Talk:Temporary International Presence in Hebron

occupied
It seems that some do not wish to see the word 'occupied' used in any discussion of the West Bank. The original article referred to the 'occupied territories'; this was removed and replaced with West Bank. I put in the term 'occupied West Bank'; this has been twice removed, with an accusation of it being POV. I don't know if any one disputes that the territory in question was occupied by Israel in 1967, against the wishes of its population. Other than in fiction, it is occupied now, and the term 'occupied' is neutral in this context, either as in the original 'occupied territories', or as my later compromise. Not to include it is POV. And the fact of the occupation is very relevant to the subject of this article. Imc 13:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The definition of what is an "occupied territory" is complicated and controversial. Certainly not any territory that was once occupied is now "occupied territory". Israel officially maintains that the West Bank is a "disputed territory", not "occupied territory". All of this is discussed in other places on the Wikipedia. Duplicating this discussion here, and only mentioning one side of it, is both unhelpful and POV. uriber 13:48, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see the discussion has got nowhere in the other discussions either. But OK, it is controversial. By equal measure, and since, allegedly, some Arab states dispute the right of Israel to exist, that must be controversial too, so shall we now remove Israel from the list of countries? This is an encyclopedia for general use, not an attempt to define legal terms and we should use plain words that are understood. The city of Hebron is occupied, against the will of the local people, in any commonsense view of the term, let alone what Security Council resolutions say about it. Imc 16:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not even those states that dispute the right of Israel to exist dispute that Israel does, in fact, exist. If there was a real dispute on whether Israel is a state or not (with reasonable arguments as to why it is not), your analogy might have been valid. However, as things stand, it is not so.

I certainly agree that the Wikipedia should use plain words, not legal terms (I wish this policy were followed everywhere). However the term "occupied", in its plain literal sense, can be applied almost to any territory on the face of the earth. Kaliningrad was occupied by Russia in 1945. The territories which are now the USA and Canada were occupied by Europeans from their native inhabitants. The entire island of Britain was occupied by the Anglo-Saxons at some point, and remains occupied by them till this very day - and so on. Are we going to use the word "occupied" whenever we mention any of these places?

Above, you say "The city of Hebron is occupied". This is different from what you tried putting in the article - that the entire West Bank is "occupied". I'm not sure which of these claims you're really trying to advocate, so I'll respond to both.

First, the West Bank: Until 1967, it was controlled by Jordan, which occupied it during the 1948 war, driving away or killing ant Jewish population in the area. Take for example Kfar Etzion - which was a Jewish village near Bethlehem, until it was occupied in 1948 by Jordan, and its defenders were massacred after they surrendered. Now, when Israel regained control of the site of this village (which is in the West Bank), and rebuilt it - can that be considered "occupation" (under the regular, not legal, meaning of the word)?

So at most you can say that parts of the West Bank (those populated by Arabs) were "occupied" in 1967. This does not justify applying the adjective to the entire territory.

As for Hebron, since the 1997 implementation of the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, the vast majority of the city is under full control of the Palestinian Authority. Although it was re-occupied by Israeli forces for a short period in 2002 during Operation Defensive Shield, it is now agian under Palestinian control. So here too, claiming that Hebron is (entirely) occupied is just plain wrong.

uriber 16:48, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that all major Arab cities in the West Bank (other then Hebron) have been under full control of the PA since 1994. So they too, aren't exactly "occupied" by the regular meaning of the term.

uriber 17:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are trying to twist words. First you acknowledge that Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948, then you claim that Israel did not occupy it in 1967. Yes, some Israelis dispute that the West Bank and Gaza is occupied by Israel, some Palestinians dispute that any Palestinain is a terrorist. Arguing like that is pointless. Wikipedia use words like the words are used, not in some propagandaists way. BL 17:25, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Question from the ignorant
What are the so-called anarchists of Hebron who attempt to keep the Arab presence present in the Jewish section of the city called? You know, the ones who live side by side with the Arabs? What's their relationship with TIPH? --Yodamace1 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Temporary International Presence in Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506020050/http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/ to http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131219133553/http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/TIPH_background/ to http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/TIPH_background/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918035517/http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/Mandate_and_Agreements/Agreement_on_TIPH/ to http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/Mandate_and_Agreements/Agreement_on_TIPH/
 * Added tag to http://www.tiph.org/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?id=77&br=&ver=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Tire slashing
When 3 members of a 64 strong force (or close to 5%) are caught on film involved in tire slashing - leading to wide coverage of the incident, coverage of the flight of the alleged tire slasher from Israel,, as well as wide coverage of the subsequent diplomatic fallout (including the mission head being summoned for a talk) - itself also widely covered, as well as the incident being mentioned as one of the alleged violent incidents leading to a consideration of ending TIPH's mandate (this week) - these events definitely have WP:W - they are definitely more covered and relevant than various bits of info sourced to TIPH's website. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The tire slashing is unworthy of mention, but it's not as bad as "complaints alleging TIPH members are involved in the systematic violent targeting of the Jewish community". It is outrageous to put such assertions (aka blatant lies) into the article without specifics on who made those complaints and what violence they were referring to. It is impossible that such "systematic violence" would not be covered extensively by the Israeli press. Actually the TIPH members have been subject to physical harrassment by the settlers since they first arrived, often with the IDF looking on passively. Zerotalk 10:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The tire slashing and the physical assault of a 10 year old boy were covered copiously by the Israeli press - both the filmed incidents themselves, and the subsequent fallout. Not only that, the involved TIPH members fled Israel (in the midst of a police investigation) and TIPH has apologized for both incidents. The existence of the police complaints (and investigation, and apologies) are far from "blatant lies" - in fact one could state the events occurred as a fact, not just that complaints were made (following the language in the cited source).Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the slap. Calling one slap "systematic violent targeting" is a fine example of a blatant lie, so I stand by that comment. Zerotalk 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear there are complaints of such systemic targeting - whether they are justified is perhaps open to interpretation. I'll note that the Israeli police is on-record (Knesset hearing) saying that TIPH instigates "friction" vs. Israelis on a weekly basis. Any actual policy grounds for removing the tire incident (notable not due to the tire - but due to it being filmed, the TIPH person involved fleeing the country, and subsequent coverage), which was widely covered and has continuous coverage as one of the incidents leading up to the possible non-renewal of the TIPH mandate? Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Friction isn't violent targeting either. I don't believe the tire incident contributed to any reconsideration either. It can't be more than a pretext, and it shows how little genuine reason there is. A few tires in a place where people are killed and injured and major property damage is done on a regular basis? Come on, it's pathetic. Zerotalk
 * Countries usually don't appreciate when hosted parties commit deliberate acts of vandalism. Whether this is pathetic, or a pretext, it is still quite notable and DUE given the coverage of this - heck - it would pass standalone notability per WP:NEVENT - should we create TIPH tire slashing incident as a stand alone article? Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage has been continuing on this incident - JPost - with this being cited as one of two incidents leading to calls for TIPH's removal. Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a self-described "peacekeeping" mission of "observers." And they decided to target and slash the tires of Jewish owned vehicles?   And were caught doing so on tape?  And it was covered in multiple WP:RS media.   Of course it cna be discussed on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Termination reason
this source (as most others covering this) states that Netanyahu said that "We will not allow the continuation of an international force that acts against us" - and the goes on to state the assault on a ten year old boy and the tire slashing incident as examples of acts by TIPH against Israelis.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, his statement was "We will not allow the continuation of an international force that acts against us". And yes, it came after that incident. It also, according to this source, came after it was reported they had issued a report documenting human rights violations by Israel. Hell the original reporting called it: Some of the people Haaretz spoke to for this article voiced concern that the publication of the report’s findings may result in Israel refusing to renew TIPH’s mandate to operate in the city, which comes up for renewal every six months. And the TOI source has several quotes about the expulsion, among them:"'cooperated with extremist organizations and promoted delegitimization of Israel.' 'which has been active against the state for many years, will no longer be part of the landscape in the region.'"Nothing in the source supports that it happened as a result, only that it happened some 7 months after.  nableezy  - 02:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haaretz draws a connecting line as well, but how about AP/TOI - "Last month, Netanyahu’s office announced it would not extend the mandate of the international observer group, following a number of incidents over the past year in which its members scrapped with settlers in the city. Videos emerged last showing one TIPH staffer slashing the tires of an Israeli settler and another slapping a young Jewish boy. TIPH expelled both after an internal probe. - as direct as can be. Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The odd thing about all this is why Icewhiz would like to portray Israel making a very major decision for very petty reasons. The fact that it is absurd on its face doesn't seem to count. Zerotalk 01:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A sixty-something strong unarmed observer is from from major - regardless, we follow sources (in this case AP/TOI) - which clearly show Israel was concerned about the attacks on Israelis for some odd reason. Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the reason was pressure from the settlers and their supporters, who include Bibi's cronies, precipitated by the leaking of TIPH's report that charged Israel with multiple violations of international law. Everyone knows that. Slashed tires? Pull the other one. Zerotalk 09:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, again Icewhiz, it follows, in that it came some time after, those incidents. I however have not seen a source say it was due to that. I think I already said it came after those were publicized.  nableezy  - 16:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)