archaeological site. In theory, this is because other remains could be found around the site itself.85 However, Israel abuses this accepted common practice by declaring as archaeological sites areas several times larger than the actual site, areas that most often are inhabited by Palestinians. Under the umbrella of protecting the archaeological ruins, they have also evicted residents from those areas, demolished temporary structures and rejected locally developed alternatives to preserve the site. These decisions, although they are made in accordance to the Israeli law, are neither proportional nor rational.86 The Israeli authorities have also shown a double standard when it comes to allowing construction in the site. For example, the Israeli Civil Administration is calling for the demolition of the Palestinian village Khirbat Zanuta, south of Hebron, because it is located on an archaeological site. However, the same authorities have allowed new construction of Israeli colonies on archaeological sites, such as Tel Rumeida, also in Hebron, or the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem. In these two cases, construction was allowed on the actual site, and Israel invested significant amounts of money to combine excavations and housing.87 In Khirbat Zanuta, not only new construction is forbidden, but the village itself, which was in place before the declaration of the archaeological site, risks demolition. The lack of policy regarding construction and development on antiquities sites makes it almost impossible for Palestinian communities to appeal the decisions of the Archaeology Department of the Israeli Civil Administration.88 Case Study: al-Nabi Samwil Al-Nabi Samwil is a Palestinian village located in the West Bank, north of Jerusalem. According to the Oslo Accords signed in 1995, all lands of al-Nabi Samwil were classified as Area C.89 However, Israel cut off the village from the rest of the West Bank when they built the Annexation and Separation Wall, leaving al-Nabi Samwil in what is known as a ‘seam zone’.90 85 Ibid. 86 Isaiah Silver, “Digging the Occupation: The Politics of Boycotts and Archeology in Israel.” 87 Amira Hass, “Civil Administration Calls for Demolition of West Bank Palestinian Village Built on Archaeological Site.” 88 Emek Shaveh, Archaeology and Villages in the West Bank – Antiquities Sites and Their Integration into Master Plans in Area C. 89 ARIJ, An Nabi Samwil Village Profile, 14. 90 Following the 1995 Oslo Accords, the West Bank was divided into Areas A, B and C. The three administrative areas reflect tiers of civil and security control allocated to Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. In theory, the Oslo Agreements endowed the Palestinian National Authority with full control over civil and security matters in Area A, while Israel was awarded control of movement across Area A’s borders. In Area B, which consists of inhabited but rural regions, the Palestinian Authority is responsible for civil matters and public order, but military functions remain under the control of the Israeli military. Area C, is under full Israeli military and administrative control. 31