Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Question of Annexation

I know the semantics of Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights have been debated for decades. However, thirty years Israel first moved into the Golan, the region is completely integrated into the rest of Israel, both geographicly and culturally. My question is that if the international community accepted and recognized Jordan's annexation of the West Bank after Israel's 1948 war of independence, why do they not recognize Israel's annexation of the Golan? User: Notecardforfree 23:40, 16 Jan 2007

Only the UK recognised the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, so your premises are wrong. --Zero^talk 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that true? I did not know that. Thank you for informing me. Do you know where I can learn more about Jordan's "annexation" of the West Bank? User: Notecardforfree 01:39, 17 Jan 2007

Accuracy?

I have changed it to the most accurate article. MC

Truce violations on the Golan

Uriber, the reason I deleted the text about truce violations is that it tells the story purely from the Israeli point of view. The Syrian point of view (supported to some extent by the MAC) is that the sovereignty of the demilitarised zones was undecided and that civilian affairs were required to be restricted to maintenance of existing Jewish or Arab settlements. However Israel established new settlements and also destroyed several Arab settlements and expelled the inhabitants. It is true that Syria sometimes shot at the new settlements, but also true that the attacks were often provoked intentionally and the "settlers" were often really soldiers. This is well established in history books but I can quote some of the 1976 interview of Dayan that was only published a few years ago (authenticated by his daughter):

I know how at least 80% of the incidents began there. In my opinion, more than 80%, but let's talk about 80%. It would happen like this: We would send a tractor to plow someplace of no value, in the demilitarized zone, knowing ahead of time that the Syrians would begin to shoot. If they did not start shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And then we would start firing artillery, and later also the airforce, and this was the way it was. I did this, and Laskov and Tzur did it. Yitzhak Rabin did it when he was there (as commander of the northern district at the beginning of the sixties), but it seems to me that it was Dado, more than anyone else, who enjoyed these games.

You may be right that Israel never specifically attacked Syrian civilian targets, because there were no villages or refugee camps close to the border. However, civilians were killed in some of their actions. Israel did expel many Arab civilians from the DMZ and were condemned by the UN for it.

I'm out of time for today. Let's try to find a form of words that both of us can be happy with. -- zero 12:13, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have read this quote before, and it is worth mentioning. I agree that we should include the Syrian point of view. However, we should also critically analyze Syria's claims (indeed, the claims of any nation.) After all, what kind of person responds to a farm tractor as if it were an invasion by the Israeli military? As far as I can tell anyone that shells tractors is just looking for a slim pretext to shell its neighbor and kill that nation's citizens. The Syrians has made clear that their long term goal was to exterminate the State of Israel. What would you do in this situation? The Israeli response seems pretty understandable. It at least gave them a tactical advantage; the "bully next door" is always easier to deal with if he sucks at tactics. RK 03:26, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Israel was trying to establish sovereignty over a region that it had no right to under the armistice agreement. That was a type of invasion, and Syria had a good case for taking it that way. The moral argument doesn't impress me because Israel was even more forceful in protecting its sovereignty than Syria was.

Are you presenting Israel's "establishing sovereignity" via farming and Syria's fighting it by shooting as morally comparable? ??? ??????-????????? 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mention moral issues at all, and don't intend to now. Your question is based on the false premise that Israel didn't do any shooting. Of course they did. And how do you think Israel would have responded to Syrian "farming"? --Zero 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel did shoot -- at shooters. They wouldn't have minded the farmers, but were faced with soldiers dugged in bunkers -- and Moshe Dayan's quote says just that. And those soldiers were shooting. I asked you, whether you hold Israel's "provocation" by farming with Syria's shooting as morally comparable. You did not respond directly, but, sadly, the answer seems to be affirmative... ??? ??????-????????? 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

At this time there was a "shoot to kill" policy against all unauthorised people crossing the borders (Morris quotes from the actual order) and a large number of people (mostly unarmed) were killed especially on the Jordanian border. (This policy was moderated after an incident became public where a couple of Arab children were murdered after being captured.) Israel also executed frequent attacks on villages in Jordan. Usually they were retaliation after attacks by Arab infiltrators, but the attacks were not generally against the place the culprits came from (which was usually unknown) but against some convenient target. Typically a village was shelled from a distance, but sometimes they did things like waiting beside a road and killing the occupants of the first car that came along. In another incident, 120 suspected infiltrators were dumped in the Arava desert without water and many of them died of thirst. All of this is in Morris, "Israel's Border Wars", usually sourced to Israeli archival documents. In summary I am not persuaded by the Israel-good Syria-bad style of argumentation.

I propose that we do not "critically analyze" anything in the article. The article should tell people the facts in a dispassionate manner and not try to tell them what to think about it. Following that rule all over the Middle East articles would be a vast improvement over the current situation. Our aim should be to inform and not to convince. Actually I wish it was possible to ban all opinions from the article except those of the principle participants in the events being described. Thus, we would permit "Israel's position was that... Syria on the other hand maintained that...", but not permit "Some people hold that..." (which is often just someone's code for "I hold that...") or even "Israelis hold that..." (unless Israeli public opinion is the topic of the article).

Btw, I don't propose adding the Dayan quotation to the article.

RK writes: The Syrians has made clear that their long term goal was to exterminate the State of Israel.
I'll mention a few things that make your black and white position somewhat shaky (assuming we are talking about the early years of the state). In 1949 Syria offered to "immediately sign a peace treaty and not an armistice and immediately exchange ambassadors", and in addition to settle 250,000-500,000 refugees. In return they wanted the international border to run along the Jordan River (note there is only a short stretch relevant to Syria) and through the middle of the Sea of Galilee. According to Israeli documents, Ben Gurion refused to even discuss it. There was a similar Syrian offer in 1951 from a different Syrian government, where the Syrians proposed dividing the DMZ into two (Israel getting 70%), but that offer was also rejected. It seems that Israeli considered itself powerful enough that it did not need to make concessions and the Syrians were not willing to make peace without something in return. Much the same thing happened with Jordan and Egypt.

-- zero 12:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Although this is a dead string, and I don't intend to have it reopened, I would like to point out the high possibility that this was merely a tactic to seize more ground, given Pan-Arab ambitions held by the Hashemite Monarchy and the Egyptian and Syrian governments. Moving on to more current issues, however:

Once again zero makes perfectly clear his position. Why is it that you can so perfectly illustrate the Pro-Syrian POV but find it so hard to explain that Syria has never accepted a treaty favorable to no one even when Israel is clearly in a better position. When Ehud Barak offered to return pretty much all of the Golan Heights except for the part bordering the Sea of Galilee, Syria angrily refused despite no sane person could willingly give up access to their sole source of fresh water to a declared Enemy. Besides even if what you say is true (which it isn't) it wouldn't change the fact that Syria has publicly and offically declared their position is to exterminate the State of Israel on numerous occasions. I've said this many times, if you contribute to this site at least put on a veil of neutrality.- Julian Diamond 08:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Map, Is it to scale?

Zero, I am not sure what point of reference you are using to prove it not to scale here? Allow me to state this is not an accusation or an endorsement that it is or is not to scale, you may very well be right in which case I will fully admit my error, just as if it does turn out to be to scale I expect you will admit your mistake and agree to see it placed back. For the duration I've taken it off the page, so we can discuss this. However, what point of reference do you have stating it is not to scale? You haven't explained that point. Could you elaborate? -Leumi

You can easily see it for yourself. In the cross-section inset, the horizontal distance from Ein Gev to B (representing about 25 km) is about the same as the vertical distance (representing 912 m). So the vertical scale is stretched about 30 times compared to the horizontal scale, which makes the hills look about 30 times higher than reality. --Zero 12:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Concerning the Golan Arabs who left, most of them fled ahead of the approaching Israelis and only a small number were directly expelled. That is a comparatively minor issue compared to the other problems in the article, which currently reads like an Israeli schoolbook. This will change. --Zero 12:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First, thankyou for pointing that out. I agree wholeheartedly that we should remove the map in that case, and instead simply write that the Golan is 912 m.(2995 ft.) above pre-67 Israel. Second, no one has provided any proof that any were directly expelled and thus expulsion should not be included, and as I think that comment means you agree with me, could you kindly state that to your compatriot in ideology, the anonymous User: 81.130.175.55. Third, everything that doesn't toe the Arab propaganda line is not an Israeli Schoolbook. The article is not biased towards Israel by any means, and, with respect, you should learn tolerance for other peoples perspectives Zero. Looking forward to working something out on this Zero. Leumi

Consensus

Please try to reach some consensus on inserting and removing the same sentance from this article, so it does not become necessary to protect it. Thanks. -- Pakaran 03:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't honestly care whether the sentence is there, but it's not necesaary to have an edit war over it. Protected. I'm watching this page, feel free to negotiate here. Pakaran 03:29, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration both called for a "Jewish National Home" in the mandate. I feel it is relevant to include as such because it shows the continuity between (at least the stated purpose of) the mandate and the State of Israel.

Ok, what's Zero0000's view? I'm leaning towards you right now. -- Pakaran 03:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article is about the Golan Heights. It is not about the Mandate for Palestine. So Leumi's sentence is irrelevant. It is also factually wrong in two ways. It speaks of "the area it was removed from", but it wasn't removed from that area having never been part of it. Second, the Palestine Mandate was never "defined ... as a Jewish National Home". Both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate instrument refer to a JNH in Palestine (not consisting of all of Palestine) and this choice of words was careful and deliberate. It certainly could not have referred to a region which had already been given to France in a legally-binding treaty signed before the Mandate came into effect. Leumi wants his sentence there because he believes that Israel has the right to keep the Golan and so wants to rewrite history to support this position. I am here trying to tell the history as accurately as possible, working from the original documents and the best academic histories. Why do I have to waste my time arguing with fanatics who are here purely for political activist reasons? --Zero 04:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ugh. Don't want to get involved in that dispute. My thoughts: If anybody can find or make one, it may be useful to do a cross-section view of the elevations to show the reader precisely the contours we speak of. That's been a rather important issue re the Golan, and is basically the only reason it's important; I remember hearing a few years back that if Syria and Israel were securely at peace, it wouldn't be of any significance. In a war, however, it's very strategic terrain. -Penta 14:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We had that and we removed it. You can find it in the history and the discussion still appears above. Let's not go over it again. I was thinking of overlaying the map with contour lines, but I won't be able to do that for a while. --Zero 21:21, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Protected until agreement reached. Bmills 11:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Still protected, please either unprotect or add protection message. OneVoice 02:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contradictions

The article contains what appears to be two mutual-excluding versions of one paragraph (Dissident 21:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)):

After the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War, the Syrians fortified on the Heights, from which they shelled civilian targets in Israel and launched other attacks for the next eighteen years. 140 Israelis were killed and many more were injured in these attacks from 1949 to 1967.

The Mixed Armistice Commission (which oversaw the implementation of the Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement) reported violations of the agreement by both sides.

versus

After the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War, the Golan Heights were partly demilitarized by the Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement. Over the following years the Mixed Armistice Commission reported many violations by each side.

Yes, it is a mess. I've had it on my to-do list for quite a while. Presently the core of the border conflict (which was the DMZs and the question of sovereignty over them) is not even mentioned. I don't believe the 140 figure unless it includes Israeli soldiers (many of whom died in actions initiated by Israel). --Zero 00:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Editing wars concerning "strategic advantage"

It is imperitive this article has no bias to either Israel or Syria, but stating that the heights proved a tactical military advantage as fact (which I observed being alternately added and removed by others) is not condoning the actions of Israel or saying they have a right to what many argue is Syrian territory. It is the same as saying "Julius Caesar gained a military advantage by taking Gaul" it doesn't mean he has a right to take Gaul and nor should a statement pointing out the strategic advantage to Israel of the Golan Heights be a thinly veiled plug for Israel' actions. It is widely agreed that the heights give a strategic edge to any military which is one of the reasons it is so hotly contested. In my own opionion I think Israel should leave it, but that is not the business of an encyclopedia User:Dainamo80.255.219.52

I have no problem about mentioning the military advantage of holding this territory. However, the proposed addition is being pushed for the purpose of promoting Israeli control. It is intended that we read it as "see how important it is for Israel to hold onto the Golan" and it is not a coincidence that the main person inserting it is one of the main pro-Israel activists here. --Zero 22:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I empathise with what you are saying but, the original text disputed was (quote) thereby demonstrating the advantage of strategic depth the Golan Heights provided to the Israel military in that conflict (unquote). Even if it has been inserted because of the author's own political agenda, the hidden interpretation is only possible as a result of looking at that person's views. According to the evidence those who hold the heights are given a strategic military advantage, and this is a widely agreed FACT by all parties, irrespective of what nation should or should not control the heights. A rough analogy is the concept of the motive of a vengeful accuser being irrelevant in a law suit; if they disclose facts that mat be detrimental to the accused; the court's only concern is whether or not it is truth. In this case I don't think it is even detrimental to the other side and, paradoxically, the reason for the deletion on the basis of knowing the author's views presents itself as an action of bias. Dainamo 00:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yet it is still an opinion. If it can be attributed to some military authority, then it belongs on Yom Kippur War. As for this page, such an opinion could be stated as part of the Israeli case for holding onto the Golan (but everyone knows it is not the main reason). --Zero 10:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Like a number of other regions, this area has been contested for thousands of years" This comes across as very coy: why state the obvious, that other places in the world have been contested - unless (I might suggest) trying to convince people in favour of fluid (as opposed to fixed by international law) national boundaries? Rather than have this article start off on a dangerously rhetorical tone, I'll remove the superfluous first 6 words. - danno

Geography of the Golan Heights: Borders on FOUR countries

(Notice to Aladdin: Do not tamper with the above heading, i.e. "Geography of the Golan Heights: Borders on FOUR countries"! Feel free to add your own, but leave this one where I placed it. Thank you.) IZAK 10:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• (Please refrain from inserting POVs into headings. "Category dispute" is much more neutral and inclusive than "Geography of the Golan Heights: Borders on FOUR countries" with FOUR capitalized etc.) --AladdinSE 10:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • The heading is perfectly neutral, there is no mistatement of facts involved. IZAK 10:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Also, Geography of the Golan Heights is not the only category that is in dispute. Several categories are being discussed. Clearly "category dispute" is the more logical choice. Please do not get attached to a heading because it was "yours first." --AladdinSE 10:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • So feel free to start your own discussion. I began this discussion. IZAK 10:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For some odd reason, some people are having difficulty with recognzing the geographical reality that the Golan Heights border on FOUR seperate countries (ALPHABETICALLY mentioned): Israel - Jordan - Lebanon - Syria REGARDLESS of which claims anything. Thus it is completely logical, accurate, true and completely NPOV to have (in ALPHABETICAL order): Category:Geography of Israel - Category:Geography of Jordan - Category:Geography of Lebanon - Category:Geography of Syria placed on this article without dispute (yet some people just don't get it and think they have to "score points", what a shame). This article is not just about history, war, and modern politics, it is an article based first and foremost upon a physical geographical location on planet Earth as we know it to be, known as "The Golan Heights" similar to "The Alps" (also called "Italian", "Austrian", "German", Swiss" --take your pick), "The Pyrenees" ("Spanish" or "French"), "The Himalayas" ("Indian", "Pakistani" or "Chinese") or "The Andes (bordering on many countries in South America --and the source of many disputes) etc. To us NPOV people at Wikipedia, ALL these "heights" aka "mountains" border on , or are surrounded by, different countries without judging the merits of their original, present, or ultimate "ownership" and thus they are part of any country that either has it on its territory or on its border/s. "The Golan Heights" is no differrent. Is this not true and fair? IZAK 08:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category Dispute

• Central guideline: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

There has been a spat of reverts and disputed additions recently concerning the Categories relevant to this article. The following are the disputed CATs that have been alternatively added and deleted:

Geography of Israel, Geography of Syria, History of Israel, History of Syria, Jewish History, Arab History, Geography of Jordan, Geography of Lebanon

I believe the last two were added as a good-natured compromise to allow all contentious categories on the basis of a shared border. While admirable, I do not think it satisfies requirements of relevancy. We don't add geographical categories to articles just because the area in question has a common border.

It is areas inside borders that are relevant, not areas adjacent to them. Political geography is determined by legitimate and internationally recognized borders. The entire world, without exception even of the United States, does not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan. To disallow the Geography of Syria as a category defies reason. Arab, Israeli and Jewish history categories are perfectly applicable because of various Arab and Jewish involvement in the Heights over the centuries. In fact a Muslim History should also be added. To allow the geography of Israel as a category ignores the international, overwhelming consensus that the Golan is not under Israeli sovereignty, only occupation, as described in the article itself.

In my opinion, merely throwing in an objection in order to claim a controversy that would disallow the Geography of Syria CAT, while ignoring the state of world legal opinion, is a ruse unworthy of Wikipedians. --AladdinSE 08:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• "History of..." categs are just compromises. The starting point of the discussion is Geography. IZAK 08:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Who is "we", this is a disputed area that concerns FOUR countries...those on its borders. IZAK 08:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "Muslim history" is as self-defeating because it reveals the clear POV that this area belongs to Muslims "only". "Soverignty" and "occupation" are loaded POLITICAL notions and are open to debate and discussion/s. Any second grader can see the truth: Israel at least borders on the Golan Heights, and in actual fact has also annexed it, like the USA annexed New Mexico or the British annexed Transjordan, even though these may not be "convenient" and acceptable realities for some people.IZAK 08:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who here speaks for "world opinion"? This is very arrogant. Does "world opinion" grant Israel the right to exist? Is world opinion taken seriously in the Arab world? This is patent nonsense, when the first point of discussion must be the reality of geographic existence. IZAK 08:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The official, individual diplomatic standing of every nation in the world, not to mention the explicit resolutions of the UNSC, clearly speak for world opinion in this case, and are far from "patent nonsense." The reality of geographic existence is not in dispute, it is the internationally accepted sovereignty over that existence which determines what geography category applies in this case. For example, if tomorrow Canada invaded and annexed the American state of Washington, and the rest of the world refused to accept the legitimacy of that act, it would be absurd and completely out of line for a Wikipedia editor to insert "Geography of Canada" or "Provinces of Canada" into the article on the state of Washington. --AladdinSE 09:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am glad you mentioned New Mexico and Transjordan. The status of those territories are not in dispute, and no illegal military occupation exists there. Mexico does not claim the American state of New Mexico, anymore then it claims its former province of Texas. Likewise, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has no outstanding dispute with the UK, and incidentally Transjordon was not annexed, it was a Mandate territory which eventually gained independence. I have already responded to the erronious point about common borders. The geographic distiction of a category applies to an area within borders and does not include areas adjacent to them. A "Muslim history" category is in no way POV any more than an Israeli and jewish category are so; all three are relevant. The Jewish, Islamic and Arab presence in the Golan is clearly stipulated in the article and therefore these three history categories apply here. --AladdinSE 09:48, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

At the original time, when the areas of New Mexico and Texas and more were occupied and annexed by the United States, Mexico was certainly not "happy" either (see the lead-up to the Mexican-American War and its aftermath.) There are still groups in Mexico that dream of reclaiming the land they lost to the "Yankees". Transjordan was arbitrarily detached from the Mandate of Palestine by the British from the larger area of the British Mandate of Palestine due to the Churchill White Paper, 1922 which (i.e the entire Mandate territory in Palestine) had actually been legally promised to the Jews by the Balfour Declaration, 1917 and at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. IZAK 01:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who was happy or unhappy at the time has no relevance at all. It is the current position of the nation-states regarding the issue that matters. Mexico and the US are at peace and enjoy full mutual recognition. No territories are disputed. Transjordan and the British mandate are likewise settled matters. No dispute exists between Jordan and the UK. Your analogy is completely inapplicable. --AladdinSE 05:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Aladdin: I am not denying the history and "story" that people tell about the Golan Heights from all sorts of POVs. I see that all you care about is having an argument over semantics and a desire to have the reality of Israel's close-to 40 year control and subsequent annexation of the Golan Heights debated. For me, the fact of Israel's military and political control of the Golan Heights is not up for debate. (One can also debate China's occupation of Tibet and Russia's occupation of Mongolia, but that too would be a waste of time from my perspective right now.) I do not wish to engage you in that futile debate because your mind is evidently already made up with a set POV. My position is very simple and clear: Based on the reality of GEOGRAPHY, the Golan Heights article can SAFELY be part of Categories: Geography of Israel-Jordan-Lebanon-Syria based on the precedents of the examples of other: Thus the article on Pyrenees has on it Category:France; Category:Spain; and Category:Andorra which does NOT mean that Spain and France BOTH want and claim the Pyrenees, it merely means they border on a common set of mountains...which proves this sort of categorization can be done. IZAK 10:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am always grateful for the examples you cite, because they prove my points so adequately. Spain, France and Andora actually contain part of the Pyrenees mountain range within their borders. Therefore the inclusion of the geography categories of each of those countries in the Pyrenees article is perfectly legitimate, Now, the almost 40 year Israeli occupation of the Golan is most certainly a fact and was never disputed once. However, it's legality is universally repudiated, and it is therefore Syrian territory under foreign occupation, as the article clearly states. Therefore, only the geography of the nation recognized as the lawful sovereign claimant can be included. The history of Israel category is also applicable, because israel occupies the Heights and the 1967 war is part of Israeli history. As for my mind being already made up, and the "futility of debate," that's more than a little comical coming from you, and considering what you have said above. --AladdinSE 11:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin: No two examples of Geopolitics will ever be "exactly alike", so I am not worried about some differences. My intention is to merely point out that there are countries that share certain areas on their borders and therefore those facts can be included in a geographical "Category". You do not have the monopoly of how the status of the Golan Heights should be judged. Think of it differently: When a country launches an unprovoked attack on its neighbor, as did Syria against Israel in 1967, and then loses the war of annihilation it wanted to carry out, then the victorious side, in this case Israel, when it declares its intent to hold onto some of the territory formerly under the control of its vanquished enemy, then it is exteremly ridiculous to present the original aggressor (i.e. Syria) as being "the lawful sovereign claimant" of territory it lost in war that it itself launched. Syria is lucky that the Israelis allowed it to exist as a country altogether, and had not the world powers intervened, Syria would have been wiped off the map as a sovereign state and would have been forced to accept ANY terms Israel would have imposed on it in 1967 (including making Damascus into an "Israeli/Jewish-city".) So in the greater scheme of things, the Golan Heights is "Fiddlesticks", the question really is, should Syria itself in some way be considered part of what some Israelis consider "Greater Israel" which it (i.e. Syria) would have been by now had not the world's powers intervened...Who was it that said: "To the victor belong the spoils"? IZAK 01:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel launched the Six Day War in 1967, and reasoning for the war are differing POVs from both sides. Nevertheless, as Yuber points out below, it is entirely off topic. This "extremely ridiculous claim" that Syria is the recognized sovereign claimant in the Heights just so happens to be the position of every government on Earth. The entire world has rejected the right of conquest/spoils of war legality that Israel has espoused. --AladdinSE 05:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, there is no need to bring in your aspirations for Greater Israel into this argument, and talk of damascus being an israeli jewish city in the future. It only serves to enflame tensions and is totally off topic. Your revisionist history also has glaring inaccuracies, but i do not wish to turn this into a debate. You'd find that my position on all this is actually quite moderate. This discussion is not if Israel has a right to occupy the Golan Heights or not.Yuber 02:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yuber: I am not bringing "my" "aspirations for Greater Israel into this argument", on the contrary, I am merely pointing out the other side of the coin, an acceptance of the facts, reality, and history of what actually happened and not just what Syria or its supporters DREAM of obtaining by flights of fancy and "words" when in fact they lost not just once, but their three failed invasions against Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973!!! It does not help that you and Aladdin seem to be ignoring the reality of Israel's superior position as a military power and that Israel is the only one in the region that is in a position to impose its terms after winning all the wars launched against it by Syria (since when do the aggressors get to have a say after they lost thrice?). This is reality, and not "off topic". Who was it that said: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"? IZAK 03:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that the only categories that may be applied, according to the Wikipedia rule, are Category:Disputed territories, Category:Great Rift Valley and Category:Volcanoes by region, everything else is disputed. Come to think of it, even Category:Disputed territories is disputed, according to some of what was written above. I know quite a few categories that, according to this rule, ought to be removed completely from Wikipedia due to possible disputes (most notably Category:Terrorism and its various subcategories). I'm sure there are many people who would oppose the inclusion of Psychology under Category:Science, not to mention the inclusion of Human under Category:Apes. What is the purpose of categorization, anyhow? By this rule, it appears that the purpose of the whole system is judgemental labeling, which is hard to keep NPOV. What is it good for? (except for futile arguments)--Doron 13:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You illustrate a central point. I doubt very much that the category policy meant to disqualify every single category that was "disputed" in a Talk discussion. Rather, I propose that international consensus is the more appropriate guide here, otherwise conceivably all Wikipedia categories could be obliterated by anyone objecting in Talk. Such a case of complete and universal diplomatic consensus on Syrian sovereignty over the Golan is a very rare case of the unanimity of (official) world opinion on any one topic. That to me says clear cut, not "controversial." --AladdinSE 13:23, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You can propose whatever you like, but that doesn't make it Wikipedia policy. Either you follow policy, which you yourself quoted, in which case neither Israel nor Syria or linked, or you don't, in which case they both are. No double standards please. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If IZAK would read the article he would realize that Israel itself offered to give back most of the Golan heights, showing that it doesn't even recognize that it's part of Israel. 40 years of troops in Golan doesn't mean it's part of the category geography of israel, would we have considered soviet occupation of east germany as a reason for putting east germany in the geography of russia or the soviet union?Yuber 15:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Israeli annexed it, along with the rest of Jerusalem (as opposed to the Gaza Strip or the West Bank), and offered the inhabitants Israeli citizenship, indicates that it, in fact, considers the Golan Heights to be legally part of Israel. Annexation has a very different legal implication than occupation, and 40 years of annexation and Israeli citizens living there means it's part of the category Israel. Oh, and the U.S.S.R. never annexed East Germany.

• Please sign your comments with the ~~~~ Thank you. IZAK 01:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then the annexation really means nothing if Israel was willing to give up most of the annexed land. And regardless of whether the U.S.S.R. annexed East Germany or not, they still had troops that controlled and occupied the country. Also it hasn't been 40 years of annexation, check your facts. It was annexed 24 years ago.Yuber 23:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Israel is also willing to give up pieces of the Negev that have been part of Israel since its inception, so your argument fails. Annexation and occupation are legally quite different, and Israel annexed the Golan and offered its inhabitants citizenship almost 25 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The annexation wasn't recognized by any country, so in that sense there is no legal difference between annexation and occupation. About the category dispute, if you look at the map, the city Al Qunaytirah (always part of the Golan Heights) is not under Israeli military control. That means that it is perfectly logical to say that the category Geography of Syria is not controversial for this article, since no country (not even Israel) says that Al Qunaytirah is not part of Syria. It is, however, controversial to put it under the Israeli category since no country recognizes the Heights as part of Israel. Yuber 01:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There certainly is a legal difference in Israel itself. And Israel is one country that recognizes the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You ignored what i pointed out. There is still part of the Golan Heights that is part of Syria, specifically the city of Al Qunaytirah and a neighboring village. Look at the map, it is totally logical to say then since part of the Golan Heights is uncontroversially (even according to Israel) a part of Syria, the category Geography of Syria fully applies. The category Geography of Israel is very controversial (even according to israeli policy with the proposed peace plan in the past). Until you can disprove this, i have no reason to think that the category Geography of Israel should be applied. However, i will refrain from editing until this can be brought to a conclusion here. Yuber 17:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of the Golan Heights is not part of Syria, your argument is weak at best. In addition, some sources consider the Golan Heights to be part of Palestine (as they were from 1917-1922), not accepting the territorial adjustments made in 1922 as being legal. In any event Wikipedia Categorization policy doesn't differentiate between "very controversial" and "somewhat controversial"; if it's at all controversial, don't put it in. I've put this conflict on RfC, and comment is now starting to come in. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no double standard in pointing out that the Israeli occupation and subsequent annexation of the Golan Heights is controvertial and universally repudiated whilst Syrian sovereignty is universally accepted and therefore not controversial. --AladdinSE 07:07, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Israel (and its supporters) are part of the "universe", and they doesn't accept Syrian sovereignty. And it is completely uncontroversial to state that the Golan Heights are currently part of Israel, regardless of whether or not you think they should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that Israel and it's advocates are part of the universe. However, not one of those advocates or supporters is a nation-state that recognizes the legality of the annexation of the Heights by Israel. Every single government on Earth regards this territory as Syrian under an unlawful military occupation. To classify controversy as the partisanship of any number of individuals would obliterate the category classification process. Any crackpot could raise an objection in the Talk of any article and demand the removal of a perfectly applicable category. Here you have two combatants, Syria and Israel. One has captured the territory of the other and has annexed it. It is the view of the rest of the world's governments (through diplomatic recognition) of that occupation and annexation that can be the only viable arbiter of applicable geographic designation. --AladdinSE

• Ahh, and the fact that Syria launched THREE wars of destruction against Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973 is "not" controversial according to you but that Israel acted appropriately in self-defense by annexing the Golan Heights (without launching any wars against Syria) is "controversial" in your mind...now that is a double standard according to any logic, "world-opinion" notwithstanding. Ho-hum, how long will you ignore the reality that until further notice (meaning until Syria renounces war and violence against Israel forever) the Golan Heights=Israel, like a "horse and carriage"! IZAK 08:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • There are many, many controversial and repugnant things done by the dictatorial government of Syria, especially against its own people. This does not prejudice the rights of the Syrian people. Here you are again attributing to me all sorts of positions against Israel when I have made no statements here except on the legality (actually, lack thereof) of the occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights, as related to the legitimate categorization of geography based on accepted legal sovereignty. Perhaps one day you can calm down and compartmentalize your broad and passionate pro-Israeli zeal into discussions that are relevant to the matter at hand. --AladdinSE 09:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

(From RfC). Bordering countries should be left off the categories, so neither Lebanon nor Jordan need to be mentioned. This article should either include both the Geography of Syria and the Geography of Israel categories, or neither category. It is clearly disputed territory. My preference would be to include it in both categories, as it helps readers find the article. But failing agreement on that, leave them both off. If necessary, there should be a super region that it can be put in, Geography of the Middle East, or some such. I don't see the purpose of the History of Jews category, as opposed to the History of Israel, which seems relevant. -Willmcw 18:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The point that part of the Golan Heights is part of Syria is disputed by no one, including Israel. When a territory is divided among several countries - as Israel claims - it falls under each of their categories (eg Pyrenees). When it falls entirely under one country - as every other country claims - it falls under that country's category. Either way, the Syria category is appropriate. I remain neutral on the inclusion/exclusion of the Israel category, but Syria definitely belongs. - Mustafaa 11:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think both Israel and Syria's geography should include the Golan Heights. Choosing just one is choosing a point of view. The reality for the last four decades is that the Golan Heights are effectively a part of Israel, and ignoring this is ignoring reality. On the other hand, Israel's control and annexation are not recognized by anyone (except Israel), and the Golan Heights are generally considered to be Syrian territory. I don't think it's Wikipedia's business to rule on this issue, including both would avoid prejudicing the novice reader. The inclusion of both would be more helpful for the reader looking for information on the geography of either country.--Doron 14:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I truly understand the concern for neutrality. Does the inclusion of the Israeli history category not satisfy the reality you speak of? This covers the Six Day War and the occupation, and the later annexation. The inclusion of the Syrian Geography category, does it not reflect the international universal world view of the sovereignty of the Golan Heights? Think of it this way, using a hypothetical analogy: Say Canada invaded, occupied, and officially annexed the American state of Washington, and this was a "reality" and the US was unable to recover it, but no government anywhere recognized Canada's claims and annexation of Washington. In such a case, would you also countenance the inclusion of "geography of Canada" or "provinces of Canada" categories in the Wikipedia article on the state of Washington? It seems inconceivable to me. --AladdinSE 14:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

How about another analogy - suppose Mexico still claimed California, Texas, New Mexico etc.. Would you hesitate to include them as US states? Would it matter whether the rest of the world "recognizes" it or not? Does everyone recognize humans to be apes? Does everyone recognize Microsoft Windows to be an operating system? Israel's territory and borders are disputed, it doesn't mean Israel doesn't have a geography. The sovereignty over the Golan Heights is disputed, but they are part of Israel de facto. International recognition is a political issue and it is covered well enough in the article, and the Category:Disputed territories should alert the reader to pay attention to this issue.--Doron 00:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will answer your analogy question, which is more than you did for mine. Currently, the status of those territories, which have once been under contention between Mexico and the United States, has been resolved by the treaties that ended the wars, between Mexico and the Republic of Texas, and Mexico and the United States. Now, since you did not specify in your analogy how the current hypothetical dispute is played out, I have to answer several scenarios. If Texas had revolted from Mexico and gained de facto independence and then joined the United States without official Mexican recognition by treaty, then I would need to look at two things before I hesitated to include a US States category in those articles. Does Mexico currently afford diplomatic recognition to the United States? What is the position of the United Nations and the majority of the world governments about the disputed territories? If there only exists an armistice between Mexico and the US, the second question is essential. Nationalistic ideals of either country do not figure in. If a solid majority of the world recognized the sovereignty of one side over the other, I would use only the geography of that nation in an article. If the UN has taken no position (via SC and GA resolutions), and official world opinion was divided or neutral, I would classify that as controversial according to Wikipedia, and have neither geography category, and use only the disputed territories category (but I would include both history categories). The real case is that Mexico and the US recognize each other, and Texas, California, New Mexico etc, were ceded by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Moreover Mexico sold some of that land in the Gadsden Purchase. If Mexico resurrected it's claim suddenly tomorrow, no, I would not insert "geography of Mexico" into those American territories, not even if Mexico invaded, occupied and officially annexed them. Not unless the majority of the world, and the UN, supported the legality of those actions. Syria has never signed any treaty ceding the Golan. Syria does not afford Israel diplomatic recognition or normalized relations until a peace treaty is signed. These are major distinctions between the analogy you asked me to answer. Consider also the status of Gibraltar. It was Spanish territory officially ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht. Spain to this day still strongly claims this territory. However they have not taken the drastic step of repudiating the treaty; they only agitate for the return of the Rock. I would not insert "Geography of Spain" into the Gibraltar article simply on that claim, only the Disputed Territories. Spain gave it up legally and formally by treaty. No other nation considers Spain the proper sovereign claimant. The Treaty of Utrecht stipulates that Great Britain is obliged to consider Spain as the primary claimant should Britain ever chose to vacate Gibraltar. If this happened, all legally and according to treaty, then encyclopedic articles should be altered to reflect the new legal, internationally recognized, not de facto, reality. Including the geography of Israel in the Golan article would be legitimizing a universally rejected occupation and annexation. Also, as others have pointed out above, no nation, including Israel, contests Syrian control and sovereignty over the part of the Golan they recovered in 1973. All nations contest Israeli sovereignty and military control over the portion they occupy. The Jewish and Israeli history categories, as well as the Disputed territories category, satisfy the encyclopedic requirement regarding the de-facto Israeli control of the Golan. Geography is geo-political, and is reserved for recognized sovereign claimants.--AladdinSE 03:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your attempts to create new policy regarding categories (e.g. Geography "is reserved for recognized sovereign claimants") are fascinating, though your analogies fail. Gibralter was legally ceded by Treaty; OTOH, Syria and Israel are technically at war. The fact is that Israel has annexed the territory, and the encyclopedic requirement regarding the de-jure annexation is satisfied by nothing less than inclusion in the Category Geography of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We obviously disagree about what is policy, and more specifically what qualifies as a controversy that disqualifies a category. Of course Gibraltar was ceded by treaty, that was my central point. it was ceded by treaty after the War of the Spanish Succession. If Syria cedes part or all of the Golan that Israel currently occupies in a treaty ending the state of war with Israel, then Geography of Israel will apply to the Golan Heights. The analogies were not only mine, and are part of a discussion with Doron as you can see above. I look forward the the continuation of the discussion he/she and I have been having. --AladdinSE 04:43, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

We don't disagree about what it policy, we just disagree about how it should be applied; in my case, I insist it should be applied uniformly, rather than selectively. And I have continued the discussion. Unlike Spain, Israel has not ceded the Golan Heights to anyone; on the contrary, it has done the opposite, it has annexed them; the analogy could not be more false. Perhaps a closer analogy would be Nagorno-Karabakh, which is in both the Armenia and Azerbaijan categories, but not in the Geography of Armenia nor the Geography of Azerbaijan categoris, or Stepanakert which appears in neither the Towns and Cities in Armenia nor the Cities in Azerbaijan. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we do disagree on what is policy and what qualifies as a controversy which would disqualify a geography category. I have explained with some detail, in my response to Doron's question, how it is not a selective application, but a result of a case-by-case analysis, though of course you disagree fundamentally with me. Of course I have no objection at all to your participation in this analogy discussion, in fact I value it. I only meant that since I answered Doron, I hope he/she will answer me back, as he/she replied to my earlier analogy question with another question. As for Gibraltar, if you reread what was said above, we are not disputing facts between us. We are making the same point. I know Israel has not ceded the Golan. No treaty yet exists, only an armistice. Similarly, Syria has not ceded the Golan to Israel, and the annexation has been deemed illegal by the UN and every nation-state on Earth. My point was in response to Doron's hypothetically asking "what if Mexico suddenly reclaimed those former territories." I used the Gibraltar example as a secondary instance where, like Mexico, Spain would not be justified in this because the disputed territories were legally demarcated by treaty. --AladdinSE 05:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

O.K. In any event, Gibralter was a bad analogy, Nagorno-Karabakh is signficantly better. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P. S. It's always a pleasure and a privilege to fascinate you, Jayjg :-) --AladdinSE 04:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm able to facilitate both your pleasure and privilege. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The closest analogy I can come up with offhand is the Western Sahara: Annexed by Morocco (annexation globally unrecognized), claimed as independent state by Polisario. Has Category:Western Sahara, Category:Disputed territories, and not Category:Morocco. - Mustafaa 06:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that analogy works, because the Western Sahara is claimed by no country other than Morocco. Or, to put it another way, the Golan Heights isn't seeking independence, as Polisario is for Western Sahara; rather, Israel and Syria are tussling over it. Jayjg ^(talk)

AladdinSE, sorry for keeping you waiting, I had no intention of avoiding your questions... as for your first analogy, I thought my analogy implied that I don't agree with you on your analogy, sorry if I wasn't explicit. If a territory has been effectively part of a country for a long period of time, this fact shouldn't be ignored even if this control is universally condemned. My analogy was meant to sharpen your analogy by citing a more realistic situation, though indeed Jayjg's example is far better (on the other hand, Nagorno-Karabakh has been until recently a battlefield, so it's hard to speak of a reality of integration lasting decades; also, Nagorno-Karabakh officially claims to be independent, if memory serves me). Even if Mexico hadn't ceded these territories, even if this wasn't universally recognized, the long history of these territories being effectively part of the United States is enough by itself to consider it (though with reservations in the body of the article) under the category of US geography, in my opinion. Obviously, we differ on this.

Now tell me what would you do in a different era, when there was no such thing as universal recognition, as we often have today? How would this work in an era where nothing was recognized, except force? Had Wikipedia been written in such an era, I suppose no country would have any geography, because all territories were under control of conquerers (I know I'm exaggerating here, but I hope you see my point). Don't you think effective integration over a long period of time should be given some weight in this categorization scheme? Don't you think your approach relies too much on a political decision which is affected by too many irrelevant, sometimes arbitrary factors? I'll just note that about a third of Israel (the bit that was occupied in 1948 beyond the borders defined in GA resulution 181) has never been officially recognized by anyone as part of Israel (to my best knowledge), places such as Ramla and Nazareth. It would be absurd not to include them under the geography of Israel, given the six decades in which they have been effectively an integral part of Israel even without official universal recognition.

The crux of the matter is how strict or relaxed should Wikipedia's policy be interpreted. Strictly speaking, any categorization that is disputed should be avoided - by this rule even the Category:Disputed territories should not be included, as we can't even agree whether the Golan Heights are disputed or universally recognized as Syrian. By this interpretation, I can think of a few dozens of categories that may as well be completely canceled.

I'd just like to say that I think this argument has blown way out of proportion. I think the answer should be very simple once you decide what is the purpose of categories in the first place. Is it to help readers find articles? Then it should include both, as it is highly relevant to both. I can't think of any other purpose for categories.

(I'd also like to note that by no means do I wish to imply that I recognize Israel's occupation of the Golan Hights, I merely think that the categorization ought to represent the reality, not just political declerative aspects).--Doron 11:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find Doron's argument convincing. Both categories should be included. - Mustafaa 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that including the article under Category:Geography of Lebanon is a bit strange. The only way in which Lebanon is relevant is through the Shebaa Farms, which strictly speaking, are at the slopes of Mount Hermon, which is consider part of the Golan Heights only from a political aspect, not from a geographical aspect (so the Golan Heights aren't really relevant to the geography of Lebanon, though Mount Hermon arguably is). I don't want to start an argument about this, just thought I'd point it out.--Doron 21:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Doron, so based on your own words, if Sheba Farms (claimed by Lebanon) are part of "the slopes of" Mount Hermon (the slopes of a mount are part of that mount as far as I know), and Mount Hermon is part of the Golan Heights, then it follows that (according to Lebanon) the Sheba Farms are part of the Golan Heights (because if A=B, and B=C, then A=C), simple isn't it, and thus you have proven that the Golan Heights have a geographic (as well as political)connection to Lebanon at the present time and therefore the Category:Geography of Lebanon can be justifiably placed on this page in order to be "fair and consistent" to all the parties and claimants of all or part of the Golan Heights. IZAK 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to argue about this, I couldn't care less really, but since you asked, I'll explain in more details. In a geographic context, Mount Hermon is not part of the Golan Heights, but rather part of the Anti-Lebanon range, and thus the Golan Heights are not even adjacent to Lebanon, with Mount Hermon separating between them. Mount Hermon is considered part of the Golan Heights only in a political context, as the Golan Heights and Mount Hermon were fought over in 1967 and 1973 and are administrated by Israel as one administrative unit. Therefore I find it strange to say that the Golan Heights are relevant to the geography of Lebanon. If you don't agree, that's just fine with me, I won't argue about this any further.--Doron 11:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notice: "ActiveDiscuss" and "controversial" templates inserted here

{{ActiveDiscuss}} inserted in article and {{controversial}} inserted here on Talk page because issues relating to content and categories are in hot dispute, please bring all discussion of various views to this Talk page for further detailed discussion. Thank you. IZAK 06:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dubious unsourced statement

"Sudanese, Algerians, Turkomans, Circassians and Syrian Arabs also settled on the Heights." For the first three, the question is: says who? and how many? For the latter, in what sense did they "settle" (since any Arabs there are already Syrian), and what meaning does "Syrian Arabs" have before the existence of Syria? - Mustafaa 11:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "legal forum" about the Golan Heights

AladdinSE: Firstly, I think that we can all agree that the subjects we are discussing here are part of an on-going struggle and even wars, so it is hardly suprizing that it is so difficult to reach a "final consensus". Unlike Mexico and the US, the Arabs and the Israelis are still at the point where they have not settled all their disputes, which hopefully will happen in good time! Secondly and most importantly: Wikipedia articles are not limited or governed by the strictures of "International law" as you imagine or seek to use as a cover for your "strategy" here. We are not "writing" the United Nations Charter here! The scope for the basis of including articles or their categories is much broader and inclusive as this is an Encyclopedia that is trying to convey "everything", meaning Truth, facts and reality in a NPOV way, including Israel's near 40-year (pick your term:) control/occupation/annexataion/suzerainty/governorship/ governance/dominion/domination/absorption/connection/development/ of the Golan Heights, in as NPOV fashion as we can create. That this is an encyclopedia that can include and categorize anything from useless trivia and trash to profound matters of religion and God and thereby prove that it is not at all any kind of "body of law sitting in judgment about issues and topics" can be illustrated by two examples from your own contributions to the Anti-Semitism and Arab-Israeli conflict articles recently (and using some "reverse logic"):

1. You introduced [1] into the Anti-Semitism article the repugnant Nazi propaganda image (now-renamed) Image:Der Giftpilz - Gott des Juden - Nazi propaganda.jpg and you cite the caption in full: "...The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes...". Why? When you were repeatedly questioned [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] you kept on justifying this vile filth with ananities such as "2 cartoons from one of Nazi Germany's most infamous papers does not a deluge make..." [7], "...What's more, I made no argument disputing that 200 more cartoons would be significantly worse. They certainly wood..." (sic) [8], "I get the feeling you are offended personally by the caricature. It's certainly very ugly, you're quite right..." [9], and the silly "...Was Julius Streicher a reporter or editor for Der Str�mer?.." [10] . Most civilized people hate the Nazis and would never dream of "touching" any of their filthy propaganda against the Jews. Presently, in many societies and countries in fact, overt displays and use of Anti-Semitic and Nazi symbols and images is illegal and could get you jailed. However, in this case you chose to use a Nazi image to "ilustrate" a point that the Nazi's were really bad people and that they hated the Jews enough to debase them with cruel, hateful, and untrue "depictions". Ok, because by Wikipedia "standards" its legitimate and perfectly fine to include such images, because Wikipedia is NOT "governed" by laws banning hate as such (which would have then made your Nazi-picture not only inadmissable, but illegal to boot!) but rather, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that is trying to convey the truth about objective facts that include anything and everything: Including placing the Golan Heights in Category:Geography of Israel, which is not that "far-fetched" or "illegal" at all around here, especially if you believe, as you do, that Wikipedia needs to depict the Nazi POV for "balance".
2. You also added [11] the hotly contested [12] image Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg to the Arab-Israeli conflict article. Why? Was it because the crazy hate of Israelis it depicts is rational, factual, or acceptable? No! Let me ask you: If there was real Freedom of the press in the Arab world today, could an image of a crazed Arab-Palestinian Suicide bomber be displayed in a "cartoon" with the Palestinian depicted as a real-life shark while innocent Israeli victims are torn to pieces and maimed in the shark's jaws screaming for help from a lame UN or a prejudiced Arab League "referee" be published in an Arabic newspaper today? Obviously not, because the artist would probably be jailed or worse for his audacity. Well, for one, Wikipedia is NOT "governed" by the same "laws" of Arab societies that restrict freedom of the press. Over here, all sorts of images can be published, including the hateful and inaccurate image of Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg because it is a (as you wrote on its page:) a "Caricature illustrating the United States as biased towards Israel � a view especially predominant in (but not limited to) the Arab world." Now, this image certainly fits any standard of hate-propaganda and classical Anti-Semitism and would be shunned by most respectable publications in the Western World, however, you felt that it "merited" inclusion in the Arab-Israeli conflict article because it would show "balance" and where you say [13], among many other deliberate innacuracies: "...I introduced a second caricature depicting an Israeli shark, hinting at the powerful Israeli military machine, devouring a small struggling yet defiant Palestinian boy, evoking the much weaker stone-throwing children that make up the bulk of the Intifadas.." Now is that really true? Is the Israeli army really only fighting "much weaker stone-throwing children"? You know this is an outright LIE, yet you dare to include that as part of an "argument" for why Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg should be part of a very serious article concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. You couldn't find an image of Saddam lobbing scuds at Israeli children, or of Syrian shells falling on Israeli children on kibbutzim before the 1967 War and you feel that Nasser's openly-stated intention of destroying Israel needs to be "balanced" with pathetic hateful propaganda about how Israelis hurt "poor little Palestinian kiddies". What a shame. At any rate, the point of my argument is that on Wikipedia you can include many things, even things that are lies and propaganda as you did -- both to illustrate arguments as well as to depict and represent events regardless of how they are judged or accepted either positively or negatively by the "international community" or by legal entities on Earth -- because this is Wikipedia and not a court of law judging the legality or illegality of what can or cannot be part of articles or categories. So give us all a break, and face the facts of real-life reality, and not the smoky hallucinations of heated Anti-Semitic Arab propaganda. (Then I again, I don't know how they do it on the Arab Wikipedia...) IZAK 06:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is Talk section about the Golan Heights, not Nazi Propaganda images nor Anti-Semitism

I have not read your section entitled Wikipedia is not a "legal forum" about the Golan Heights because from the first few lines it was clear you are actually discussing a completely different issue that was discussed at length elsewhere. I refused to engage your rhetoric on my Talk page, so you try to bring it here. It won't work. If you just want the "last word", then consider yourself to have had it. Now for goodness sakes, Move on. --AladdinSE 06:27, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• AladdinSE: You are free to tell me to "move on" on your "own" talk page, but not here...you don't "control the turf" here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. The common denominator of the discussion I am having with you, is YOUR use of subjective so-called "arguments": That when it suits you, you will introduce material "for balance" i.e. what the "Nazi argument" aka POV was in the phenomon of Anti-Semitism. That's ok according to your "way of thinking". However, when a number of other people try to use the exact same line of reasoning in the case of Israel's claim to the Golan Heights and that one needs to consider the Israeli POV in its claims to the Golan Heights, then you seek to exclude the (latter) arguments because they suddenly go against the positions of the "international community" that you hold up as some sort of "shield" of "protest". Now tell me where is the logic, constancy, or justice of your argumentation? You dare to introduce and justify material from the Nazis who were in fact condemned at the Nuremberg Trials yet you refuse to accept arguments in favor of Israel's claims of the Golan Heights won in defensive war against the Syrian regime that itself (i.e Syria) used and is still backed by many former Nazis as is well known, see the case of Alois Brunner. Why don't you mention that Israel has every right to fear the Syrian military Dictatorship that harbors ex-Nazis and that Syria had no qualms about KILLING tens of thousands of its own citizens as it did in Homs in 1982, and so maybe the Israelis have what to fear from Syria and are entitled to their own "defensive shield" in the form of controlling the Golan Heights? You cannot have it all ways. If you are willing to grant the Nazis "equal time" (albeit elsewhere on Wikipedia --- I am just dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s for those Wikipedians who have not had the pleasure of enjoying your edits --- ) then you must also allow others, such as myself, to do so for the Nazi's incarnated arch-foes the Israelis as well. Now is that so hard to understand and figure out, without resorting to false smoke-screens with your incorrect urguments? Of course, I can just hear your brain ticking away...that "the Israelis are actually 'nazis' and the Arabs are the the poor 'jews'..." also a very stupid, illogical, and twisted argument that is making the rounds in "academic circles" nowadays... Yikes!IZAK 07:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, it would be helpful if you stuck strictly and briefly to the issues at hand at this page, rather than lengthy analyses of other editors behaviour on various other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has become apparent, at least to me, that IZAK will not desist until he/she can have the undisputed last word. Do please let him/her have it. For my own part, I have been utterly ignoring these off topic rants for some time. --AladdinSE 01:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin: My carefully thought out responses are not "rants". You obviously have no decent response to what I have presented here so you stoop to call them "rants", what a shame! Is that the way it works in Arab countries: When they don't like an argument that refutes their crooked way of thinking, then they call it "rants" rather than admit their errors or present decent rebuttals that follow logic and not their core anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli prejudices POVs that lurk below the surface? For shame! IZAK 02:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jay: With all due respect, as I made clear to Aladdin: When he is editing or contributing to articles about Anti-Semitism or about Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda (that as you know culimated in The Holocaust) or about Israel-related articles that involve issues deemed vital to the survival of the Jewish state of Israel -- such as the Golan Heights, he cannot "split them apart" and differentiate between his editing patterns as if they were all "unrelated subjects". No! All the subjects that concern Jews, Judaism, and Israelis, no matter where or when on Wikipedia, are ultimately unified into one whole (and on Wikipedia into two large sets of inter-connected categories: Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism), and a Wikipedia user cannot use one set of (false) argumentation in one case and then switch to a different set of (false) arguments elsewhere, because the underlying inter-connection of the subject matter has not changed regardless of their "seperation" on Wikipedia's web-pages; they still remain part of one greater subject, which as a Judaism and Israel editor you should well know! Thus for the benefit of those who cannot track the broader picture (the approximately 4,000 articles relating to Jews, Judaism, and Israel on the English Wikipedia thus far that I know of), I will help them along and point out that AladdinSE CANNOT argue for the "inclusion" of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda or Arab anti-Israeli "images" in some articles "for balance" claiming that they merely "represent" the Nazi and Arab way of looking at Jews or Israelis, and in another instance argue that Israel's way of looking at things may not have its arguments or categories represented because the "international community" (or some such nebulous argument) has not yet "accepted" Israel's positions and arguments. This should not be too difficult for you or AladdinSE to grasp! IZAK 22:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, what are you on about? There's absolutely nothing Anti-Semitic about AladdinSE's contributions, even if he's no fan of Zionism. This talk page is about the Golan Heights, so stick to the subject and take your little quarrels some place else. Oh, and I recommend you read whatever you post before you post it, and use the Show preview button to be absolutely sure you're happy with your post, your repeated re-editing of your posts are annoying.--Doron 08:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hello Doron: What a "gift" to hear from you today! Please read what I have written very carefully including citations above...Lots of wisdom in my words... Thanks for the mini-lecture; you know after my more than three years on Wikipedia, you and Aladdin are the first to gripe about my "repeated re-editing of (my) posts (that) are annoying"...what the heck is so annoying to you...? Are you also annoyed that Israelis are being besmirched and degraded by Aladdin's pro-Arab propaganda edits? Strange, you are annoyed by some silly stuff like how I "post my posts" but you are not ANNOYED, as I am, by Aladdin's posting of the Nazi Image:MoneyJews.jpg and the anti-Israel Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg ??? This is straaaaange stuff indeed. Also your assesment that "he's no fan of Zionism" is an understatement if I ever saw one...try tracking and reading his posts (see [14]) and you will see that he is no "innocent babe in the woods" when it comes to "wielding the axe" with his pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian POV against any Israel-related article he seeks out! Shame on you! IZAK 09:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I said before - take your petty quarrels elsewhere, this talk page is about the Golan Heights, not about AladdinSE. This talk page (and indeed Wikipedia in general) are no place for your personal attacks. (and by the way, I read all about your quarrel with AladdinSE where you accused him of being an Anti-Semite - you have no case)--Doron 14:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please sign your comments with the ~~~~ tilde signs whoever you are. I did NOT accuse Aladdin of being an "Anti-Semite" (can you show me the quotes, if you like)...I am accusing him of introducing strongly anti-Semitic material such as the two images he uploaded and inserted into Wikipedia: (1) Image:MoneyJews.jpg and (2) Image:Shark Palestine Caricature.jpg Take a good long hard look at those pictures, and if you don't see any violent anti-Semitism in those PICTURES/IMAGES then I suggest you get your (moral) vision checked very soon, because something must be wrong with your eyes then! IZAK 13:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There's nothing more appropriate for an article about Anti-Semitism than an Anti-Semitic caricature that demonstrates it. I will have no further discussion with you on the subject
• For the last time - take it some place else. This whole section of the talk page, as well as most of the preceding one, ought to be removed due to irrelevance.--Doron 13:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's most certainly NOT irrelevant, and it will remain here for any and all other readers, now and in the future, to read and judge for themselves its value, because if you bother to read it at all, you will see that it is ALL very relevant indeed! (Sorry, but I don't think "Talk" pages were meant for "Soundbites" only!) There is no such thing as "deleting" the discussions of a talk page, and I too am tired of having to repeat myself when what I say is very clearly explained in as much detail as I can give it, if you care to read it and check all the very relevant references I provide. IZAK 14:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In short: In case you missed my point: In diverse articles concerning Jews and Israelis, User:AladdinSE cannot use a form of "selective morality" to choose to "exclude" the Golan Heights from the Category:Geography of Israel because the "International community" doesn't agree with Israel, but at the same time seeks to "include" offensive "images" from the condemned Nazis and Arab propaganda rooted in Arab Anti-Semitism even though they are offensive, because he seeks to "balance articles" so that they should not have an "Israeli-POV". He cannot use the "include-exclude" argument ad nauseum in order to always throw Israel "off balance" and thereby marginalize it in the process. I hope this is not too complicated for you to grasp! IZAK 14:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doron, please please allow IZAK to have the last word. Nothing else will induce him/her to desist, short of a ban from inserting irrelevant material into Article Talk sections. I myself have not read a syllable of all this irrelevant verbiage the moment that user strayed off topic. I recommend you do the same. --AladdinSE 09:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Golani "settlements"

I am getting increasingly irritated by the term "settlements" for anything Jewish in areas that Arab regimes consider rightfully theirs. Unless we are willing to call Nazareth an "Arab settlement," I propose that we figure out some way to use these terms reasonably. Jews are not strangers to the Middle East - they have lived there continuously for thousands of years, have deep cultural, linguistic, historical, and religious attachments to the area. To dismiss their claim - not to speak of their right - to live there is offensive, and - I must say this - antisemitic. I appreciate the issue of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and other areas, but to claim that they can only be palatable to Arabs if they are Judenrein smacks of bigotry. --Leifern 22:49, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Firstly, I advise you to cool down with your offensive accusations and insinuations taken from Nazi vocabulary. I'm an Israeli Jew, and I (like many Israelis) call them 'settlements', so mind your language. Secondly, I advise you to have a look at Talk:Israeli settlement#The term "settlements" for a discussion on the subject.--Doron 23:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a poll taken a few years ago, 50% of Israelis supported giving back the Golan Heights to Syria. This means also disbanding all current settlements. I'm sure that with the establishment of a Palestinian state and more peace in the region this number of Israelis supporting giving back the Golan will continue to rise. It is not antisemitic to say that the Golan Heights was home to over 100,000 arabs, druze, and circassians before the wars. It is not antisemitic to say that no country, including the U.S, recognizes Israeli annexation of the Golan. It is true that the history of Jews is a very rich one in the Middle East, but how does that fact mean there is a right to take over the Golan Heights? I see most of the Golan Heights given back to Syria in the next decade or so, with water resources being shared. Your comparisons to Nazis are not appreciated, neither is your claim that Israelis have a right to internationally recognized Syrian lands. By the way, thanks Doron for your moderate and realistic views. Yuber 23:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am taking exception to the fact that people here edited out the point that many Israelis view "settlements" on the Golan as something different from "settlements" on the West Bank and Gaza. Read carefully what I'm saying: to the extent that individuals (and I'm not naming names) consider the permanent presence of Jews in their neighborhoods as an unbearable provocation, they are antisemites. This is not the same as rejecting Israeli administration of certain areas as illegal, immoral, or whatever; nor is it taking offense at a sense of displacement. But if upsets people to have Jewish neighbors or living in a Jewish neighborhood, it is not the fault of the Jews. And it is hard to escape the fact that Jews - with the exception of Amira Hass - are unwelcome in any areas under PA administration. As for 50% of Israelis supporting returning the Golan to Syria, I am fairly confident that such a return would only be acceptable in the context of a real, durable peace settlement. --Leifern 23:32, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Then you would be surprised to know that there is a community of 1000-3000 Syrian jews that are Syrian citizens, mostly living around Damascus. Jewish neighborhoods are not attacked, but according to the antisemitism that you claim exists there they would be. Their presence is definitely permanent and isn't an unbearable provocation as you claim. Compare that to the 14-15k Israeli settlers in the Golan. The difference is the Syrian jews consider themselves Syrians. The Israeli settlers do not obviously. The peace settlement with Syria and Israel was almost reached a few years ago. I'm sure that the next time it will be reached, as things in the region have changed significantly; I'm mainly referring to Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and the weakening of Hezbollah, and the new democratic Iraq.Yuber 23:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would surpise me a great deal, considering that there are likely 200 Jews left at most. As well, the vast majority of the Syrian Jews were kept prisoner there for decades, and smuggled out at the risk of their lives (and often the loss of the same). [15] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's much question that the small remnant of Syrian Jews live at the mercy of the current regime (as do indeed most Syrian Arabs); and the history of Jews in Syria is a lousy case for tolerance of Jews. --Leifern 01:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I've read from sources i trust more than that one that there are upwards of 1000-3000 Jews currently living in Syria. Yes, this is after the 1994 mass emigration (many returned since then). I'm not denying that antisemitism existed after the creation of Israel, but ironically, Palestinian refugees and Kurds are treated just as bad if not worse than Syrian Jews. Kurds and Palestinians are denied citizenship and many of them were killed as well, this continues today. My point was, there's a difference between indigenous Jews living in Syria and Israeli settlers. Hey, if you can find 16,000 native Syrian jews who want to back to Syria (and there are many) that are willing to replace the Israeli settlers in the Golan, then that would be great. However,the Israeli settlers have no ties to Syria, that is why they are settlers, and that is why the term settler is not antisemitic. Also, today the government has taken great steps to protect the jewish community (including protecting them from Palestinian protestors a few years back).Yuber 23:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well I've spoken to Syrian Jews, and their view is not the apologetic you've presented; rather, they were persecuted and desperately tried to get out. Now, there are almost none left. I've never heard of any who want to return to Syria, particularly under the latest brutal dictatorship, son of the previous brutal dictatorship. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've spoken to some as well, and there are many that want to return to Syria, because some of their families have lived there for over 2500 years. My view isn't apologetic, the government in Syria persecuted Kurds, Palestinian refugees, and Jews in the past 50 years. 130,000 Kurds today are denied citizenship and are denied being taught Kurdish in their schools. Also, thousands of Christians left Syria as well, as evidenced by the huge Christian Syrian and Lebanese community in America today. The point i'm trying to make is not that Jews weren't persecuted, but that there is a difference between "jews on arab lands" in referring to settlements; it is more like "Israelis on Syrian lands". That is why the settlements are illegal, it has nothing to do with the religion of the person. If the people in the settlements were Kurds or Palestinians holding allegiance to Kurdistan or Palestine, i assure you there would be just as much opposition to them.Yuber 23:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Returning to your original complaint - "settlements" is the common term for Israeli communities established in the territories Israel occupied in 1967. It distinguishes these communities as disputed under international law (due to the status of the territory on which they were established), not as Jewish communities in Arab territory. It is not derogatory (it is even common among right-wing Israelis and the settlers themselves), so there's no reason to get so worked up.--Doron 23:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the settlements article quite a bit, so I'm familiar with the controversy. But the point of my original complaint is that it is worth distinguishing between Jewish communities in the Golan vs. in the West Bank - regarding the distinction as "irrelevant" would dismiss that point. My general point remains, however: it is astonishing how understanding the international community is of the intolerance of Jewish neighbors. --Leifern 01:01, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

This distinction may be worth noting, even though it is made only by Israelis. I take exception to your claim that this is due to intolerance to Jewish presence.--Doron 10:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that point pretty much says it all, doesn't it? ..."even though it is made only by Israelis." We should take care to minimize points made only by Israelis in this encyclopedia. I can only note that Jews - regardless of their "Zionist" status - are pretty much prohibited from living in PA controlled areas and the entire kingdom of Jordan. Of course it's an intolerance toward Jewish presence. --Leifern 11:00, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

It's a pitty you disregarded the first part of the sentence, in which I said "this distinction may be worth noting" and went on to continue the argument. And you are ignoring the political context of this particular "Jewish presence" - as illegal settlements in occupied territory (even if you don't agree to this discription, it is how the rest of the world and many Israelis see it). Just to clarify - I am not denying that Anti-Semitism exists in the Arab world.--Doron 11:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole world classifies the post 1967 transfer of Israeli population into occupied Arab lands as "settlements." Where legitimate indigenous Jewish communities existed before 1967, but were added to from Israel proper, these can be noted as settlements but with a caveat that a community existed there prior to official government settlement activity. --AladdinSE 08:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

There are no such indigenous Jewish communities in the Golan Heights, they are all post-1967 settlements.--Doron 10:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much like in Gaza (Kfar Darom), West Bank (Gush Etzion, Hebron) there were Jewish communites pre-1967 in the Golan but which were destroyed. One of the main reasons the issue is disputed in international law and why settlement is an inaccurate term, though widely used unfortunately. Amoruso 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there were Jewish communities in the Golan Heights in the past, but no existing Israeli settlement is an indigenous Golani community, they were all established after 1967. There's nothing inaccurate about the term "settlement", even if (for some reason that illudes me) right-wingers are uncomfortable with it.--Doron 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Qunaytirah

What's up with the photo? It comes and goes, but I don't see any discussion here. Is there a dispute over whether it is factual? -Willmcw 00:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the photo? Guy Montag wants there to be only a photo of the Israeli settlements on the Golan. It is only fair to include the Arab cities in the Golan as well. After all, not all of the Golan is under Israeli control.Yuber^(talk) 23:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a picture of a city that can be viewed if a reader clicks on the link in the introduction. There is no such link for construction of communities in progress. Along with that it is a biased picture of a demolished city which serves as nothing but a veiled attempt at political malignment of Israel. If Yuber finds an Arab city which doesnt serve a POV purpose, I wont delete it.

Guy Montag 00:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy then. I just added a picture of Majdal Shams.Yuber^(talk) 00:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Funny story. I was about to add the town of Majdal Shams but you beat me to it :) I uploaded it and everything.

Guy Montag 00:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to make things complicated, guys, but I'm pretty sure both pictures are of Majdal Shams. I don't get around that part of the country more than twice a year, but if I am not mistaken the picture labeled "New construction on the Golan Heights, c. 1978" has Majdal Shams in the center, with Mount Hermon at the background; if you look at the high resolution image, you can barely make out the red roofs of Neve Ativ (an Israeli settlement) in the background, above the left part of the village. The image description doesn't give any details, so I can't be sure.--Doron 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Leifern added the image, perhaps you should ask him.Yuber^(talk) 06:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Could very well be it's Majdal Shams - I took the photo in 1978, didn't take notes of what it was other than "Golan Heights." I also have a more recent (1995) photograph of the Galilee from the Golan, which is a pretty photograph, but I didn't think particularly relevant. Interestingly, I also have a photograph of Quneitra, after the car I was in drove nearly all the way into the city center before a Canadian UN soldier told us in very, ehmm, direct terms to "clear the f***ing area, NOW." It's not an interesting photo, though, the story is good. --Leifern 18:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you almost started another war. Anyways, speaking of the Golan, User:Jayjg has been claiming that the Golan Heights are in "northern Israel" in the article on Banias. I think it is sufficient to say that Banias is in the Golan Heights as northern Israel is a highly POV thing to say and Jayjg has continued to push this POV.Yuber^(talk)

Actually, I didn't, but then you don't bother to read the articles before you revert, do you? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"The remains of the city of Banias (Arabic pronunciation of Panias) are located in northern Israel at the foot of Mt. Hermon in the Golan Heights. The city was also called Caesarea Philippi by the Romans."

That sentence implies that the Golan Heights are in northern Israel.Yuber^(talk) 23:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, it implies that Banias is in northern Israel, which it is. Please stop making every edit purely for the purpose of POV, and try to actually contribute to NPOV instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Banias is in the Golan Heights, please stop POV pushing.Yuber^(talk) 23:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately your understanding of the term "POV pushing" is highly flawed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Banyas is both in The Golan Heights and Northern Israel. Since The Golan Heights is in Northern Israel, so is The Banyas.

Geographical boundaries

As far as I know, the geographical boundaries of the Golan Heights are the boundaries of the plateau, namely the Rift Valley in the west, the Yarmouk River in the south, the Hauran in the east and Wadi Hasabe below Mount Hermon in the north. This in contrast to the political boundaries of the disputed territory, which don't include the territory east of Al Qunaytirah but do include Mount Hermon, the east bank of the Jordan and the northeastern coast of the Sea of Galilee. As it is now, the introduction is not accurate, I think it should reflect the above.--Doron 13:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the Golan equal in extent to the Governorate of Quneitra? And how do you draw a geographical distinction between the Golan and the Hauran? I can't really tell myself. Palmiro | Talk 14:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is related somehow. A geography book I have (Yehuda Karmon, "Eretz Yisrael", in Hebrew) states the eastern border of the Golan to be Wadi Roqad (sp?) or Wadi Alan (sp?), the latter due to administrative division (perhaps the boundary of the Governorate?). On the other hand, the Governorate of Quneitra included Mount Hermon and a part of the coast of the Sea of Galilee, which are not part of the Golan Heights, geographically speaking. Israeli geographers describe the Golan Heights as I have described above (i.e., including the territory east of Quneitra, but not including Mount Hermon and the Rift Valley territory), but I don't know whether this description is widely accepted.--Doron 00:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Alawites

The Wikipedia page on Alawites states that there are 2000 Alawites living in Golan, wouldn't that be worthy of mention under the communities section?

Ski resort moved here

I've moved the ski resort mention (previously submitted and removed in Israeli-occupied territories) to here as per Marsden's suggestion. Andjam 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Landmines???

I assume this place is littered with landmines. Comments anyone?

Yes, it is.--Doron 07:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We toured the place in 2004 -- visiting the old bunkers and fortifications. Our guide mentioned, that there used to be landmines, but he never told us to be careful of any remaining ones. Maybe, they are still present in less "touristy" parts, but the whole piece of land in question is so small, I doubt it...

As a resident of Northern Israel, I advise you not to listen too carefully to tourist guides, especially if you're visiting from abroad. Fact is, the Golan Heights are ridden with minefields, and every now and then you can read about some poor cow blowing up on of these. Rarely, local farmers and shephards are also hurt by these, though I havn't heard of any in the last few years. Volland 12:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

I don't agree that the order of certain words creates an inherent bias, e.g., listing the Hebrew name for the heights before the Arabic, or the Jewish population centers before the Druze and Circassian, etc. My recent edit splits the difference, but this will turn into a pissing contest if we go back and forth on it. I am entirely comfortable listing first the language of the controlling authority, e.g., Hebrew for the Golan Heights, Arabic for Gaza City. (Arabic is an official language of Israel, so it shouldn't matter). Also, it is untrue to imply that the heights were only known as the Syrian Heights earlier, and that should be made clear. Please, let's avoid petty arguments - there's enough substantive ones to keep us busy for a long time. --Leifern 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence for them still being known as the Syrian Heights? Even the evidence that they were known as that before hardly shows that it was a widespread use.

I am not at all convinced of the merits of the version you have reverted to regarding the views of the international community and who or how many people disagree. Perhaps you could explain why you prefer them. As for the Arabic or Hebrew first, the Golan is legally part of Syria, and is internationally recognised as such, so it would seem logical to put the Arabic first as it is Syria's official language. Palmiro | Talk 01:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, legally the Golan Heights are part of Israel. Everyone there is or has been offered an Israeli citizenship, the Israeli government has annexed the heights, etc. The "view of the international community" (whatever that means) does not constitute international law. --Leifern 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We've been over this many, many times before. Alphabetical order settles all NPOV disputes when it comes to what label comes first. I was one of the ones trying to move the Geography and History of Syria categories ahead of the Geography of Israel, but since alphabetical order settled that, it should settle this as well. Yuber^(talk) 02:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And just coincidentally, "A" comes before "H." I'm sure that's a convention that pleases you just fine. In any event, you reverted other edits that had nothing to do with alphabetical order. --Leifern 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Status of the territory

Leifern, you still haven�t explained why you prefer the current phrasing regarding the status of the territory in the intro. You should have engaged in discussion on it rather than reverting. Could you please let us know what your arguments are? It strikes me as painfully convoluted and rather less accurate.

Also, you may disagree with Yuber�s edit but it certainly wasn't vandalism. Misleading edit summaries are generally frowned on. Palmiro | Talk 21:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont see why we shouldnt simply say the international community considers the area occupied, and certainly not why a reference to S/RES/242 needs to be included in the introduction. Res 242 calls these territories "occupied", and S/RES/497 is more relevant in this context. Keep it simple, with a reference to the "Current Status" section. --Cybbe 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Palmiro, spare me the self-righteous talk. I consider it vandalism when a person reverts a whole series of edits because he/she disagrees with one point of it. Yuber is no fool - he knows that trick as well as anyone. 2) The "international community" is neither an identifiable entity, nor does it have a determining voice over what are legal issues. 497 follows from 242, and I think everyone agrees that the final disposition is subject to the process proposed in 242. If we're going to use legal terminology, we have to be precise about it. --Leifern 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have attempted to reduce the intro to basic facts, and those who need to know more will find it in the immediately following section. Palmiro | Talk 01:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "Occupied as part of an ongoing war between Israel and Syria?" ??? ??????-????????? 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'd say that Syria and Israel are currently at war. Masterpjz9 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--

Because this is not a forum for legal debate statements that imply that a legal decision one way or the other was made should be restricted. In one of the first paragraphs the following is written:

"Neither the UN nor any country has recognised the "annexation" and they officially consider the Heights to be Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. This view was expressed in the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 497 stating that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect.""

I think it is proper and accurate to cite the UN security council but one should point out that no part of the UN has the capacity to create binding international law or adjudicate matters of international law. As such what the UN security council declares is interesting but not conclusive and this should be made clearer. Otherwise we run the risk of overstating the legal importance/conclusiveness of resolution 497. I would like to proposed a change of wording:

"While the UN Security Council is not a qualified adjudicator of international law it is valuble and relevant to note that UN Security Council Resolution 497 states that ..."

Perhaps it would be also usefull to simply add an "International Law" heading to this article where the details of the legal status of the golan heights can be discussed apart from the popular or generaly accepted status. Mayhaps it might also be simpler to make a list of the varius accusations flying back and forth as matter of fact rather then try to synthesize them into one whole acceptable to both sides - in other words you would have sections entitled "Isreali position" "Syrian position" "International Community position" "International Law Particularities and arguments"

Why does the article state that the Security Council resolution was non-binding? When I toured the UN, they made it a point to state that Security Council resolutions are binding but General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. Pocopocopocopoco 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"See also" links

I'm not sure why the Republic of Hatay needs to be included here. Palmiro | Talk 02:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamic history category

Why does the page need to be in this category? I can't see anything in the text that particularly justifies it, and neither am I aware of anything off-hand. Are the Horns of Hittin in the Golan or something? Palmiro | Talk 06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the Battle_of_Yarmuk take place in the Golan? Yuber^(talk) 06:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Did it? Let's say so then! Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Would be ideal to have a map with more borders

Part of the trickiness surrounding the Golan Heights is that there are several borders that come up in discussions, and the present map only displays some of them, and highlights some more than others. The four I know of are:

1. The 1923 border between Palestine and Syria
2. The 1949 armistice line between Israel and Syria, which includes a DMZ
3. The "line of June 4, 1967", i.e. the effective line of control just prior to the outbreak of the 1967 war
4. The current line of control

The map currently on this page draws only numbers 2 and 4. Somewhat problematically, its depiction of #2 is in a marginally Syria-biased way: the DMZ is colored in with the light-tan Syrian hue and demarcated from the Syrian portion only by a thin dotted line. A more accurate depiction of the armistice would have equal-weight lines demarcating the DMZ-Israel and DMZ-Syria lines of control, and the DMZ itself colored in with a third hue. --Delirium 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I got a certain problem with the map displayed in the article.It seems to me that making the golan heights and syria the same color and have "Syria" written in Capitals over Syria,the border and part of the Golan Heights themselves would make it seem that they are still part of Syria.Also, the area between the borders is painted gray and is completely unseparated from Lebanon.While I admit I might be a bit biased being Israeli,it would seem to me that with the Golan Heights being under Israeli rule for almost 40 years and being disputed all that time it would be more reasonable showing them in the same color as Israel,or at least painting them with a clearly different color than any of the surrounding countries. -Jimmy.Unregistered user.

What is the area of the Golan Heights?

--Greasysteve13 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What percent of Israel's water supplies come from the Golan? How can the Golan be returned - even with total peace - and not have Israel die of thirst? Currently the Litani River is needed to allow for growth, along with some Syrian resources.

POV statement

"Although not formally recognized by the UN the Golan Heights is generally considered part of Israel..." and sentences following seem to be biased and add nothing factual.

If anything, I'd say it is "generally" thought to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel, but since such statements are impossible to defend, let's stick with how the UN has formally defined it.--Jhcarter 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Land Area? Demographics?

What is the land area of the Golan Heights? Also, what is the Jewish/Arab breakdown of the population? 69.241.235.253 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

current map is problematic

first all, because it says occupied. encarta map says "disputed". "http://encarta.msn.com/map_701510802/Golan_Heights.html" for example. Secondly, the color is the color of syria. It is however very detailed so I'll change it to other map which also says occupied but has a neutral color atleast. Amoruso 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert by Shrike

I think that Aminaa has provided further citation, and that the revert by Shrike back to my version using popups without explanation was wrong. I am not really qualified to get involved in the matter, or to comment on the reliability and neutrality of the cited source, but I think the facts should be debated on this page rather than fought over on the main page. See in particular the notice at the top of this page. Viewfinder 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked yourself for reliable sources. Washington-report is defiantly not one of them. Also my revert was about other POV pushing that he added to the article.Shrike 08:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. those additions were extreme WP:POV. history of the different Druze is depicted in the article. Amoruso 12:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: is it possible that the pro-Arab side of this revert war could provide a better known and more indisputably neutral source, or provide more evidence that the WR source is sufficiently reliable? I do not think that the article is pro-Zionist; it seems to me to be generally fair, but if the new pro-Arab edits can be substantiated then they should stand. In particular, the cited UN Security Council Resolution 242 emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and "territorial inviolability", which, imo, amounts a condemnation of the annexation, so I think that the new sentence about this should stand. Still, I do not want to fuel the edit war, so I will not put it back until I have allowed time for comments by those who do not ageree with me. Viewfinder 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"I do not think that the article is pro-Zionist; it seems to me to be generally fair". That's a very nice comment Viewfinder, I'd give you a barnstar for that for fairness. I know from past discussions you don't support Israel's view on the heights yet you acknowledge that the current version is balanced and the additions didn't serve any additional information than WP:POV which I think should always be the test. As for the UN resolution, if that's added it can replace the "bulk of the international community" line for instance. We wouldn't want to expand this lead in only one direction of one of the sections - which already has a reference to it btw "(See Current status below)". Amoruso 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Amoruso, but that the current version is balanced should not make it inviolable. New material should be added if properly substantiated, but if it is controversial it should be discussed here first. Imo, UN242 should be mentioned in the lead - perhaps, as you say, at the expense of the rather vague "bulk of the international community". Let us see what others think about that. Viewfinder 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Of course Israel's view should be presented in the article. We can however not accepting this POV as the only truth- Remember that Israel is internationally isolated on the question about the Golan Heights. Bertilvidet 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would like to urge my co-editors to actually look at edits before reverting. It is frustrating to fix interwiki links and all minor things, to see it all reverted. Sorry folks, but some of the reverts seem quite blind! Bertilvidet 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits and cited sources are controversial. It would have been better if their supporters had raised them here first. Viewfinder 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see from the edit summaries that the sources are controversial. I have no clue why. Maybe one of the critics would take their time to explain? Bertilvidet 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources are not WP:RS but that's not the main problem. The problem was WP:POV. unfortunately, all the edits were POV to the article. The current version doesn't take Israel's position but takes a neutral position, as it should. Adding pov comments to lead doesn't improve the article. No revert was blind but it was either extreme POV or without a WP:RS ref to counter previous version. Amoruso 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits supported by WP:RS are not POV, but the question of whether the WR supported edits are RS supported has evidently not been agreed. More information about this would be helpful. In particular, I do not think the wording of the lead paragraph should have been changed without proper discussion, even if I do tend to agree with the change. However, the paragraph already makes clear Israel's isolation on the issue, with or without the UN242 citation. Viewfinder 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how the statement of the simple fact that there were over one hundred thousand Syrian citizens removed from the area in 1967 is disputable ... I was asked for a citation and provided one. There are hundreds more available. Shouldn't the onus be on Shrike and others who dispute this to prove that there was no cleansing of the Sunnis and Christians of the region? (aminaa)

Let's see.

current version: bout 90% (80,000) of the Golan's inhabitants, mainly Druze Arabs and Circassians, fled or were expelled by Israeli forces during the Six-Day War.:(Morris (2001) , p. 327: "Another eighty to ninety thousand civilians fled or were driven from the Golan Heights.")

your version: About 90% (131,000) of the Golan's inhabitants, essentially all of the non- Druze Arabs and Circassians, fled or were expelled by Israeli forces during the Six-Day War.:(Morris (2001) , p. 327: "Another eighty to ninety thousand civilians fled or were driven from the Golan Heights.")

Pretty strange to use a ref that says some other number no ? Apart from this, your other reverts had nothing to do with the "cleansing". "unoccupied syria", changed yom kippur fact, removal of attacks from fedayeen and agreement instead of treaty for some reason, not that I mind, but you removed the wikilink. Amoruso 08:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Did you even bother looking at the references or is anything not approved by the Israeli far-right suspect? I don't know if Arabic sources are considered acceptable (even though there are refernces on this page to Israeli government sites; hardly neutral IMHO!!!!!) but check out www.jaulan.org and other sites set up by Golani refugees. If you continue to doubt the ethnic cleansing of the Golan, please site sources that show other wise. Thanks. Aminaa

Aminaa, you have misquoted properly sourced information; that's basically vandalism. The source itself lists Morris, a respected historian. Unless you stop doing this your edits will continue to be reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Jayjg, please learn to read basic English. Also, if you can show the truth of your revisions, I will gladly accept them but your blatant racism and bigotry have no place in a supposedly neutral setting. I will continue to revert past your racist and blindly pro-Israel revisions. Thanks. Aminaa

The quoted source says 90,000. Please stop making up numbers, and applying them to quoted sources, and please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I AM NOT THE ONE INVENTTING NUMBERS HERE! I realize that the accepted discourse for you guys is that women, Muslims, and Arabs are inveterate liars; as a member of all three groups, I sincerely disagree and would like to see someone, anyone, post evidence that the Population of the Golan Heights, June 1, 1967 was anything less than 147,000. Until then, I will repeat what I said before concerning the obvious bigotry and racism of those who feel that Syrian and Arab facts are inherently inferior to the facts of the so-called Chosen Ubermenschen. Aminaa

As you said, Arabs are all liars and you are an Arab. Therefore, why should we trust the facts that you claim? Please post from a neutral site, preferably one with a .il address as all others are known to be run by Anti-Semites and terrorist sympathizers. FrPizzaballa 20:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the accusatory tone of the above comments by Aminaa is unhelpful and violates WP:CIV. Therefore I will revert the edits to the main page made by the above editor. As I have already written, I think that the main article is generally fair, and to call other edits "bigotry and racism" is inflammatory. Viewfinder 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I was accused by Jayjg of lying and making up numbers. Now, he/she may not be a bigot or a racist (and, of course, anti-Arab racism is socially acceptable in North America and Europe so why would that matter anyhow?) but my sources and numbers are legitimate and real. I have challenged Jayjg to produce material showing otherwise; of course, this is impossible.

I strenuously object to the extremely one-sided POV in this article and have been attempting to make it more neutral. I will revert the changes until someone produces documentation showing that I am wrong. Thanks. Aminaa

Shouldn't Jayjg also be censured for false accusations of lying and vandalism levied against me? Or is there a racial/political pecking order I am unaware of? Aminaa

Morris says 80,000 to 90,000. You're still referencing Morris, but you have changed the number to 131,000, even though the footnote explicitly states 80-90,000. And please stop making these spurious and un-civil claims of some sort of bigotry or racism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues

First off, this article had the Arabic as the first translation for a very long time until some anon changed to Hebrew. Alphabetical order should be the norm here so I don't see the problem. The other issue is that the article cited has no mention of "fedayeen" so how is that statement sourced by that article? Yuber^(talk) 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The source for that particular statement might not have been adequate but you could have tagged it as cn. As for the name, alphabetic of course has nothing to do with it. The older name is Hebrew and the majority of people there speak Hebrew today. So Hebrew comes first... As for the other additions like "the international community... " etc they were POV and unreferenced, and disruptive if you check past discussions on the leading paragraph above. Amoruso 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I tag it as "cn" if it was false and I could just remove it? It's up to you to make the statement fit the source, is it not? Alphabetical order has EVERYTHING to do with it as it is the most neutral order for a region under dispute. In fact, the placing of Hebrew before Arabic is showing a POV since it implies that the Hebrew name is the more important name for the place and doesn't fall under normal alphabetical order because of its importance. Your claims that the Hebrew name is the older name don't make sense as both names are just adaptations of the name that has been used for the region by the various Semitic-speaking tribes inhabiting it. Yuber^(talk) 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not false, and you made a whole lot of pov insertions which will be reverted. the hebrew name also should come first per my explanations which are factual. Amoruso 00:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Objection to the use of this image

I object to the use of the image containing the map of the Hasmonean Kingdom set against the background of the so-called present-day borders of Israel. The image is also being used in the articles on Hanukkah, on Maccabees, on Judas Maccabeus, on Hasmonean and on the Jewish history. But these are not the internationally recognised borders of Israel. The image suggests that the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the state of Israel, whereas this is subject to international disputes. To present these borders as undisputed facts, is to lessen the quality of information provided by Wikipedia. I therefore decided to remove this image. In a (very swift) reaction by a Wikipedia administrator, he accused me of "blatant vandalism". That is absurd. I'm in the habit of using Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information. Ocasionally, I make a small contribution to try to enhance the factual accuracy of an article. To enhance an article is not vandalism. It is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. There are undoubtedly many images available that could be used in these articles that depict the borders of Israel, while clearly marking the disputed Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as disputed entities. Why would an unbiased encyclopedia, out of of all the available options, choose an image that is provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry? If it is Wikipedia's standard policy to discourage user participation in this agressive way, then in my view, it fails in its stated purpose. --82.215.24.131 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

please do not double post. you have left this comment at talk:Golan Heights, Talk:Hasmonean, Talk:Judas Maccabeus, Talk:Maccabees, Talk:Hanukkah, and Talk:Jewish history. I have moved it to Image talk:Hasmonean-map.jpg. Jon513 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are valid as it relates to this article. The superimposed borders of Israel include territory that is not internationally recognized as Israeli--i.e., the Golan Heights. Javadane 17:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Javadane. In response to Jon513, thanks for opening that Image talk page and for your comment. But I would also have to disagree with you on multiple postings. There is a good reason to place multiple postings. Many users only view one of the involved pages. If they wish to see whether there are differences of opinion on the article they are reading, they have a right to a complete overview. Now if they would happen to forget to click on the image itself (and subsequently on its Image talk page), but instead would only view this discussion page, they would be denied that complete overview, if there were no multiple postings.--82.215.24.131 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

map no longer claims present-day border of israel. referesh cache if you have a problem viewing it. Amoruso 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

82.215.24.131, are you questioning that the Hasmoneans existed and had a kingdom? Are you attempting to erase history by denying that 'Israel' or the 'Israelites', or whatever kingdoms ruled here over 2000 years ago existed? The map is not POV and there's no reason to get hysterical. The map provides historical context to the subject of this article. NO ONE is claiming that these are the borders of Israel now, or that the current State of Israel views these borders as its territory. The deletion of that historical map from this article is certainly not vandalism, at best ignorance, but seemingly POV and more likely WP:POINT. --Shuki 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the label has been removed, but the red outline of some modern entity remains. The use of these controversial "borders" fails to meet NPOV standards. Javadane 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Javadane is right that putting in these borders is problematic. But more importantly, what on earth is the point of a map of this political entity, which is not mentioned by name in the text itself, has no article on Wikipedia, and lasted a total of little more than a hundred years a long time ago? More recent states that included the Golan Heights for longer periods, such as the Abbasid Caliphate or the Ottoman Empire, would be more appropriate choices for a map of this sort. I suppose there could also be an argument for having a map of the Seleucid empire, given that it was during its period, we are told, that the Golan first acquired its name. But this particular dynasty seems a perverse choice. Palmiro | Talk 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No he's not right. The map doesn't suggest that the region contains only one political entity or implies the nature of that political entity. It's totally NPOV and therefore will be re-inserted. As to your claim, you should perhaps buy reading glasses ? : "The Maccabean Revolt saw much action in the regions around the Golan and it is possible that the Jewish communities of the Golan were among those rescued by Judah Maccabee during his campaign in the Galilee and Gilead (Transjordan) mentioned in Chapter 5 of 1 Maccabees. The Golan, however, remained in Seleucid hands until the campaign of Alexander Jannaeus from 83-80 BC. Jannaeus established the city of Gamla in 81 BC as his capital for the region." Your claim (false) that it doesn't have a wikipedia article is also strange. An important part of the history of golan not to mention that Gamla will also be expanded per modern relevance. Wikipedia also works in a funny way in that sense that people ADD images and information that they think is also important (like other kingdoms which controlled the area) and not remove images that people don't like. It's called contributing information and not blanking material. Amoruso 23:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What colour is the link: Hasmonean Kingdom? It looks red to me. Since you seem to be colour-blind, I suggest you not make recommendations to others about their eyesight. Palmiro | Talk 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this case eye-sight might not be the problem but certainly some function around the vicinity of the head. Hasmonean kingdom.Amoruso 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, the Wikipedia reader who wishes to find out what this mysterious political entity is that was so crucial in the history of the Golan to have a map of its extent included in the article, yet remains so secret that it cannot be referred to in the text, must not only type in its name into his browser address bar, but also change the case of the second word? My dear Amoruso, anyone would swear you were desperate to make sure nobody found out about the Hasmonean Kingdom Hasmonean kingdom at all! Or are you just determined to add an extra dimension of intellectual challenge to the Wikipedia experience? Palmiro | Talk 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If the wikipedia reader will type "Hasmonean Kingdom" he will reach the article actually. Not only that, it's mentioned, you can change it to maccabees etc. It's all linked and connected. It seems you are the only one who can plausibly get confused about this and will say it's "obscure" making as much sense as saying that water is an obscure substance on the planet Earth. The Hasmonean Kingdom is a crucial part of the history of the Golan Heights, or atleast a very noteable one. An example for the ignorant reader: since the Hasmonean king at the time founded Gamla which was later conquered by the Romans in a fierce battle, very famous, and Gamla today is an accessible site and a popular tourist attraction. I'll take your suggestion into account though and add "Hasmonean" next to Maccabees or Alexander Jannaeus for the ignorant or for the lazy who won't click the links, and also add a wikilink to the map in question. Amoruso 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh... no, actually! If you click a red link, you get taken to a page which tells you that "Wikipedia does not have an article on..." Still, while i appreciate your clearing up this confusion, the inclusion of the map still seems insupportably random. Palmiro | Talk 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no red link in existance. If you type "Hasmonean Kingdom" in the search bar you'll reach the page. (making your previous claim false/a lie). Go on, try it ! it's fun ! It's because the original re-direct used a lower-case "k" so it doesn't allow for another re-direct but it has the same use in search. It can easily be fixed of course like you'd know. I'm happy to have cleared up the non-confusion. The map is very relevant per above explanation even if you dislike it, sorry. Amoruso 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Em... the red link was sitting in my above post since I wrote it. Now it should be a blue link, but only because of this, which of course proves that the article didn't exist before... so, no, you haven't caught me lying I'm afraid! Palmiro | Talk 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to catch you lying, I said you might have been simply wrong. Which you were. Whether you lied or not I don't know , I can suspect but I need to assume WP:AGF. The red link did not appear in the article which was the point, since if one typed in the search bar it will work despite the non existant link being in red. You claimed it wouldn't have worked which was the mistake. Eh.Amoruso 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I never used the search bar. But you can see from that link that I only just created the article, so it can only have been a red link before (unless using my secret administator sockpuppet account I deleted the previous article, but if I had done that I wouldn't tell you anyway). This is all getting a bit, or maybe more than a bit silly - can we move the less relevant bits onto one of our talkpages to clear this one up? Palmiro | Talk 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed it wasn't a red link on the talk page (which was and is irrelevant). If it's silly I remind you who started with it. this whole sub-topic can be archived I guess now we've concluded the image can come back. 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no "Hasmonean Kingdom" redlink in the article, nor would it make any sense to assume that Amoruso was trying to hide reference to the Hasmoneans. Please everyone WP:COOL down and assume good faith. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. The map depicted the "Hasmonean Kingdom", but they were not referred to in the text nor is there a Wikipedia article with that name. I do not think it is all that far-fetched to suggest that this might be confusing. Palmiro | Talk 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove the red outline and add some markers for Damascus and Jerusalem and the map would be acceptable. Javadane

If anyone can add the maps that Palmiro suggested, this would also be appropriate in providing context. --Shuki 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Syria, however, has not expressed willingness in making peace with Israel even if the Heights are returned."

Hello, I have removed the above statment in light of current moves by Syria and the recent extensive interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [16] E Jaffe 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article; it says he's willing to hold talks, but not that he's willing to make peace. In any event, Assad's words are purely for political purposes, they mean nothing. I'm restoring the sourced material. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"President Assad acknowledged Syria and Israel could live side-by-side in peace accepting each other's existence." & "The implementation of UN resolutions by all parties - Syria, Israel, America, the UN and EU - was the only way to achieve peace, Mr Assad said." I'm reverting. Javadane 18:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not making peace if the Heights are returned, that's making peace if a whole bunch of UN Resolutions are followed, a number of which would destroy Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jayjgg, how do you know his words are purely for political purposes and "mean nothing"? Isn't that just your personal point of view :-) hey you may be right! but I don't think we can claim they are "not willing to make peace" when the head of that country clearly says "Syria and Israel could live side-by-side in peace accepting each other's existence"...hey that's great news for the region! :-D E Jaffe

The Israel he envisages has a large Muslim/Arab majority and a tiny Jewish minority. That's not really Israel, is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, we're not making the claim, we're just repeating what the source says. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, you seem to be making a lot claims about the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad without anything to back them up...1) He doesn't want peace with Israel 2)Israel he envisages has a large Muslim/Arab majority and a tiny Jewish minority...This is directly contradicting Syrian president's interview and current statements so I have to ask where are you getting this from if it's not your personal opinion? I read your source (the jewish virtual library) and it's actually mainly about the former president Hafez Assad and the old Syrian policy. This interview shows Syria's current stance in the light of current conflicts and pressure in the region. So it is completely wrong for us to say "Syria has not expressed willingness in making peace with Israel" We need to keep our articles up-to-date don't you think? E Jaffe

I don't believe that the Jewish Virtual Library is the best of sources for this sort of thing. President Bashar has said that the two countries could live side by side in peace, as is said in the source quoted, and it's not for us to add our original research as to the implications for Israel of implementing the UN resolutions in question. Palmiro | Talk 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

please be aware that Jayjg has claimed the ability to read the minds of Arabs and knows more about them than they do themselves, even knowing things like the secret identities of posters unbeknownst to themselves. He has an extremely obvious and flagrant set of ethnic, political, religious, and racial biases and priveleging his input here only serves to weaken the entire Wikipedia project. Thanks. - Signed, (someone Jayjg improperly and against Wikipedia procedures falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of someone sh'd never heard of and banned from contributing on his own accord)

The statement in the article is "Syria, however, has not expressed willingness in making peace with Israel in return for the Heights." Even if Bashar is honest in his claims and insinuations, he has not expressed any willingness to make peace in return for the Heights, but is insisting on all sorts of other things that have a lot to do with Palestinians, and nothing to do with Syria. The statement is thus both accurate and properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is such an exegetical interpretation of the BBC article as to clearly violate Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. As far as http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org goes, I cannot see how that can count as an adequate source. Palmiro | Talk 01:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The reference in question clearly states the following:

Under Hafez Assad, Syria's position was consistent: Israel must completely withdraw from the entire Golan Heights before he would entertain any discussion of what Syria might do in return. He never expressed any willingness to make peace with Israel if he received the entire Golan or any part of it... President Hafez Assad died in June 2000 and there have not been any negotiations since, as Assad's son and successor, Bashar, has moved to consolidate his power in Syria. Rhetorically, Bashar has not indicated any shift in Syria's position on the Golan.

There is no BBC article, and no original research involved. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. When you replied to E Jaffe that you had "read the article", I presumed you meant the BBC article he referred to. But in any case, this is not an adequate source for such a contentious statement. Palmiro | Talk 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about a comment I made 2 days ago about an article I read 2 days ago, and you expect me to remember what site it came from? And on what grounds to you reject the JVL? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You made trenchant remarks on that article in this discussion, so I would have thought you would have had some memory of it while pursuing the discussion. As regards the JVL's article on "Myths and Facts", I would think it was fairly plain that this was a partisan analysis of the situation, and as such WP:NPOV would prevent us from presenting its conclusions as fact. If you wish to present these claims as those of supporters of the Israeli government's refusal to negotiate with Syria, that is a completely different question and it could easily be done in compliance with WP:NPOV - in which case, of course, I would make no objection. Palmiro | Talk 02:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "article" I was referring to was this one, the Wikipedia article on the Golan Heights, not the BBC article from two days ago. If your objection was the source, why did you claim OR? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise. I had understood that your reference to "the article" in your first remarks in this section was to the BBC article that User:E Jaffe had cited. Palmiro | Talk 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, so you're not even familiar with the text you are reverting? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "text I am reverting" is the claim from Jewish Virtual Libary's article on "Myths and Facts" that "Syria, however, has not expressed willingness in making peace with Israel even if the Heights are returned." I'm not sure how much familiarity I need to have with this sentence to see that it is inadequately sourced to serve as an NPOV statement of fact. I'm not sure, either, how you can extrapolate an unfamiliarity with this sentence from my having thought that your reference to "the article" in your first reply to E Jaffe above was a reference to the same articile he was referring to. Having established (if I have understood it correctly) that we were to some extent at cross-purposes in our discussion above, is there anything still in question regarding the content of the Golan Heights page? Palmiro | Talk 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, firstly I think it would be fair to say that the Jewish Virtual Library and the Muslim Virtual Library (if there is such a thing) may not be the best sources to use here due to the unquestionable extreme bias. Secondly, that article in the JVL seems very old to me, definitely pre Israel-Lebanon conflict and possibly even pre Iraq War. The interview I pointed out is dated Monday, 9 October 2006! So where as it may have been fair in the past to say "Bashar has not indicated any shift in Syria's position" I'm sure you are aware things have changed greatly since then! now Syria says "Syria and Israel could live side-by-side in peace accepting each other's existence" that is a huge shift in policy! in the right direction!! :-) so surely it would be best for us to change the article to reflect recent/current policy/moves by Syria :-) E Jaffe

What policy changes are you referring to? Syria is saying "implement all resolutions on the Middle East, including all those relating to Palestinians etc., and then maybe we'll talk." What has changed? Where exactly have they said they would make peace in return for the Golan Heights? In fact, they've stated the opposite! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear E Jaffe

• 1)thanks
• 2)why the POV tag ?
• 3)why not say where the volcanoes are ? even added both countries.
• 4)map 100px seems too small... look at majdal shams pictures etc, seems strange. I think 150px is better. map not controversial anymore is it.

Amoruso 12:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amoruso...

• 1) You are welcome!
• 2) I think we should get a consensus from other users and discuss it first before removing the POV tag rather than taking unilateral action. This is a very controversial topic so best to leave the POV tag on there until all parties to the debate are happy.
• 3) I actually agreed with the volacanos bit but perhaps better to leave it out of both due to the dispute between the 2 countries. But if you still feel it's OK to add this...then go ahead do so :-)
• 4) There has been a lot of arguing about this dam map (see above) I was glad when finally there seemed to be agreement for its inclusion as long as it was kept small as you yourself suggested. So I think it best that we stick to that for now rather than trying to increase the size bit by bit. Or of course discuss it first with users and take it from there!

Hope that answered your questions. Keep up the good work :-) E Jaffe

from my analysis of when the POV tag was added I concluded there was no more obejction and there didn't seem to be after it was taken off. Let's leave the tag for another week and see if people mention here something about it, then we'll remove it ok? The map, well... it was differnet back then with the red line portraying modern israel. Now it has damascuss and jerusalem on it and it can't be seen when it's such small. let's make it 130px as compromise, see how it is. Amoruso 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) After changing it, one still can't see the wording of the cities but the wording of the map is arranged better in lines atleast... i'm ok with it with you agree. Amoruso 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

survey

removed this survey to here: In 1999, a survey conducted by Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth suggested that a third of Israelis living in the Golan and half of all Israelis would return the Golan in exchange for peace. [17]

I think it's too outdated to be included. I'm not sure if surverys are encyclopedic enough but if they are they're abundant in Israel, there were quite a few since the lebanon conflict already, and I think it's more appropriate to use the primary source if it's really Yedioth. It should also be more exact to reflect exactly the opinion - full peace/full withdrawl and so on IMO. Amoruso 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Formerly" known as Syrian Heights?

The Heights are still referred to as the Syrian Heights by some people.

Examples:

• An article in the International Herald Tribune from 2005
• A Syrian's blog.
• Anti-Israeli/Zionist website

(I could go on)

The point seems to be that in Israel they used to be called that but are no longer - that seems to be what the sources I have read are saying. However, elsewhere and in particular in Syria or by pro-Syrian people they are still often referred to as the Syrian Heights (or even the "Occupied Syrian Heights" (!)) - . Clearly usage is related to point of view - those who oppose Israel's occupation may use the "Syrian Heights" as a way of expressing this. Here's a source which says the Golan Heights, rightfully known as the Syrian Heights, to provide an example of such usage. On the web, certainly, the "formerly known as", except when exclusively referring to Israel, appears to be purely a creation of Wikipedia editors, and is only represented in mirrors. --SandyDancer 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the New York Times archive for the American usage. Neither of the names appears before 1967 at all. Both appeared first in 1967 but "Syrian Heights" stopped being used in 1976. In a more general archive of recent newspapers, there are quite a few instances of "Syrian heights" (lowercase "h") which is hard to characterise as a name or a description. In Gershom Gorenberg's book "Accidental Empire" he says that the Israeli government made a deliberate decision in 1967 to replace "Syrian Heights" by "Golan Heights" in official documents. --Zero^talk 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As one would expect. It seems the Golan Heights / Syrian Heights thing is similar to Derry / Londonderry in N. Ireland or Malvinas / Falkands in the South Atlantic. The Israeli (and therefore by extension US) official use may be "Golan" only but that it is wrong to say the Golan Heights are no longer referred to as the Syrian Heights - because it is self-evident even from a simple Google search that they sometimes still are. --SandyDancer 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing syrian heights as of current state is of course POV. We could say they're also known as Syrian or Israeli Heights. Amoruso 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and calling them Golan Heights is also representative of a point of view. We need to represent both points of view. So we need to say they are also known as the Syrian Heights - because they are. But are they really also known as the Israeli Heights? --SandyDancer 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not as a "name for region" because they're Israeli whether or not you call it that since it's in Israel today. It won't say "Israel's Tel Aviv" either. But I'm not sure how important it is to say that Pro syrians call it syrian heights. Assad himself calls it "golan heights" [18] - i don't see how that term is non neutral. Arabs everywhere with whom I frequently speak to also call it "joulan"... or "Al Joulan" . never heard them call it syrian heights. Syrian Heights was never used but only to refer to the territory that was in Syria, as in a resoultion which would call to return territoy like Egypt's Sinai and Syrian's Golan Heights or Syrian's Heights. It's not a name for a region it's a designation. Therefore, it should be dropped entirely... in this sense, "Israel's Golan" is of course used [19]. Amoruso 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To say it is no longer called the Syrian Heights by anyone is factually incorrect. I have demonstrated that. Why do you want there to be a factual innaccuracy in this article? --SandyDancer 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it will be called that since those calling it that want the Golan Heights to be under Syria's control. They're simply saying "These Golan Heights are Syrian!" but please see that they're not disputing the NAME of region - Golan or Joulan. If they say "Heights" it's simply short for "Joulan/Golan Heights". . So basically it's just saying - some people see the Golan Heights as Syrian territory. This is the official syrian website of the place and it says : Golan [20]. Cheers. Amoruso 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For possibly the first time ever, I find myself pretty much agreeing with Amoruso. The region (both the occupied and unoccupied areas) is known in Syria most commonly as "the Golan", and in fact not generally as the "Golan Heights". If you think about it this seems to make sense; there is not all that much of height difference between Damascus or the Hauran and much of the Golan, whereas there clearly is between the Sea of Galilee shore and the plateau above it. I know quite a few people from the Golan and I never heard any of them refer to it as any kind of "heights". I'm afraid I can't come up with anything much more conclusive than this, but really it's up to the person wanting to include something other people are in doubt about to provide sufficient evidence that it's a common usage. Palmiro | Talk 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

. Amoruso 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record I agree too, I was wrong on this. I meant to say so but didn't get round to it! --SandyDancer 10:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you appear to have been inspired by this to add a load of stuff representing an Israeli POV...not good...--SandyDancer 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is all Amoruso has ever done in Wikipedia. --Zero^talk 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer, I've added something different which was sourced - is that a problem ? It was also something small I'm not sure what you're referring to by "load of stuff representing an Israeli POV" and how it was inspired by anything. I think you should apologise. Btw, I think that the entire reference to syrian heights can be removed per above discussion probably.

Mr. Zero, this recent "edit" of yours is a lie and a provocation . Just because you're a useless WP:POV editor doesn't mean others are. Most of my work on wikipedia has been creating articles, images and contributing positively unlike you. Amoruso 14:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Annexation

I am aware that Israelis believe that the Golan has been annexed by Israel but this is an encyclopedia, not an Israeli textbook. International law views the Golan as territory under occupation by Israel. Regardless of Israeli feelings about this issue Wikipedia has a responsibility to be neutral. Making it appear that Israel has annexed the Golan from Syria is in violation of WP:NPOV. - Am86 21:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, more to the point, what do (a) Israel and (b) reliable secondary sources say about it? Do we have reliable sources referring to a de facto annexation? Has the Israeli government made an official expression of its position regarding the Golan's legal status to any international instances? Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, would you care to explain this mysterious edit summary? Where have I claimed that Israel annexed the Golan? I think my position is perfectly clear. If you are aware of reliable evidence that the Golan was in fact officially legally annexed, please provide it rather than blindly reverting. Palmiro | Talk 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to avoid double-standards; occupation is occupation, and Syria can do it to, not just Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Occupation is occupation, and has a precise meaning. My point throughout has been that we should only use the terms "occupation" and "annexation" where they are accurate, and I have been quite consistent in this. If your point, however, is that we should use the same term for Syria's control of Lebanon and Israel's control of the Golan, then clearly you are the one who is being inconsistent - deleting the term "occupation" here while placing it into numerous articles about Lebanon with edit summaries such as "avoid redirect". Palmiro | Talk 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted you on this article because you had consistently been removing the word "occupation" when it involved Syria on other articles. Please do not distort the timeline here. Also, "occupation" is certainly accurate for Syria. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you were only being inconsistent yourself because you felt that I was being inconsistent (according to a standard you, but not I, had adopted). As for distortion of timelines, given your systematic insertion of the word "occupation" into a wide variety of Lebanon-related articles that had been happily surviving with less controversial phraseology since first coming into existence, I'd be afraid myself that people might get a wrong impression from your remarks. But if we can leave that question for the articles which it concerns, I am not determined to see the word "occupation" used in the lead here. What concerns me is the apparent careless, and perhaps inaccurate, use of the word "annex", given that it was studiously avoided by the Israeli prime minister who introduced the legislation. This is the point I have raised in all my comments here and all my edit summaries, and you have yet to address it. I await, eagerly, your remarks on the topic. Palmiro | Talk 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two separate issues are mixed up here. One is whether Israel has annexed the Golan according to international law, and the answer to that is "no, according to practically everyone". The other is whether Israel has annexed the Golan according to Israeli law, and the answer there is not at all clear. Legal opinions in Israel differ on that. See the section "Golan annexation?" at Talk:Israel/Archive_9. --Zero^talk 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and that is why we simply cannot blithely insert into the lead as a statement of fact that Israel has annexed the Golan - at least , not if accuracy is a concern. Palmiro | Talk 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Another example why "Myths and Facts" is unacceptable as a source.

We have seen many examples in Wikipedia where the AIPAC propaganda booklet "Myths and Facts" was found to be misleading or just plain wrong. Given that it uncritically supports "the Israeli position" on every single issue, it is not reasonable to cite it except as stating "the Israeli position". A typical example appears in our article:

In some cases, Syria had permitted Yasser Arafat's Fatah to operate in their territory. Subsequently, Israel took the situation to the UN in October 1966 to demand a halt to Fatah attacks. "It is not our duty to stop them, but to encourage and strengthen them," the Syrian ambassador responded.

The citation is to Myths and Facts [21]. Turning to that source, we find that this quotation from the Syrian ambassor (to the UN?) is sourced to Anne Sinai and Allen Pollack, The Syrian Arab Republic, (NY: American Academic Association for Peace in the Middle East, 1976), p. 117. So we go to page 117 in that book and there we find:

Israel's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, drew attention on October 11, to a statement made by Syria's Chief of Staff with reference to the operation of the Palestinian units: "These activities which are now being carried out are legal activities and it is not our duty to stop them but to encourage and strengthen them..." The [UN] representative of Syria, Mr. Toma, reiterated Syria's position that Syria was not responsible for the activities of al-'Asifa.

First note that Myths and Facts got the chronology backwards: Eban's claim was made before Israel asked for a UNSC meeting (which was on Oct 12), not after, but that is the smallest distortion. Much more seriously, we find that Israel's allegation was presented by Myths and Facts as Syria's admission. Moreover, what Myths and Facts told us was admitted by the Syrian representative was in fact denied by that representative. In summary, Myths and Facts lied to us (again). --Zero^talk 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. Is there not 'a statement made by Syria's Chief of Staff with reference to the operation of the Palestinian units: "These activities which are now being carried out are legal activities and it is not our duty to stop them but to encourage and strengthen them..."'? Eban 'drew attention' to it - he didn't invent the Syrian position. The only correction that should be made to the passage is a replacement of 'Syrian Ambassador' with 'Syrian Chief of Staff'. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not true that Syria admitted assisting Palestinian units to attack Israel. In fact they consistently denied it. Also, something claimed by Abba Eban cannot be taken as a fact without supporting evidence. Sinai and Pollack just quote his claim, they don't attempt to verify it and they don't cite a source for the alleged Syrian quotation. Of course Syria did sponsor a part of the Fatah movement, allowing them to organise themselves, do military training, conduct propaganda. These were legal operations. The Syrian Chief of Staff's words that Myths&Facts suppressed, "These activities which are now being carried out are legal activities" should be read carefully: he is saying "they are only doing stuff that is legal". It is a denial of illegal activity, not an admisison of it. Now, personally I am confident that Syria really did support Fatah attacks across the border. If a serious history book or academic paper which states that clearly can be found, let's quote it. I might do that myself. But we can't quote Myths&Facts' distortions, and in fact we can't accept Myths&Facts as a reliable source at all for the very good reason that it is full of misreports like this. --Zero^talk 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I found a good source that documents the Syrian support of Fatah in great detail, and rewrote that section entirely based on that source and two others (which happen to be by the same author). In case you are wondering, the author Moshe Shemesh is Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Senior Fellow at the Ben-Gurion Research Institute for Research on Israel and Zionism. --Zero^talk 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone got arrested in 2006?

Um, a resident of the Golan got arrested in 2006. So what? Does anyone think this trivia is actually important enough to be featured in this small article on the Golan Heights? I strongly request that people try to keep the propaganda to a minimum. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am interested to know why you believe this reported incident is "propaganda?" Because it is not sufficiently pro-Israel? There is not enough information in the article on the Golan's natives particularly their relationship with the Israeli government. The fact that a Syrian was arrested by the authorities for expressing support for an anti-Israel group is certainly important. I am well aware that you write from a pro-Israel POV and that colors your edits and administrative decisions but I am trying to contribute relevant and unbiased information to the article. - Am86 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please avoid personal attacks and violations of Wikipedia's civility policy; the purpose of the Talk: page is to discuss article content, not air your pejorative and false views of other editors. Second, it astonishes me that you would think that any real encyclopedia would contain a sentence mentioning that a Druze inhabitant of the Golan Heights was once arrested for making pro-Hezbollah speeches (and by the way, Hezbollah is not just any "anti-Israel group", it's a designated terrorist organization that just recently started a war with Israel). My goodness, this person hasn't been brought to court, much less sentenced, and indeed it's not clear either will ever happen. This is an encyclopedia article about a contested region of the Middle East, not a trivia blog or gossip column; this item wouldn't have been worth mentioning on Wikinews when it happened, much less enshrining in this article. WP:NPOV is quite clear:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This attempt to insert trivia into this article is a blatant example of propagandizing, and an obvious violation of NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks and I would appreciate it if you would resist making libellous claims against me. You are the one who has taken a hostile and uncivil response to one sentence which was referenced, in context, relavent to the article, and was there for weeks without any complaint. I am new here and have made relatively few edits but in this short amount of time have become aware of harassment, bias, intimidation, and abuses of power by certain administrators and will be taking my evidence to those responsible for Wikipedia. - Am86 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When you say I am well aware that you write from a pro-Israel POV and that colors your edits and administrative decisions you are making a personal attack. Please desist, and please stop making threats. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this can be presented in different ways. Originally it was inserted as evidence that the Golan residents are Hezbollah supporters, then later it was reworded as evidence that the Golan residents are persecuted with false accusations. The fact that both conclusions are equally (un)supported by the example shows that neither should be allowed. That leaves presentation of the raw fact without coloring (which is where we should have started) but that has the problem that it was a trivial event way below the notability barrier. So the case for inclusion seems to not exist at all. --Zero^talk 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

• Determining what is the "most serious" violation is POV and OR.
• Removing famous Dayan quote was unjustified.

--Doron 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Golan Heights Druze

Copied and reformatted from User talk:Doron and User talk:Palmiro:

Hi Doron. I've a question for you about this article. It refers to Golan Druze and Golan Muslims, leaving there no doubt that the Golan Druze are not to be considered Muslims. As you probably know, this is a tricky question. I'm aware that in Israel it is common not to regard the Druze as Muslims, and the Israeli Druze themselves generally take this view. However, in Syria and Lebanon, the Druze are very keen to emphasise that they are Muslims, and are treated as such for all official purposes. Indeed refusal to recognise them as such seems - in those countries - like bigotry. And of course, the majority of the Golan Druze remain Syrian citizens. Have you any idea as to the views of the Druze residents of the Golan, and if not, any idea how best to deal with this issue in the Golan Heights article? Perhaps it's OK as it is, but to me as someone rather more familiar with the Syrian and Lebanese Druze, it strikes a very jarring note. Palmiro | Talk 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Palermo. Well, to be honest, it's the first time I've heard that Druze are generally concidered Muslim (please excuse my ignorance...). The Druze article says that they "are a distinct religious community", and there's an uncited claim that "they are not considered Muslims by most Muslims in the region". Later on it says that "[i]n Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, the Druze have official recognition as a separate religious community". Given that, I don't think what I wrote in the Golan Heights is so horrible, but if you have a better phrasing, please improve it. I probably should have written "... and 2,100 Alawites", because I think the (non-Druze) Muslims of the Golan Heights are all Alawites, but I don't know it for fact. Note that I am citing an official Israeli source that doesn't consider Druze to be Muslim, which is the primary reason why I made the distinction in the phrasing (and it doesn't provide data about Sunis, Shi'ites, etc.). I really don't know enough about the subject, so if it is established that Druze ought to be considered Muslim, then given the cited data, I suppose the phrasing would be "21,400 Muslims, including 19,300 Druze...". However, I think this issue should be clarified first in the Druze article (I see you're taking part in this effort right now).--Doron 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I said, it's a complex issue, and I apologise in advance for the convoluted nature of my remarks here. I've put some excerpts from a paper on the subject here which might give you an idea of the issues involved, and I'll see if I can find anything else, though whether there is anything to be found directly relevant to the Golan inhabitants I do not know.

Incidentally, it's not so much the case that the Druze are generally regarded as Muslims - in Syria, and probably in Lebanon (at least by Sunnis and Shia), I'd say they are generally regarded as non-Muslims, but they are themselves keen to state that they are indeed Muslims (whether this in fact represents their own private self-identification or not, which is a further complication), and both states recognise them as such. My point, I suppose, would be that if the Golan Druze like other Syrian Druze regard themselves as Muslims (and this of course is the point that isn't as yet clear, at least to me), we probably shouldn't imply that they aren't. Palmiro | Talk 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand it is a delicate issue. Actually, as far as we are concerned, it's delicate from two different aspects: (a) we do not wish to offend anyone when dealing with issues of identity and self-identity; (b) on the other hand, we should be careful to avoid original research. Almost any phrasing I can think of would possibly conflict with one of these aspects. I recall a recent edit war regarding Messianic Judaism, and I can imagine similar issues with respect to Mormons. This really should be discussed in Talk:Druze, how about we first see something definite there before changing the phrasing in the Golan Heights article, just to avoid yet another edit war (I expect pro-Israelis to oppose your view)?--Doron 14:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you could establish that the Muslims/other Muslims are all Alawis that would get us around the issue, as you could simply refer to them as such and the text would therefore no longer imply that the Druze weren't Muslims. Incidentally, many more conservative, if that's the word, Sunnis in Syria don't consider Alawis to be real Muslims either (something the Alawis greatly resent), but that's not really relevant here. Palmiro | Talk 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Palmiro and Doron, Pardon me for interrupting ;-). From Tayseer Mara'Ii and Usama R. Halabi, Life under occupation in the Golan Heights, J Palestine Studies, XXII . no, 1 (Autumn 1992), pp, 78-93, we have the following information. Before 1967 the majority of the population was Sunni, but most of them left. After the war: "At all events, by July there were but six villages remaining in the entire territory: Majdal Shams, by far the largest, Buqa'ayta, Masada, 'Ayn Qinea, S'hita, and Ghajar. Except for Ghajar, which lay at some distance to the west near the Syrian-Israeli armistic line, the villages were within a few kilometers of one another near the cease-fire lines. And again except for Ghajar, which is Alawite, the remaining villages were almost entirely Druze." S'hita was destroyed in 1970. This paper does not explictly answer the question of whether the Golan Druze self-identify as Muslims. However, before 1967 they were not distinct from the other Syrian Druze and so presumably had similar attitudes. After 1967: "The Israelis also banned at the beginning of their occupation the Syrian curriculum and replaced it with one specially designed to inculcate a sense of separate "Druze identity," distinct from the Arab identity-as if members of this eleventh-century offshoot of Islam constituted a nation rather than a religious sect. This policy was refined over the years, and became more pronounced in 1976 with the creation of the 'Educational Committee for the Druze.' Special history books were developed entirely in contradiction with the facts: one reads, for example, of historic ties between the Jewish and Druze communities by virtue of their common minority status, and of traditional enmity between the Druze and their Sunni brothers. The message is driven home in countless ways that the Druze are a special community, superior to and distinct from other Arabs-indeed not Arab at all." (p81). There is also interesting information on the relation between the Golan Druze and Druze in Israel and the WB. Consistent information also appears in Bashar Tarabieh, Middle East Report, No. 194/195, (May - Aug., 1995), pp. 43-47. Cheers, --Zero^talk 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(end of copied section)

Well, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, which had provided the figures I quoted, distinguishes between Druze and (other) Muslims, whether rightly or wrongly. One may very well suspect that it is part of an agenda to align the Druze with Israel, as brought up by Zero. However, I think that regardless of how they are presented, the figures themselves are valuable to the article (I don't know of any other reliable sources for such figures), and I can't see how I can get around this with alternative phrasings without being rightly accused of misquoting a source and original research. I suppose the best way of softening it a bit would be to write something like "... and 2,100 (non-Druze) Muslims". Anyway, I think Zero's references should be incorporated into the article in a section about the relation between the Golan Heights Druze and Israel (perhaps combined with material already in the article).--Doron 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, either that approach or the approach of directly quoting the Israeli CBS should resolve this problem. For some more information on the situation in Syria, here is a paper on the subject of Islamic religious education in the Syrian school system which addresses in passing the issue of Druze identity. It's very interesting, and quite depressing, reading in its own right for anyone interested in such topics. The author consistently refers to the Druze as Muslims himself. Palmiro | Talk 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got a book (in Hebrew) about Israeli Druze written by Rabah Halabi. Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but from a quick glance it appears that he is distinguishing between Druze and Muslims. He is, of course, writing from the point of view of Israeli Druze, which may not necessarily apply to Golani Druze.--Doron 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of the problem, isn't it though? I don't think it is commonly disputed that the Israeli Druze generally don't self-identify as Muslims, but conversely the Syrian Druze generally do, at least in public or official contexts, and so the question is how can we refer to the Golan Druze without, if possible, taking uninformed position on this, or alternatively how can we arrive at a sustainable, neutral and informed position... Palmiro | Talk 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that distinguishing between Druze and Muslim in this article is just a way to cut in two the Arab population of the Golan and hide the fact that they are more numerous than the Jews. JB 12:13, 14 April 2007

Of course not. Even "divided", the Druze alone are more numerous than the Jews.--Doron 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1967 refugees

The article quotes Morris, which claims that between 80,000 and 90,000 residents of the Golan Heights left in 1967. Other sources, including one that is referred to in the same paragraph, have significantly higher numbers. Morris himself does not say where he got his figures, and only mentions them offhand. Unless there is one widely-accepted figure, and the other figures are groundless, shouldn't we mention them as well?--Doron 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are good sources, yes. However, the Washington Report article cited in the paragraph in question states that the residents and their families now number 500,000; this is obviously quite a different claim. Are there other sources saying that the actual number of refugees was higher than that given by Morris? I also have doubts about the remarks cited to the Washington Report article about Israel refusing to let the refugees return. Was there ever any question, from the Syrian side, of their returning while the area remained under Israeli occupation? I'm not familiar with the issue, but it sounds most unlikely.

Actually, I think the article could do with more detail on these issues, on where these refugees are now residing, administrative arrangements concerning them (as far as I recall these are quite specific, and they are not treated as residents of the governorates where they now reside), etc, and on the parts of the Golan still under Syrian control. Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the 147,000 figure in that link, which occurred in other sources. In T. Mara'i and U. R. Halabi, "Life under Occupation in the Golan Heights", Journal of Palestine Studies, 22:1, 1992, it says that the area that came under Israeli rule had a population of approximately 130,000, of which all but 6,000 left. They also don't give a reference to their figures.

Yes, I must say I haven't been able to find a lot of information regarding the Golan Heights refugees at all. It would also be interesting to find some information about the issue of how they left -- there are some claims that at least part of the population was encouraged to leave by the IDF.--Doron 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that when reading through the link. The second in particular sounds like an eminently citable source. Palmiro | Talk 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jawlan.org/

I added this site as an external link, however this is being reverted. Reason for revert was "its a personal website" and "mostly Arabic so its useless on English Wikipedia". First, it's not a personal website, it says contact:Dr Tayseer .... , but it is the website of Golan for Development [22], read about it. Second, I always see external links on English Wikipedia that aren't in English. I have put this here, someone verify please, I am getting tired of people reverting my legitimate edits. Asabbagh 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any information on the organization besides what is claimed on the website? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[23]. Asabbagh 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any specific link you think I should look at there? Any that explain how the group is organized, run, funded, etc.? Also, what do you think the links adds to English Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew/Arabic order

We can't be having a revert war (well, a revert skirmish so far) about which should come first, the Hebrew name or the Arabic name, can we! Not that it matter to me that much really, but I think the Arabic should come first, because:

• Arabic is the mother tongue of the majority of the population.
• The Golan is viewed by almost every country and international body as Syrian land, and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan is not clear even from the Israeli position.

Anyway, it's a rather trivial issue which is of no consequence, and it would make a rather WP:LAME edit war.--Doron 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let that slide for now, and forget about it. But look at how the article is totally written from a Zionist-Israeli POV. Is there any mention of how they destroyed villages and cities and forced Syrians to leave their homes, even after they withdrew from a part of the Golan, they left rubble and land mines behind them. And if I add an external link, it gets removed. I'm not a wikipedia admin, but you would have to blind not the see the bias here. Asabbagh 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was just starting to look into this issue.--Doron 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The word being in Hebrew is not related to sovereignty of countries. Hebrew is a language, it does not equal Israel. The Hebrew is the older name historic name of the region as depicted in the article. The area is not dominated by Arab speaking people to justify a change to that order, though not sure it will justify it because of the historic context - it's a terminological concept that has nothing to do with politics but simply a basic format of historic accuracy. The article is indeed biased though, from the Arab point of view. The history section is very WP:OR and tries to reprsent a fantasy as if the Israeli towns weren't constantly harassed based on some quote by Dayan. Utterly ridicilous. Also the United Nations as we know is biased against Israel, there are articles about in on wikipedia, and that should probably not be in the lead. We should not take sides in the dispute. It's a territory of disputed land under Israel rule and annexation for all purposes and has been in Israel for 40 years prospering. This is the factual information we should represent and not Arab propoganda even if that propoganda dominates the systematic fallacy of the U.N. Anyway, except that the article is pretty good IMO. Amoruso 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this rant. It is Arab territory (according to everyone except Israel) with an Arab majority. The historical Hebrew name refers to the city of refuge, not to the whole plateau. Besides, who cares about historical names, most countries used to have different names in different languages in the past. At present, Arabic is the language of the indeginous majority which has inhabited the territory continuously for centuries, while Hebrew is the language of a minority of relatively recent settlers.--Doron 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. It's by maximum a sort of 50-50 between Jews and Druze, and many Druzes speak Hebrew. Also, calling by the mass amount of Israelis who travel there all the time, and spend its time, the culture of the place and essence is Hebrew too. Also, the historical connections of the root of the name is more important. All that, the most important is there's no grounds for this now after it was discussed in the past except for a POV change which is not justified. Amoruso 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this issue is worth arguing about, and I'm really bored, so I won't answer your arguments, which of course I disagree with. I'll just note that it's 45%-55% between Jews and Arabs.--Doron 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Geography section map

Having the map that shows the Golan heights as Syrian territory is not POV, it is very NPOV in fact. Not just the whole world agrees on this, but even the government of Israel do not declare the heights as Israeli territory. From the article:

The governmental Jewish Agency for Israel states that "Although reported as an annexation, it is not: the Golan Heights are not declared to be Israeli territory."

It isn't declared to be Israeli territory, the only thing that is declared is that Israel has control over these heights militarily. All Israeli settlements in the Golan are illegal by international law and considered as such by the UN. Asabbagh 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Passage about Druze in the Golan Heights

The recently added passage is POV:

Most Druze in the Golan Heights are involved in farm work, and live relatively comfortable lives. They, including the non-citizens, live in a freer society than they would face in Syria under the present regime. Many of them fear that taking Israeli citizenship would put them in danger if the Heights should be returned to Syria.

The main point that is being made here is that the GH residents are better off under Israeli rule than under Syrian rule. That they "live relatively comfortable lives" and "in a freer society" than under Syrian rule, is stated as fact, though it is clearly the journalist's opinion. Surely, others may disagree. Another point, which is the last sentence in the passage above, seems to me a misquote, as I cannot find it in the original, please refer me to the corresponding sentence in the quoted article.--Doron 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This passage is sourced to a relaible source. If there are other reliable sources that make the claim that Syrian rule would provide a freer society, you may add them. If we start removing sourced information because "others may disagree" there would be little left of WP content. Isarig 00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Doron is correct on both counts. It has to be stated as an opinion, and the misquote has to be fixed (the part "put them in danger" does not appear in the source). --Zero^talk 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an opinion on the situation, nothing more than that. Asabbagh 08:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, it may be a reliable source, but it is still only an opinion. The journalist is in no position to determine under which regime the Golan Heights Druze are better off and he provides no evidence for his conclusion. Reputable journalists make all sorts of comments about political situations, it does not make them facts, it's only their opinion. The source is obviously a political commentary.--Doron 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You may attribute the opinion to its source, but you may not delete info sourced to reliable sources with the excuse that "others may disagree". Isarig 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The current phrasing is presented as a fact, whereas it is only an opinion, which misleads the reader. The last part is a misquote. Please suggest a phrasing that addresses these valid points.--Doron 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Liek I said, feel free to atruibute this to the source. Isarig`

No. You added a misleading passage, so remove it or improve it. It was not me who added flawed contents.--Doron 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the passage as it is. If you don't like it, I am ok with you attribuitnig it to the source, but don't order me around or ask me to make changes on your behalf, thanks. Isarig 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it. Please re-add the contents after building consensus.--Doron 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not finewith removig it. Either keep it as is, or edit to the compromise verison supported by the otehr editors here- by attributing the statement to the source. Please do not revert withmisleading edit summaries as you have dione on your last edit. Isarig 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't own the article. Read WP:CON. The newly-introduced contents is disputed, do not re-add it without achieving consensus.--Doron 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not own the article either, and please don't patronize me. The new content is not disputed - it is well sourced to a reliable source. Several editors here have suggested, as a compromise to accomodate your POV, that the statement which you believe is not factual , be attruibuted to the source. I am fine with that compromise, which is the consensus here, and you may edit the article to reflect that compromise. You may NOT falsely claim the the discussion on Talk supports your unilaterl removal, and you look ridiculous when you repeatedly revert sourced content while urging others not to engage in edit warring. Isarig 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The contents in question were not part of the article until 21 hours ago, and are objected by at least three editors here, so you shouldn't reintroduce it without building consensus first. No phrasing of this material has been agreed on, certainly not the one you reintroduced thrice, which is explicitly rejected by some of the editors. My edit summary "per talk" was meant to say that the reason is stated in the talk page and not that consensus has been achieved, my apologies if it was misleading, I'll try to write more elaborate edit summaries in the future.--Doron 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the discussion The editors you refer to suggested this be remedied by attributing the claim to the source - explictly so. For exmaple : "It has to be stated as an opinion", from Zero. You are the onl yone objectign to the inclusion of this sourced material, and consensus does not mean that one dissenting editor can hold the article hostage. Isarig 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not object the inclusion of the material, I (like the other two) object the phrasing you reintroduced three times. If we want the material to be in the article, we had better start working on an accepted phrasing.--Doron 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not baout phrasing, as th emaetrial appears in the quoted source. If you wnat to add something liek "acoording to..." that's fine. Feel free to do that. Isarig 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time now to improve the phrasing. If you can come up with a phrasing that we can all live with (i.e., consensus), then it can make it into the article.--Doron 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am against the inclusion of the information in its current state. Unless it explicitly states that it is an opinion held by whoever, then it should be removed. Asabbagh 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to "improve the phrasing". If you wnat to attribute it, do so. The phrasing is "According to ..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

"According to Donald Macintyre..."? And what about the other issue (misquote)?--Doron 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide the proper quote, or remove that part. Isarig 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that a "yes"?--Doron 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yes" to what? If there are msiquotes, fix them or remove them. Isarig 19:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you suggesting the phrasing "According to Donald Macintyre..."?--Doron 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, The Independent does not and has never reported favorably towards Israel. Living "relatively comfortable" lives simply means that their everyday life is normal. It describes the situation of these non-citizens on disputed territory. What is their life like? Pretty normal, not as a journalist says, but as the Druze were quoted as saying. --Shamir1 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So? It's still stated as fact in the article, and it should be stated as opinion, regardless of how The Independant reports about Israel. And you shouldn't have added it back in before proper discussion... Asabbagh 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is stated as a fact in the news source. All it means is that the Druze living on disputed territory still live their lives as normal. --Shamir1 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a fact. Druze that want the Golan Heights returned to Syria do not agree with this "fact". Druze that have relatives across the border do not agree with this "fact". Druze that have been arrested for their pro-Syrian activity do not agree with this "fact". Did the journalist conduct a statistically-sound survey that concluded that the Druze live normal life under Israeli rule and are better off than under Syrian rule, or was this just his impression?

Note that you reintroduced yet again a disputed passage without building consensus. I urge you to follow Wikipedia policy on building consensus before reintroducing this material.--Doron 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed passage again. Shamir1, this passage should be discussed here until we build a consensus, please contribute to the discussion and keep the passage out of the article until the issue is resolved.--Doron 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

order of countries

I reverted the edits by Louse for the same reason that we do not edit articles with 'English spelling' colour to 'American' color and whatever was written first is supposed to stay. --Shuki 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The first translation should still be the Arabic one though. Asabbagh 07:46, 13

April 2007 (UTC)

why? Isarig 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My recent changes

• The word "fear" was cherrypicked from a different paragraph. The relevant quote comes from "Most worrisome to Golan residents when it comes to a future return to Syria are economic issues. While not as rich as the bon vivants of Tel Aviv, the inhabitants have a standard of living vastly surpassing that of their counterparts on the Syrian side of the border", thus "worry".
• The older phrasing may appear as if only the first sentence is taken from the Independent. My phrasing makes it clear that the second sentence is a claim, not a fact.--Doron 22:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you just did not read carefully enough,( though phrasing your edits as "The word "fear" was cherrypicked" makes it increasingly harder to assume such good faith). The actual text is "This and the fact that they can earn more in Israel are why many young Druze, as well as their parents, fear a return to Syria.". Nothing was cherry picked. Isarig 22:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By cherrypicking I mean quoting one part of the sentence verbatim ("have a standard of living vastly surpassing that of their counterparts on the Syrian side of the border") while ignoring the word "worrisome" from the previous sentence that is directly related to the quoted bit, and, instead, picking the word "fear" that appears in a different paragraph, ten sentences below, and is related to two factors, only one of which is related to the quoted sentence. Why "worry" is not good enough for you, and you had to pick the word "fear" from a different paragraph, is not clear.--Doron 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

so, you did see the word "fear" the first time, but pretended it did not exits. I'll stop assuming good faith then, thanks. Isarig 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I saw the word, read what I wrote above: "The word 'fear' was cherrypicked from a different paragraph". Hence I saw the word, and it was in a different paragraph. If I said it was in a different paragraph, you may assume I saw it, good faith or not. I mean, I would have to be guessing to say it was in a different paragraph had I not actually seen it, and what are the chances of such a wild guess -- it could be nowhere at all, it could be in the same paragraph, it could appear multiple times all over the article, but no -- it actually appears once (1), and in a paragraph other than the one from which the quote was taken, just like I said, so the chances that I would write "[t]he word 'fear' was cherrypicked from a different paragraph" without actually seeing it are slim enough for you to assume that I saw it (in a different paragraph, that is). Furthermore, I would hardly call this "pretend[ing] it did not exist", surely when one pretends something does not exist, one does not claim it is somewhere specific, as you'd surely agree I did.

Mind you, the article still contains the word "fear", which (in case you haven't realized it by now) comes from a paragraph other than the one that you quoted, replacing the more appropriate phrase "worry about", which I derived from "worrisome" that is adjacent to the quoted passage in the original article and thus more appropriate.--Doron 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if editors could review and comment on the removal of well-sourced content on the legal status of the Golan Heights from the article on Syria by Isarig (talk · contribs): [24][25][26].

It is apparent time and again Ian Pitchford that you don't understand WP:NPOV. Please review it a few times more. Thank you. Amoruso 10:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing "are involved in farm work" because:

• It does not belong in the Current Status section
• Without it, the two sentences can be reduced into one sentence, making it clear that they are both taken from the Independent.
• It appears to be incorrect, according to [27]. For some reason, the Golan Heights Subdistrict is not listed there, but the North District has 5 subdistricts, so data for the Golan Heights can be inferred indirectly by subtracting the total from the four listed subdistricts, leading to about 19% employed in agriculture. While this is an inaccurate estimate (not to mention original research), still it is very unlikely that "most Druze are involved in farm work" since the Druze are the majority of Golan Heights residents, and since most Jewish settlements are also agricultural, so it is impossible that more than 50% of the Druze are employed in agriculture. The author of the cited article does not give his sources, and I find it hard to believe that he made that assertion based on official data. I would like to see more accurate data about employment of Druze in the Golan Heights.

--Doron 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Polysemic toponym" ...

The section "Names and applications" contained the following sentence:

"Golan" is a polysemic toponym, its different meanings referring to areas that are not coterminous

On 16 April, I changed that to:

Multiple areas with differing borders are each called "Golan"

Reasons for this change: The new version is simpler and shorter. I acknowledge there's a time and place where you can't avoid technical terms (polysemic, toponym, coterminous). However, in this instance they add nothing to the explanation, they just make it more difficult to understand.

On 25 April, Shamir1 reverted this change and several other things (diff). The edit comment is "Rv (according to druze themselves)", which I don't quite understand.

I assume Shamir1 accidentally reverted my change because the revert was one of several changes. I'm therefore putting my change back in and stating my reason above. Discuss if necessary. --193.99.145.162 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New OR material about boundary between the British and French mandates

The new text added by Amoruso is incorrect and original research. Before we can even begin to discuss this newly-added material, we need to see a reliable source that makes these claims. No, the passia.org map is not enough evidence. Given past experience, let me remind all of the involved users that Wikipedia policy requires a consensus to be reached when adding disputed material, so please don't start yet another edit war.--Doron 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing disputed here, and your behaviour is being very disruptive Doron. You're also not allowed to stalk users or to revert and remove sourced material. The source is sourced, Article 5 is explicit and it's all facts. Please see WP:OWN and relax with your rv's. Cheers. Amoruso 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source that indicates that the 1922 resolution fixed the borders. Please provide a reliable source that says that the British breached the mandate resolution. Note that this is an article talk page, if you have personal issues with me, my user talk page is the appropriate place.--Doron 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)

Amoruso's additions are historical nonsense. Trying to make an argument out of Article 5 is obviously OR. It was just a matter of a rather strained agreement between the UK and France that took a few years to implement. The League of Nations approved the 1923 boundaries. The reference given is adequate but I have the main texts including the 1920 and 1923 agreements that could be quoted if necessary. --Zero^talk 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Provided more refs for the issue. I've provided a ref for Article 5 which is explicit. Amoruso 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are still doing original research. The placement of the Golan into the French sphere was agreed in the Anglo-French treaty signed in Dec. 1920 well before the Mandate text was agreed. It is there in black and white and won't go away. All that happened in 1923 was that the details of the boundary marked on the ground by the Anglo-French commission during 1921-1922 were formally agreed to. No decision was made in 1923 to transfer a large amount of land (only minor adjustments) that had not been agreed already in 1920. Like it says in the State Department report: "Finally in December of 1920, this boundary, placed a few miles north of the Sykes-Picot line, became the division between Palestine and Lebanon and Syria. An Anglo-French commission erected demarcation pillars along the frontier and incorporated their report into the boundary agreement of 1923." [28] The 1923 agreement itself agrees with this description. Any description of these events that fails to properly cite the 1920 treaty is obviously defective. --Zero^talk 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, you did not provide a source that says that the British violated the article. It is your own conclusion.--Doron 05:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did provide a source for this. Plase don't resort to lies. Amoruso 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, didn't see it. Now who is Jan Willem van der Hoeven?--Doron 14:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a Christian evangelist with no known credentials as a historian. Lots of credentials as a fervent advocate of Zionist causes, however [29], and the author of a "prophetic book" (wow!). Quoting him as a source of facts is a disgrace. If there is a place in the article where the Christian evangelical view of the Golan would fit, he could go there. However, I don't think there is such a place. --Zero^talk 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How could Woodrow Wilson, writing "in the spring of 1920", have protested actions that supposedly did not take place until 1923? --Zero^talk 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, I'm amused by time and again with this "credentials for historian" demand by you. Do I need to quote you again when you said that there's no such thing as credentials for historian? Maybe there are credentials for people dealing in Mathematics and other domains etc, but not for history, let the reader decide that by the source. It's not a WP:RS requirement to get your approval on who is and who isn't an historian. It's a valid source. As to your question, I don't understand what you mean, the concessions were before 1923. The source for both the violation and the partition of the jordan river btw are already found in the article: [30] Amoruso 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither van der Hoeven nor Abelson is a scholar of any kind, neither has had anything published in the field of history or international law -- or anything at all really except for commentary, so neither is qualified to determine that the British have violated the terms of the mandate. If this is all you can get, then there's no doubt that it is incorrect.--Doron 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, the thing is, Zero didn't just ask for credentials, he provided reasons why this is definitely not a valid, neutral source. Asabbagh 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Van der Howeven and Abelson can be quoted in the article according to WP:RS, sorry Doron. Amoruso 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, we can add this if the disruption by POV pushing users stops: Page 8 of Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 shows the Golan Heights area included in "The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home." It also show the Golan Heights area as "Ceded by Britain to the French Mandate of Syria, 1923.". Amoruso 07:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say the British violated the terms of the Mandate. No, we can't quote anybody's political opinion. Everybody's got an opinion and there's no reason to consider these individuals' opinion as having any significance. As a source about the legality of Britain's actions, these two individuals are not reliable sources.--Doron 08:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yes", we should only quote opinions of people who are anti Israel. It's not opinions, it's documented fact. Britian violated Article 5 of the mandate by ceding this territory since all Palestine was part of the arrangement of a Jewish National Home. I'm sorry if you find that offensive for some odd reason. Amoruso 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That Britain's actions violated the mandate is documented fact? Documented where? If it's documented fact, you should be able to supply a reliable source that states it. The only fact here is that you have only been able to quote unqualified individuals who think so. No legal experts, no prominent historians, only one activist and one retired land valuer.--Doron 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to help the phrasing. You have no proff of this misqualification nor any supoort for this by the wikipedian rules. It's all WP:RS. Ian Pitchford, please stop removing the sources like this for POV reasons: "In May 1967 before the Six-Day War of 1967, Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready...to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland....The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." Amoruso 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting reliable sources from this article and inserting dubious quotations in their place. --Ian Pitchford 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, I've added sources. Please stop delting sourced material like above with fake abuses and manipulative summaries. You are not allowed to blind RV sources and make false allegations. Amoruso 17:24, 13 May 2007

The sources on the border arrangements are impeccable - please stop deleting them. The source for the alleged quotation is AIPAC's 'Myths & Facts', hardly a reliable source. --Ian Pitchford 17:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The source you're deleting if from a university study, not from the website you claim. Stop lying. Amoruso 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, you are the one that is blindly reverting all the time. With this massive removal of material that has been painstakingly collected, it is impossible to notice what your contributions are. You refrain from discussing the material that you are removing as well as the material you are adding. Dispute resolution should be done on the talk page, not by fighting over the article.--Doron 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make phony accusations. Amoruso 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't phony accusations at all. It would help, Amoruso, if before you add anything obviously controversial, you discuss it here. Asabbagh 05:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... as required by Wikipedia policy.--Doron 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlike others, I always use the discussion page. Amoruso 09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first action here after an absence of nearly a week was a blind revert. I commend you for your subsequent self-revert and urge you to build consensus by discussion.--Doron 12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never blindly reverted and I urge you to follow your own advice. Amoruso 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I do, I only revert an edit if I find it extremely inappropriate, and I only revert once. If it is added again, I start a discussion and only revert again if the other side is not cooperative. Please let me know if I blindly revert or take part in revert wars. Now enough about me, shall we discuss your disputed changes and see if we can reach some kind of agreement?--Doron 13:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What change do you dispute ? Amoruso 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the changes that started this section in the talk page, if they are still relevant, that is.--Doron 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Assad bathing in the Lake of Galilee

The story about the memories of the late Assad of swimming in the Lake of Galilee is well-known, but it isn't clear what's its significance exactly. Is there any indication that indeed the Syrian position is "anchored" in it, as this article puts it?--Doron 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any, and the citation given doesn't actually say as much, it merely recounts that Assad refered to his memories of swimming there when asked by Clinton if the Syrian position on the issue was definitive. That´s leaving aside the poor quality of the article taken as a secondary source for a question of modern history. I've taken the sentence out. Palmiro | Talk 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't have most of my books with me at the moment, but there's certainly no mention of this in Eyal Zisser's Asad's Legacy. Presumably if it's something that political analysts think is a major factor it will be dealt with in at least one of the many serious works available on recent Middle Eastern international affairs. Palmiro | Talk 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are two quotes from http://www.joshualandis.com/blog, which is one of the best available English-language sources for Syrian political affairs on the internet.

1. From an interview with Joshua Landis:

When Ehud Barak was prime minister, Clinton thought he could broker a deal between Barak and Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father. But Barak pulled back, right at the last minute, didn’t he?

They were very close. And the difference was that Syria wanted everything up to the borders of 1967. And Israel wanted to give less than that. The Israelis wanted to keep land on the other side of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee, to guarantee that the Syrians would never be able to get near the water. For Syria, it was crucial that Assad get back all of the land. Egypt got back all of the land [taken by Israel in 1967 as part of the 1979 peace treaty], Jordan satisfied itself on its land issues. For Syria it was, “We have to get it all back. We’re not going to do less than Egypt.”

and 2, from a blog posting about Clayton Swisher's book on Camp David:

Asad eventually agreed to Barak's water and security demands, but Barak got cold feet and would never commit to the 1967 borders. He wanted to give less. Asad would not accept less because he wanted no less than Egypt or Jordan had gotten. He had begun the negotiations on the understanding that both sides were discussing withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

I've trawled through his site and haven't found anything else except a quote from Uri Avnery stating that regaining the Golan shore was "a question of honour" for Hafiz al-Assad.Palmiro | Talk 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We need not use the word "anchored", but unless you think there is some neutrality issue, it seems that this historic quote is quite salient. What about as follows: Assad rejected any agreement that did not include that strip of land,

stating ""That is the place I know as the border between Israel and Syria. Up until 1967, I would swim in the Sea of Galilee, I would have barbecues there, I ate fish."? Tewfik^Talk 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic???

Is the the Golan Heights made of basalt? If it is, it's not just an original plateau, but insted a volcanic plateau. I know it is part of a Holocene volcanic field, but I can't find anything if the whole plateau is made of volcanic rock. Black Tusk 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, but according to a Hebrew book I have, the entire plateau's top layer is a thick layer of basalt of up to several hundreds of meters. It used to be a wide bowl, and during the Pleistocene it was covered by a huge amount of volcanic matter. Does this help?--Doron 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Black Tusk 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it's volcanic... the entire area is full of black basalt stone and other than mount Hermon, the rest of its peaks consist of old inactive volcanoes.

Nomination

Guys, I think this page deserves more than B-class. Don't you want to nominate it?Shmuliko 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

242 change to the intro

I noticed a mistake in this paragraph I helped phrase in the past. The former text implied that are several resolutions calling for withdrawl from territories. In fact, only 242 did. The others were on the issue of the annexation and settlements. 242 itself did not call for withdrawl from the Golan and this is in fact the debate... Israel can say it fullfilled the resolution following its past withdrawl from Sinai and other areas. In fact, this is the position of law experts such as Blum - Israel can demand under a peace treaty that the Golan be in Israeli territory following the condition of secure borders. Cheers, Amoruso 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court re: citizenship

Amoruso, would you mind giving here a quote from the Supreme Court ruling? I am just curious about the exact wording (regarding "obligated" and "part of Israel"). Also, the date of the ruling would be useful in the footnote. Thanks --Doron 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Golan Heights -- a water source of Israel

The article currently claims that the Golan Heights is the source of half of Israel's water sources. I'm not sure what exactly this should mean, but assuming it means that half of Israel's water supply comes from the Golan Heights, I'm pretty sure it is incorrect. The only reference to this claim I could find was an edit by Ian, which stated that "the Golan Heights provide 50 per cent of the water supply for Israel's deserts" (has been edited since), which is not exactly the same as providing 50% of all of Israel's water. Furthermore, according to official statistics, only 19% of Israel's water supply goes through the National Water Carrier, and I'm guessing that the rest is consumed locally, i.e., relatively close to where it is produced. Even the Carrier's waters can't be claimed to be entirely of Golan Heights origin, since only part of the tributaries of the Sea of Galilee are located on the Heights, the rest in Lebanon and Israel proper. Therefore I doubt that half of Israel's water supply originates from the Golan Heights, and I would like to find a more accurate source for this claim.--Doron 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The source I cited (OUP Reference) only made the claim you quote about Israel's deserts Doron. --Ian Pitchford 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)