicles transporting activists to villages in the West Bank are often stopped at checkpoints set up in areas restricted by the order and are vigorously inspected.

Last week, a police officer claimed that a movement restriction order presented to an activist was issued “due to the harvest” and was intended to “prevent disorder in the sector.” When the activist asked what could be violent about the harvest, the officer answered, “We don’t want to create something explosive in the sector.”

In a memo the IDF distributed to commanders and soldiers in advance of the harvest season, the military ruled that a “closed military zone” would be declared only if concrete intelligence indicated a risk to human life. In any case, the property owners should not be removed from their land for their own protection, the memo said.

“It should be emphasized that Palestinian residents have the right to access their land accompanied by Israelis, such as members of human rights organizations,” the document stated. “The very act of arriving with activists cannot be considered a provocation or grounds for closing the area.”

Activists in several organizations testified that in recent years, following the increase in the number of orders issued, they have stopped coordinating their arrival with the army in advance. Other organizations reported that they continue to notify the army of their planned activities, yet since the war began, the army has stopped responding to their coordination requests.

The Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights, an Israeli human rights organization, said that a “dangerous and unprecedented” number of restriction orders have been issued this harvest season.

“We have repeatedly encountered close cooperation” between the military and settler security teams, “which led to the rapid issuance of orders,” Executive Director Avi Dabush said. He has also encountered orders that were prepared in advance of their arrival on the scene.

“We have made great efforts to contact the army and police and coordinate as much as possible,” Dabush said, “including eight letters I sent to the Chief of Staff, the military’s Central Command chief, the Police Commissioner, the commander of the Police’s Judea and Samaria District, and other officials in the army and police. All, unfortunately, went unanswered.”

The IDF Spokesperson said that “decisions regarding the closure of areas are made by the authorized military commander, according to need and operational assessment.” The police stated that they assist the IDF in enforcing the orders.

Israeli settlers and soldiers at the site of an olive harvest in the West Bank, October. Credit: Nasser Nasser/AP
Activists testified that in several cases, the military issued a “closed military zone” order even when the destination of the activists was closely guarded and known only to organizers. On five occasions, an order was issued restricting access to the harvest site before the activists had boarded buses and knew the destination to which they were headed.

“The army knows of activities set to take place even if they are not announced in advance, so it seems someone is in the groups or someone is passing information to them,” said attorney Michal Pomeranz, who represents foreign volunteers deported from Israel due to their activities in the West Bank

In two instances, foreign activists who came to the harvest in Burin were deported by Israel after a “closed military zone” order was issued.

In one instance, 32 activists were deported after seven of them wore symbols associated with the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), a Ramallah-based Palestinian non-profit which is designated as a terrorist organization in Israel. The organization is not designated as such in European countries.

In the other instance, two American-Jewish activists were deported from the country in an expedited process. In the police’s memo regarding the deportation, they wrote that “a group of left-wing activists entered the village of Burin,” in what was defined as a “disturbance of public order.”

In 2006, the Supreme Court determined in a ruling that the IDF made disproportionate use of restrictive orders on Palestinian agricultural lands, and criticized the practice of closing areas to protect residents from settler violence.

Justice Salim Joubran ruled at the time that the restrictions imposed on Palestinians reward the violence imposed on them and “may send a misleading message of surrender and capitulation to those who break the law.” The Supreme Court is expected to revisit the issue soon, as part of a petition filed in 2023 by Pomeranz and attorneys Riham Nasra and Alon Sapir.

The petition claims that the practice of issuing restrictive military orders has become an improper tool for the IDF to “‘deal’ with settler violence, and has become the default of army forces under the pretext of protecting the security of Palestinian residents, instead of enforcing the law against the invading and attacking side.”

Due to the recent increase in orders, the court approved the petitioners’ request to add 16 more instances to their petition and ruled that the army must respond by December 7.

This article is reproduced in its entirety