Summary
Solomon’s Pools are described as an ancient water system with significant historical and religious importance that today falls within Area A under the Oslo Accords. The discussion argues that the Palestinian Authority has failed to preserve or develop the site despite its tourism potential, while also challenging efforts to characterize it solely as Palestinian heritage. It further maintains that increasing Israeli visits reflect concern for the site’s condition rather than aggression. The conclusion calls for guaranteed maintenance of the site and safe, unrestricted Israeli access.
Key Takeaways
- Solomon’s Pools are presented as a historically significant water infrastructure associated with ancient Jerusalem and are described as an important site reflecting the longstanding Jewish connection to the region.
- The argument contends that the Palestinian Authority neglected the site’s preservation and tourism potential for many years, requiring outside funding for restoration while allowing it to deteriorate again afterward.
- The piece argues that Israeli access to Solomon’s Pools should be protected regardless of its administrative designation, asserting that the site should be properly maintained and remain safely accessible.
To the north of the Israeli town of Efrat, and to the south of Bethlehem, lie Solomon’s Pools. The pools were part of an extensive water infrastructure originating in the Judean hills that supplied water to the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem. Whether the pools are those referred to by King Solomon in the Book of Ecclesiastes (2.6), who wrote, “I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees,” remains a subject of debate.
In the Oslo Accords, Judea and Samaria were divided into three areas, which can generally be defined as follows: Area A – mostly under the complete jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, subject to overriding Israeli jurisdiction to combat terror; Area B – joint control with the PA holding jurisdiction for civilian affairs and Israel holding security jurisdiction; Area C – full Israeli jurisdiction.
Each area in which Israel transferred jurisdiction to the PA – i.e., every area that would become part of areas A and B – was carefully delineated on agreed maps, with area C being the remainder.
The Oslo Accords never envisaged a situation in which Areas A and B would be off limits to Israelis. Rather, the accords included specific provisions regarding both the treatment of Israelis present in those areas and the manner in which the PA treated Jewish historical sites that were included therein.
The Israeli participants in the talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Israeli authors of the accords certainly did not anticipate a situation in which this area would become dominated by hostile PA forces and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and that almost every entry of a Jew into those areas would potentially be accompanied by mortal danger.
Here, it should be stressed that the danger posed in areas A and B is only to Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs – i.e., the millions of Arabs Israeli citizens – are free to enter, study, and even live in areas A and B.
Since the classification of an area as Area A, B, or C was not meant to be a hindrance to access, the Oslo negotiating sides saw no obstacle to including Solomon’s Pools within Area A. The inclusion of this specific site within area A, did, however, present a unique challenge to the PA.
According to the PA narrative, Jews are modern-day European colonizers of “Palestine,” a state that never actually existed. Jews, according to the PA, have no history or connection to the area. For the PA, the statement in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, in which “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country,” was simply wrong and baseless. The PA narrative is so dogmatic that it even outrageously denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.
In this context, being given jurisdiction and control of a historical site, which by its very name – Solomon’s Pools – pays constant witness to the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, including large parts of Judea and Samaria, was particularly problematic for the PA.
The PA could have transformed Bethlehem, including Solomon’s Pools, into a major tourist destination and valuable source of income. Instead, it prioritized violence over economic development, aiming to undermine Israel. As a result, rather than preserving and promoting Bethlehem’s Christian heritage, the PA has contributed to an atmosphere of discrimination and intimidation for the city’s shrinking Christian population.1 With Solomon’s Pools, the PA neglected opportunities to invest in tourism, choosing instead to ignore the site and let it fall into disrepair.
By 2016, the situation had become so bad that part of the wall of one of the pools even collapsed. This gave rise to calls to the PA to repair and restore the site, or to let Israel do the work.2
Since the PA was reluctant to invest in a site that totally undermined its detached narrative, the U.S. administration of President Biden, in its twilight days, stepped in and provided a $750,000 grant to restore the site.
Playing into the attempt to rewrite history, the U.S. Consul General of the day, Donald Blome, allegedly, according to the PA official mouthpiece,3 said: “This contribution from the U.S. government not only underscores America’s respect and admiration for Palestinian heritage and its treasured antiquities, but also the imperative of supporting the Palestinian economy as an essential element for peace.”
Consul General Blome never explained why the site, clearly, by its very name, of Jewish historical significance and importance, and neglected for decades by the PA, was part of the “Palestinian heritage.”
Despite the U.S. investment, the site was never developed by the PA, and since 2017, the pools have again fallen into disrepair.
The constant PA neglect of the sites has led to repeated Israeli calls to retake control of the site. As part of this effort, given its close proximity to Efrat, groups of Israelis, including members of the Knesset and government ministers,4 have been increasing their visits to the site.
The renewed Israeli interest in the site did not go unnoticed. On June 11, 2026, PA Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa convened a meeting regarding the site. According to Mustafa, the renewed Israeli interest and the visits to the site, which included swimming in the pools, constituted part of the “ongoing threats and attacks by Israeli occupation authorities and settlers.”5
Among the suggestions raised during the meeting, as part of efforts to “strengthen its [the site’s] resilience,”6 was building a mosque. According to the official WAFA report,7 there was no discussion of coordination or cooperation with Israel to restore and develop the site. The report did allude, however, to the often-practiced PA attempts to falsify history and gain UNESCO recognition of the site as a Palestinian heritage site.8
The fact of the matter is that Solomon’s Pools are of significant historical importance. For decades, the PA ignored the site, only stepping in when the U.S. provided funding to repair it and prevent further damage. The pools could have been transformed into a major tourist and leisure site, becoming a substantial asset for the PA. Instead of embracing the opportunity, the PA allowed its falsified narrative to undermine real prospects.
The situation as it exists today cannot continue. Unfortunately, the site is one of the simple issues that have been made complex by the failed Oslo Accords and PA practices. Israeli visits to the site are not “attacks.” They are an expression of genuine Israeli concern and interest in the site, and a reflection of the fact that for three decades, the PA has shown no concern for maintaining the site and even less interest in developing it.
Whether the site remains in area A or not, the PA must be required to guarantee its upkeep and development and ensure unimpeded and safe Israeli access to and use of the site.
* * *
Notes
