Talk:Temporary International Presence in Hebron
|WikiProject Palestine||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
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)