Israeli forces have withdrawn from Hebron, governor says

Israeli forces withdrew from Hebron after an operation lasting nearly two weeks, according to Hebron Governor Khaled Dudin. The reported change is that Palestinian security forces now control the area completely. This matters because control of security affects who patrols, manages access, and protects residents.

Dudin told Al Jazeera that Palestinian security forces had taken full control. He also said families forced to leave their homes during the operation were now able to return. These details connect the security change directly to residents’ daily lives and housing.

The immediate reality is a reported transfer of control from Israeli forces to Palestinian forces. The article does not describe the withdrawal’s exact terms or whether all families have returned. It does show a shift in local authority and a possible first step toward restoring normal life for displaced residents.

Hebron is a historic Palestinian city in the southern part of the West Bank, a territory commonly described as occupied since 1967. Its location places it near the southern edge of the West Bank and close to the area’s boundary with Israel. The article itself only identifies Hebron as an occupied West Bank city.

The city is known for its large population, historic old center, and religious and cultural importance. It is also an important commercial center for Palestinians. These broader details come from established geographic and historical knowledge, not from the supplied article. The article focuses on security control rather than geography.

That setting matters because changes in control in a major West Bank city affect residents, movement, and local administration. In this case, the governor reported an Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian security control, and the return of families displaced during the operation.

Hebron is among the largest and most populous cities in the West Bank. Commonly cited estimates put the city’s population at roughly 200,000, while the wider Hebron governorate has more than 700,000 residents. Exact figures vary by boundary and census year. The supplied article gives no population numbers.

The city matters because it is a major Palestinian commercial center and a historic religious site. It also serves as the administrative center of the Hebron governorate, one of the West Bank’s largest areas. These factors give events there a wider effect than a purely local security incident.

The article’s focus on Hebron therefore concerns more than one neighborhood. Governor Khaled Dudin reported that Israeli forces withdrew after nearly two weeks and that Palestinian forces now had complete control. If sustained, that change could affect security and daily life across an important urban area.

When Palestinian security forces have “complete control,” the phrase generally means they are responsible for maintaining public order and security in the area. They may patrol, respond to incidents, protect residents, and manage local security operations. The wording describes practical authority, not necessarily independent sovereignty.

In this case, Hebron Governor Khaled Dudin told Al Jazeera that Palestinian security forces were now in complete control after Israeli forces withdrew. The key mechanism is a reported change in who exercises day-to-day security authority. The article does not list specific units, powers, checkpoints, or legal arrangements.

The claim should therefore be read as the governor’s description of the current situation. It does not by itself establish that Palestinian authorities control every political or military matter connected with Hebron. It does indicate a significant reported shift in local security responsibility and may shape how residents move, receive protection, and return home.

When families are forced to leave their homes during a military operation, withdrawal can remove the immediate barrier preventing their return. Returning home can restore shelter, family life, and access to personal belongings. It does not necessarily mean that homes are undamaged or that conditions have become fully normal.

Hebron Governor Khaled Dudin said families displaced during the operation were now able to return. His statement links their return to the Israeli forces’ withdrawal and the reported transfer of security control to Palestinian forces. The article does not say how many families left, how long they were displaced, or what condition their homes are in.

The current position is therefore one of reported access, not a detailed account of completed returns. Families may still face practical challenges after displacement. Even so, the governor’s statement identifies a direct humanitarian change: residents who were forced out can go back after nearly two weeks of operations.

Palestinian security forces generally refers to the Palestinian Authority’s police and other security bodies. Their core duties include public order, policing, and protecting people in areas where they have assigned authority. The supplied article does not name a particular Palestinian unit or explain its chain of command.

The Israeli military is the armed force of Israel. In the West Bank, it conducts military operations, arrests, patrols, and other security actions under Israel’s occupation framework. Palestinian forces usually have narrower local responsibilities and do not possess the same military reach or authority. These distinctions come from established background knowledge, not the brief article.

In Hebron, the governor reported that Israeli forces withdrew and Palestinian security forces took complete control of the area. That suggests a change in day-to-day security responsibility. The exact limits of that control, and how the two systems interact afterward, are not provided in the article.

Military occupation is a situation in which a foreign armed power exercises effective authority over territory it does not legally own as sovereign territory. Under international humanitarian law, occupation creates duties toward civilians and does not by itself transfer sovereignty. The article uses the phrase “occupied West Bank city” but does not explain the legal framework.

In the West Bank, Israel’s military has long held major security powers, while Palestinians have sought self-government and eventual sovereignty. That division produces disputes over patrols, arrests, borders, movement, and who may protect residents. In Hebron, the governor reported that Israeli forces withdrew and Palestinian forces gained complete control of the area.

The reported change matters because it touches both security and political authority. Local Palestinian control may increase practical self-rule in Hebron, but it does not alone settle the wider question of sovereignty. The article provides no broader agreement or timetable, so its implications remain limited to the reported local shift.