Russia helps ‘Palestine’ rewrite Jewish heritage in Judea and Samaria: what’s behind the archaeological memorandum of July 9, 2026

Russian state structures are beginning the digital documentation of monuments related to biblical history, the Second Temple era, and Jewish Jerusalem. However, in Moscow and Ramallah, they are exclusively presented as ‘Palestinian cultural heritage’ and included in a project personally approved by Putin, dedicated to ‘Africa and the Islamic World.’

At first glance, it seems to be about scientific cooperation, creating three-dimensional models, and saving antiquities. But the agreement emerged amid a sharp conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the right to manage archaeological sites in Judea and Samaria and to determine whose history they tell.

Therefore, the memorandum should be considered not only as an archaeological project but also as part of the struggle for archaeological sovereignty.

Russia has chosen a non-neutral position in this struggle. It provides the Palestinian Authority with state scientific institutes, technology, the authority of the Hermitage, and the infrastructure of Rossotrudnichestvo, helping to establish monuments of biblical and Jewish history in the international arena specifically as ‘Palestinian’ heritage.

What Russia and the Palestinian Authority signed on July 9

On July 9, 2026, a memorandum was signed between the ‘Center for Rescue Archaeology of the Institute of History of Material Culture’ of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the ‘Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities’ of the Palestinian Authority.

The document was signed by the director of the Russian Center, Natalia Solovyova, and the Palestinian minister, Hani Al-Hayek.

The ceremony was attended by the General Director of the State Hermitage, Mikhail Piotrovsky, and the Deputy Representative of Russia to the Palestinian National Authority, Artur Antonyan. The moderator was the head of the Rossotrudnichestvo representation, Timofey Bokov.

The ‘Russian House in Palestine’ itself reported that it coordinated the preparation of the project and is ready to continue facilitating Russian-Palestinian cooperation in the field of ‘cultural heritage.’ This is important: it is not about a private expedition of scientists, but about the work of the Russian state mechanism of humanitarian presence. The official website of Rossotrudnichestvo confirms that its foreign representations have been operating under the informal name ‘Russian House’ since 2021, and the representation in Bethlehem is part of this structure.

Project supported by Putin

The memorandum became part of a larger Russian initiative — ‘Digital Archive of Monuments of Africa and the Islamic World’.

The project is being implemented by the State Hermitage and the Center for Rescue Archaeology of the IHMC RAS. Mikhail Piotrovsky presented it on March 25, 2026, at a meeting of the Russian Council for Culture, after which Putin publicly promised support.

Russian reports indicate that the program is planned until 2028. It is planned to include at least 30 full-fledged three-dimensional models of monuments. The Hermitage will collect bibliographic data and provide expert support, while archaeologists will conduct digital filming, create geospatial models, and form information systems for research, monitoring, restoration, and educational projects.

Which objects Russia plans to start with

In the first stage, Russian specialists plan to select three or four archaeological sites that the Palestinian Authority considers most important. However, the full list of monuments has not yet been published.

Russian reports mention only two specific objects:

Solomon’s Pools — בריכות שלמה — near Bethlehem;

Tell es-Sultan — תל א־סולטאן, also known as תל יריחו, Tell Jericho, — ancient Jericho.

Roman cisterns, remains of aqueducts, Christian temples, and Islamic structures were mentioned only as examples of the rich archaeological heritage of the region. There is no confirmation that they are already included in the first phase of the Russian-Palestinian project.

Special attention was paid by the director of the Center for Rescue Archaeology of the IHMC RAS, Natalia Solovyova, to Solomon’s Pools. She expressed a desire to conduct their digital documentation, while acknowledging that a ‘very complex situation’ has developed around the monument.

This phrase has not only scientific but also political significance.

Solomon’s Pools — the water system of Jewish Jerusalem

In Israeli archaeology, Solomon’s Pools are called בריכות שלמה — Breichot Shlomo.

The associated water system is known as אמת המים התחתונה לירושלים — the Lower Aqueduct to Jerusalem.

Israeli archaeological materials attribute the creation of this aqueduct to the Second Temple period, most likely to the Hasmonean or Herodian era. Water flowed from the area of Solomon’s Pools to Jerusalem, with the Temple Mount — הר הבית — being the final point of the system.

This means that it is not just about ancient reservoirs near modern Bethlehem.

The pools and the associated aqueduct were part of the infrastructure of Jewish Jerusalem and served the city during the existence of the Second Temple.

Later, the system was used, repaired, and rebuilt by the Romans, Byzantines, Muslim rulers, Mamluks, and Ottomans. However, the later stages of exploitation do not negate the origin of its main ancient layer and its direct connection to the Temple Mount.

Therefore, presenting Solomon’s Pools exclusively as ‘Palestinian cultural heritage’ conceals the most important part of the object’s history.

The modern administrative status of the monument does not change the fact that its ancient water system was created in the Jewish period for Jewish Jerusalem.

Tell es-Sultan — biblical Jericho

The second specifically named object is Tell es-Sultan, תל א־סולטאן.

In Israel, the name תל יריחו — Tell Jericho is also used, meaning the Jericho mound.

Israeli archaeology identifies it with יריחו המקראית — biblical Jericho.

At the same time, Tell es-Sultan is a multi-layered monument. Its oldest structures appeared in the Neolithic era — thousands of years before the formation of the Jewish people and long before the Arab conquest of the region.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to claim that the entire archaeological complex was created by Jews.

But it is equally incorrect to present Tell es-Sultan as a monument of Arab or Islamic origin.

Numerous layers of settlement have been discovered on the mound — from prehistoric periods to the Bronze and Iron Ages. Jericho itself occupies a central place in the Tanakh and Jewish historical memory, primarily in the story of the Israelites crossing the Jordan and conquering the city by Joshua.

Thus, Tell es-Sultan is not exclusively a Jewish monument, but it is inseparable from biblical and ancient Israelite history.

Its oldest layers existed long before the emergence of Arab and Islamic identity in the region.

Why the choice of these objects has political significance

Both named monuments in Russian-Palestinian publications are presented as part of ‘Palestinian cultural heritage,’ and the entire project is included in the program of digital documentation of monuments of Africa and the Islamic World.

But neither Solomon’s Pools nor Tell es-Sultan were created as Islamic monuments.

Solomon’s Pools and the Lower Aqueduct are associated with the Second Temple era, the Hasmonean or Herodian period, and the water supply of the Temple Mount.

Tell es-Sultan arose millennia before the advent of Islam and is simultaneously biblical Jericho, occupying an important place in the history of the Jewish people.

That is why the Russian digitization of these objects cannot be considered only as technical work.

The created archive will include official names, descriptions, historical periodization, bibliography, and data on the cultural affiliation of the monuments.

If Solomon’s Pools are described only as a ‘Palestinian object,’ and their connection to the Second Temple and the Temple Mount becomes secondary or disappears altogether, the digital archive will become a tool for the political reinterpretation of Jewish heritage.

The same applies to ancient Jericho.

Russia is effectively helping the Palestinian Authority to establish its own representation of objects in the international arena, which were either created in the Jewish period or have fundamental significance for the biblical history of Israel.

Why a digital model is not just a photograph

Three-dimensional fixation of a monument can indeed be an important tool for preservation. It allows for the accurate recording of the shape of structures, their position, dimensions, and current state.

However, the digital archive consists not only of geometry.

The model is accompanied by:

• the official name of the object;
• the country and territory to which it is assigned;
• a description of its origin;
• historical periodization;
• bibliography;
• information about the creators and users of the monument;
• museum and educational interpretation;
• indication of the institution that manages the data.

This is where neutral technical fixation ends and politics begins.

Whoever creates the digital archive gets the opportunity to determine whether the water system will be described as a structure of the Second Temple era or simply as a ‘Palestinian monument.’ Whether it will be said that the aqueduct supplied water to the Temple Mount, or this connection will disappear behind a general formulation about the heritage of the ‘Islamic World.’

Therefore, it is not only about who physically controls the ancient stones.

It is about who will write the official digital biography of the monument.

Solomon’s Pools: the water system of Jewish Jerusalem

Solomon’s Pools are located south of Bethlehem, in the territory transferred to the management of the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords.

Their traditional name does not prove a direct connection to King Solomon. However, the ancient water system has a very definite connection to Jewish history and Jerusalem of the Second Temple era.

The Israel Antiquities Authority indicates that the Lower Aqueduct ran from Solomon’s Pools approximately 21 kilometers to the Temple Mount. It was built during the Second Temple period, most likely during the Hasmonean kings.

The aqueduct directed water to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, providing the city and temple complex during the period of Jewish statehood. The system continued to be used and rebuilt in later Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman periods, but later repairs do not change the origin of its fundamental historical layer.

This is a fundamental point.

The water system connecting Solomon’s Pools to the Temple Mount was not created by Arabs or the modern Palestinian Authority. Its foundation dates back to the Jewish period of the Second Temple and, likely, to the Hasmonean state.

Modern administrative control over the site cannot change the historical origin of the structure.

Roman, Christian, Islamic, and Ottoman chapters of its history can be acknowledged. But the fact that the ancient aqueduct was part of the infrastructure of Jewish Jerusalem cannot be erased.

Why a conflict has already erupted around the pools

The Russian agreement did not appear in a historical vacuum.

At the end of May 2026, Solomon’s Pools were visited by Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, deputies, and representatives of the ‘Religious Zionism’ party. Israeli participants in the trip called the object a monument of the Hasmonean era and the Second Temple and claimed that its transfer to Palestinian management was a mistake of the Oslo Accords.

According to Palestinian and Turkish publications, Smotrich stated that maintaining Palestinian Authority control over the object is unacceptable and that Israel must change the current situation.

The Palestinian reaction was immediate.

Local activists and official structures began calling on residents to be constantly present near the pools to prevent their alleged transfer to Israel. In Palestinian publications, the object was called part of ‘Arab and Islamic identity,’ and Israeli actions were described as an attempt to ‘Judaize’ it.

By the end of June, the conflict had moved from statements to physical confrontation. The state agency WAFA reported that on June 26, Israeli military used stun grenades and tear gas near the pools against Palestinians present there. According to the agency itself, there were no casualties.

Already in early July, Hani Al-Hayek visited the object again and announced that the Palestinian Authority would intensify local and international actions for its protection. The Palestinian ministry directly called Solomon’s Pools an integral part of the national identity of the Palestinian people.

And on July 9, a few weeks after the escalation, the same minister signed a memorandum with the Russian state archaeological center.

Such a coincidence of context cannot be ignored.

Russia proposes to digitize not a random monument, but an object around which a struggle for administrative control, historical affiliation, and national interpretation is currently taking place.

Tell es-Sultan: ancient Arabs, but not exclusively Jewish

The second named object became Tell es-Sultan — ancient Jericho.

Here it is necessary to maintain historical accuracy.

The main structures, thanks to which Tell es-Sultan was included in the UNESCO World Heritage list, belong to the Neolithic. Already in the 9th–8th millennia BCE, a large permanent settlement with a wall, moat, and monumental tower existed at this site.

This means that the oldest layers of Tell es-Sultan appeared long before the formation of the Jewish people — and thousands of years before the Arab conquest of the region.

Therefore, it would be a mistake to claim that the entire Tell es-Sultan was built by Jews.

But it is equally mistaken to turn it into a monument of Arab origin.

Jericho occupies an exceptional place in the Tanakh and Jewish historical memory. The archaeological mound contains not only Neolithic and Bronze Age layers but also remains from the Iron Age. The report on research from 2019–2023 describes structures dating approximately to 1136–960 and 732–535 BCE — periods overlapping with the history of ancient Israel and Judah.

In 2023, UNESCO included the object in the World Heritage list as a monument located in the ‘State of Palestine.’ At the same time, the organization itself clarified that the decision focuses on the prehistoric mound, while later Jewish and Christian heritage is located in the broader historical context of Jericho and is not the main subject of this particular nomination. Israel called the decision politicized.

Thus, the exact wording should be:

Tell es-Sultan is not exclusively a Jewish monument, but it is certainly not a monument of Arab origin. Its main layers are much older than the Arab presence, and ancient Jericho is inseparable from biblical and Jewish history.

When such an object is included in the Russian archive of ‘monuments of the Islamic World,’ a legitimate question arises: what relation does prehistoric Jericho and its ancient Israelite layers have to the origin of the Islamic World?

Sebastia: the dispute over the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel

Solomon’s Pools and Jericho are only part of a broader archaeological conflict.

Another center of his became Sebastia — ancient Samaria, located near Shechem.

The complex contains remnants of the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel from the 9th century BCE, as well as Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, and Ottoman structures.

The Israeli side views the preservation and development of Sebastia as protecting one of the key sites of biblical and ancient Israeli history. The Palestinian administration claims that under the guise of archaeology, Israel is trying to separate the monument from the modern Palestinian city and gain control over the land, roads, water sources, and tourism revenues.

At the end of 2025, Israel announced a plan to seize approximately 1,800 dunams — about 445 acres near the complex for its development. Palestinian local authorities stated that the project affects about five thousand olive trees.

Here the same question arises again: who will tell visitors the story of Samaria?

Will it be the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, around which Roman and Byzantine structures later appeared? Or will the entire complex be primarily presented as ‘Palestinian national heritage,’ with the ancient Israeli period becoming just one of the less noticeable points?

Israel attempted to create its own heritage protection body.

On May 12, 2026, the Knesset approved in the first reading a bill to create the Judea and Samaria Heritage Authority.

The proposal provided for the direct responsibility of the State of Israel for antiquities, archaeology, and heritage monuments in the region. The new structure was to engage in excavations, preservation, restoration, site management, research, education, and international scientific relations. The project also included powers related to the acquisition and expropriation of land for the protection of monuments.

The Palestinian administration viewed the law as an attempt to extend Israeli civil authority over territories under Palestinian administration.

Minister Hani Al-Hayek — the same person who later signed an agreement with Russia — claimed that control over antiquities would be used to expand Israeli presence and settlements.

At the same time, the proposed mechanism was opposed by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Scientists warned that separate civil administration could be perceived worldwide as annexation and harm international relations of Israeli science.

But in its address, the academy simultaneously emphasized an important point: Jewish heritage is a central value of archaeological research throughout the Land of Israel and should be actively studied and presented to the public. The scientists’ dispute concerned not the significance of Jewish history, but the proposed legal mechanism for its protection.

On June 2, 2026, the advancement of the law was temporarily halted after intervention by Benjamin Netanyahu. And while Israel debated internally about the correct mechanism for protecting its archaeology, the Palestinian administration began strengthening international partnerships in the same field.

Five weeks later, it secured an agreement with the Russian state archaeological center.

Russia entered the dispute not as a neutral mediator.

Russia could propose a trilateral scientific project.

It could invite specialists from the Israel Antiquities Authority, Russian and Palestinian archaeologists, create an international commission, and separately stipulate that the digital description should reflect all historical periods — prehistoric, Canaanite, ancient Israeli, Judean, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman.

Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the published reports.

Russia’s partner became exclusively the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities of the Palestinian administration.

The sites for the first works are chosen by the Palestinian side.

The Russian project calls them ‘Palestinian monuments’ and simultaneously includes them in the archive of Africa and the Islamic world.

The ‘Russian House’ provides organizational coordination.

The Hermitage collects bibliographic materials.

The Russian academic structure creates digital models.

At the same time, Russian reports on Solomon’s Pools do not emphasize that the associated aqueduct was built during the Second Temple period and led directly to the Temple Mount. In the description of ancient Jericho, its place in Jewish and biblical history is also not highlighted.

According to NAnews — News of Israel, this means that Moscow has already accepted the main Palestinian framework: the modern administrative control of the Palestinian administration is used as a basis for presenting the millennia-old heritage as the national heritage of ‘Palestine.’

That is why the project cannot be considered completely neutral.

Russia is not just helping to preserve ancient walls. It is helping one side of the conflict to form an official digital narrative about them.

Archaeology as a tool of state recognition.

For the Palestinian administration, the digital archive has significance far beyond science.

Such materials can be used:

• in museums and tourist centers;
• in school and university programs;
• in international exhibitions;
• in diplomatic presentations;
• in applications and reports for UNESCO;
• in scientific publications;
• to prove the ability to independently manage heritage sites;
• to consolidate modern Palestinian state terminology.

The appearance of a Russian state partner increases the political weight of such an interpretation.

Now it will not only be a Palestinian database. It could become a joint Russian-Palestinian archive, supported by the RAS, the Hermitage, Rossotrudnichestvo, and the Russian government.

In the future, these materials will be referenced by researchers, journalists, museums, and international organizations.

If an object is initially described in the database as ‘Palestinian heritage of the Islamic world,’ correcting such a representation later will be significantly more difficult.

Is it necessary to deny later periods?

No.

The history of Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Jericho is multilayered.

Canaanite cities, ancient Israeli kingdoms, Judea, Hellenistic states, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic caliphates, Crusader states, the Mamluk Sultanate, and the Ottoman Empire existed in these territories.

All these periods deserve study.

But respect for later layers does not require abandoning the historical origins of earlier structures.

If the aqueduct was built by the Hasmonean kings for Jewish Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, it remains part of Jewish heritage, even if it was repaired by other authorities a thousand years later.

If Samaria was the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, this cannot be changed by a modern border or a new tourist brand.

If Tell es-Sultan existed thousands of years before the Arab conquest, it cannot honestly be presented as an object of Arab origin.

The modern administration of the territory and the historical belonging of the monument are not the same.

What the Israeli government should do.

The Israeli government should not limit itself to observing the Russian-Palestinian project.

First of all, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should request from Russia the full text of the memorandum, the list of objects, the funding order, the rules for access to information, and the conditions for using the created 3D models.

The Israel Antiquities Authority should demand clarifications on the scientific methodology of the project: who will compile the descriptions, what periodization is planned to be used, and whether the Hasmonean era, the Second Temple, the ancient Kingdom of Israel, and the connection of objects with the Temple Mount will be reflected in the materials.

It is necessary to find out who will own the original digital data and whether the Palestinian administration will be able to independently change the descriptions and names of objects.

Israel should propose the participation of its own specialists or the creation of an independent international council that will ensure the representation of all historical periods without politically erasing the Jewish layer.

In parallel, Israel needs to accelerate its own digital documentation of the monuments of Judea and Samaria and publish quality materials in Hebrew, English, Russian, and Arabic.

Special attention should be paid to Solomon’s Pools, the Lower Aqueduct, Sebastia, ancient Jericho, and other objects around which there is already an international struggle for interpretation.

Israel cannot remain silent.

The memorandum of July 9 is a warning.

While within Israel there are debates about laws, ministry powers, and international reactions, the Palestinian administration acts consistently. It attracts foreign partners, creates digital archives, consolidates its own terminology, and forms an international image of the archaeology of Judea and Samaria as exclusively ‘Palestinian national heritage.’

Russia has provided it with state institutions and scientific authority for this.

And it is especially alarming that the Russian archive of Africa and the Islamic world is planning to include a system built during the Second Temple period for the water supply of the Temple Mount, and ancient Jericho, which existed millennia before the emergence of Islam.

NAnews — News of Israel believes that the Israeli government should pay attention to this project and officially respond.

It is necessary to demand transparency, the participation of Israeli specialists, and full recognition of Jewish historical periods in the created digital archive.

It is not about wanting to erase the Roman, Christian, Islamic, or Ottoman history of these places.

It is about the inadmissibility of erasing our history.

Solomon’s Pools and the aqueduct to the Temple Mount are part of the heritage of Jewish Jerusalem.

Samaria is the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel.

Jericho is one of the central cities of the biblical memory of the Jewish people, even if its oldest layers are older than all modern national identities.

This is our heritage — not because other peoples have no connection to this land, but because the most important structures and historical layers of these objects were created in biblical, ancient Israeli, and Judean periods.

Modern agreements cannot change their origin.

But Israel’s silence may allow others to rewrite how this origin will be presented to the world.