Talk:Golan Heights

Whot bothers Unomi?

most countries and NGO's around the world continue to refer to the Golan Heights as Occupied territory.[6][7][8][9][10] [11][12] [13]The Israeli law itself was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 497 [14]and the General Assembly has continued to reaffirm support for this resolution.

How is this not consensus? What is this excuse and why is it used to remove Israel's position regarding 242, and short description of archelogical/tourism etc in the Golan. If you haven't noticed, the article is more than just about political stuff. So please read the lead FIRST before removing it next time - it has exactly what you want. Amoruso (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, how do you feel about substituting controlled, governed and other euphemisms for occupied with occupied? Unomi (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My lead didn't make any new changes and didn't introduce any of these words you're mentioning. again, read it first. these words were there in both versions. I only made the changes that I discussed (not listing the actual refs one by one, adding the new information...) Amoruso (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have any problems with it then? Unomi (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that. When you accept that this has nothing to do with the lead (apparently userbox which I haven't touched now) then I'll answer unrelated questions that you feel you want to ask me. Amoruso (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Non of these changes was agreed upon on the talkpage: [1] I brought up some of the changes here [2], Amoruso if you want to do the changes you have to get consensus first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you said there, but if something specific bothered you, you could have attempted to improve it (and present the changes you want here first, like I did). You made a total revert without any justification. Amoruso (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you removed stuff and added stuff without any justification, I explained some of the things here:[3] and you did not address the issues, if you want to do any of the changes like for example removing "motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan"", like you did, get consensus first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed motion to resolution. Wow. Good one. Anything else? Amoruso (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that not the only thing you did, you removed the motion/resolution on the "occupied Syrian Golan", and there's also several other issues you haven't explained. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

no, there isn't. you're just making stuff up. Amoruso (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For example the part about "Golan has a rich history dating back to biblical times" is false, its history stretches back way further then biblical times, that link also directs to "History of ancient Israel and Judah". That is an attempt to connect the region to exclusive Israeli history. The part about "Israel argues that it may retain the Golan Heights as the text of Security Council Resolution 242 adopted after the Six Day War calls for "safe and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"" is already written in the "Strategic importance and territory claims" section, so you have made it a repeat. The economic exploitation of occupied Syrian land is presented as "popular tourist attraction". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't go back way before biblical times. I don't think you even read the article (nor the bible). It's duplicated because it's important to have Israel's opinion (supported by the United States in George's Bush letter in 2004 and by most legal scholars) in the lead. The comment about the tourists is unbelievable... are you serious? do you know how you sound? it's a popular tourist attraction regardless of your perception whether it's moral or just. you seem to be bent on tainting articles dealing with Israeli subjects with the word "occupation" at least 5000 times and contributing nothing more - not interesting.. Amoruso (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the bits about the scenery. Now why don't you tell us what it is that is bothering about the current version? Unomi (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

the most important change was to remove listing the countries and NGO's one by one. and you're attempting to change that back. also you inserted the world "occupied" at least 50 times. There's no place for that sort of propoganda. It's enough if you use it once. Amoruso (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think everyone involved needs to keep 3RR in mind, as it appears the article edits/reverts may be approaching 3RR restriction limits. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

UNGA resolutions on Golan Heights

This might of some use to someone. Surely it is incomplete so feel free to add extra examples. Zero^talk 07:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A/RES/48/212 1993 [4], A/RES/49/132 1995 [5], A/RES/50/129 1996 [6], A/RES/51/135 1997 [7], A/RES/52/54 1998 [8], A/RES/52/68 1998 [9], A/RES/53/57 1998 [10], A/RES/53/38 1998 [11], A/RES/53/55 1998 [12], A/RES/53/196 1999 [13], A/RES/54/230 2000 [14], A/RES/56/32 2001 [15], A/RES/56/61 2002 [16], A/RES/56/63 2002 [17], A/RES/57/112 2003 [18], A/RES/57/128 2003 [19], A/RES/58/100 2003 [20], A/RES/58/23 2004 [21], A/RES/59/33 2005 [22], A/RES/60/40 2006 [23], A/RES/60/108 2006 [24], A/RES/61/27 2007 [25], A/RES/61/120 2007 [26], A/RES/62/110 2008 [27], A/RES/63/99 2008 [28], A/RES/63/31 2009 [29], A/RES/64/21 2010 [30], A/RES/64/185 2010 [31]

good work. especially if they address SC 497 they can be added in reference to "continued to affirm support".. Amoruso (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted non agreed edits

I have reverted some non agreed edits, This IP changed and put the Hebrew first claiming: "By wikipedia's admins decision" Now this is incorrect in two ways. 1, No Wikipedia admin has here decided that Hebrew should be first about this region which is internationally recognized as in Syria. 2, even if it was true, no admin has any authority to decide a thing like that. If someone whats to ad the hebrew before arabic, you must get consensus for the change first.

Concerning the Israeli settlements. Thats the international name for the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Thats what all reliable sources call them. It is also what the CIA map says. I have now changed it to "settlements" so the "Jewish" is still there but it should really be "Israeli settlements".

I have also removed some advocacy websites in the external links section. [32] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is pro-Syrian

this article, show the Israeli settlement, as filthy thieves. in addition to that no state recognize the west strip which had been never in Syria as part of the Golan heights. this area, was more time in Israel, than Syria,due to that the main language is Hebrew,the first name should the Hebrew one. Pro-Syrian propagandists use this article, to attack Israel,and does not show the Israeli version completely,but a spot of conquerer in the history of Syria. written by a man who wants, that the both sides will be represented;84.229.240.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

I dont believe the words "filthy" or "thieve" are used in the article. You are correct on one point, a small strip of land east of the sea is in Israel. The 99% of the are called the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel has however never been in Israel. And is it is Syrian territory, the only official language of the Golan is Arabic. Because there are Israeli settlers in the Golan who use Hebrew we include the Hebrew. But, as always, thanks for sharing. nableezy - 13:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

you've never been at the Golan heights ha? first the Druzes don't speak Arabic for at least 3 generation. "the Israeli settlements" aren't dis-recognized,by any state apart from Syria and few emirates in the golf. your "settler" are the majority at the Golan heights and this is denamographic fact. you didn't wrote thieves, or filthy,but it is hinted. the fact that Syria ruled less time than Israel doesn't mention,and nor the Jewish population in the area at the roman era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.240.176 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article says Israel has controlled the Golan since 1967, and that Syria has controlled it from its founding till 67. And the Druze of the Golan overwhelmingly rejected Israeli citizenship and maintain they are Syrian citizens living under occupation (and they speak Arabic and French, not Hebrew). The entire world recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I have no idea what "dis-recognize" means, but nearly every state in the world says that the settlements in the Golan violate international law and have repeatedly voiced that view (an example being numerous UNGA resolutions that pass with such numbers as 171-1, guess who is the 1, calling on Israel to cease all settlement activity in the "occupied Golan"). I am sorry if you dont like that (well, not really, amused would be more accurate than sorry), but we dont go off of what a tiny minority says. The overwhelming majority, near unanimity, of sources say this is Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of occupation. As far as Wikipedia goes, that is the end. And until you can explain how "filthy" or "thieves" is hinted I will refuse to pay that assertion any attention. nableezy - 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is pro-Israeli by not following Wikipedia rules npov, due weight and the entire world view and not presenting it as a region in Syria, as it is in reality. Where in the article are the Israeli settlers presented as "filthy thieves" ? This area could not have been "more time in Israel, than Syria" because it has never been in Israel and it has always been in Syria. The official language of the country this region is a part of is Arabic, so therefor Arabic first. Why would a language (Hebrew) with no affiliation with the country this region is part of be before the official language of this region? The language of the native 160 000 people who were expelled from this region is Arabic. What the immigrants from the Soviet Union that have settled in Syria speak: [33], can not change reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do we speak about the area which is south to Syria and north to Israel? little facts: your "occupied native" is serving in idf from willing, the "non-naturalized" are going to bars in north tel-Aviv and their only connection to the Arabs,is that they both hate each other. who is the majority at the world? the Arab league?leaders who rides on camels with their national flag is not the world. USA didn't recognize it as Syrian area ever. so also, EU.the rest of the countries, don't support any side. Israel have this area from 1967,who the residents, pay taxations?to Israel. I don't which druzes you met but they don't want to come back to regime which by the way wikipedia in Arabic was blocked until last year. 43 years is bigger than Syria occupation in this area. this area was settled by Jews since the roman era, how it is a Syrian area? Malik at this time you are biased .תודה רבה

End the Occupation

This article and many others are currently under a Nableezian occupation. Nableezy express his point of view by using cheap propaganda. 36 times the words "occupation", "occupied" and "occupy" appears in this article. In most cases not in quotation marks and without mentioning that this is someone's opinion. It is clear that Nableezy tries to indoctrinate his POV to the readers not only by rational arguments, but also by repeating the mantra until it is accepted by the readers. That is called brainwashing.
Nableezy and many western editors here (maybe some are even defeatist Jews) consider the resolutions of the on the UNGA as the word of god. However the UNGA resolutions are not binding. Only the UNSC resolutions are. In that particular UNGA vote in 2008, the U.S. was abstaining. The US is a major economic and political super power. It represents some 300 million people and is responsible for 20% of the world GDP. The Israelis are in a significant minority on this issue and it doesn't mean they are wrong. The majority isn't right just for being a majority.
There is a well known good old thinking American conservative saying:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Many Americans support this, whether Franklin said it first or not.
Listen to your conscious, not to the majority.
Soon, I will make changes. Megaidler (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And soon after I will revert those changes. A number of scholarly sources make this perfectly clear point. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. It is not only the UN, not only the ICRC, not only the US, the EU (and each of its member states), not only the Arab Leaguem, not only almost every state on the planet that says this. And I have given a number of sources on this page and the archives (one of which is in the article now) that makes clear that the US regards the Golan as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. UNSC resolution 497, adopted 15-0 with 0 abstentions, says "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". Note "occupied Syrian Golan". Finally, as the song goes, keep my name out your mouth and we can keep it the same. nableezy - 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you dispute that the Golan Heights are occupied by Israel, please bring some reliable sources that support your view and try to build consensus. Unilaterally making controversial changes to the article is a good way to get yourself blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

..and on that note, I don't think Megaidler has received a discretionary sanctions notification. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's never an uninvolved administrator around when you need one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

if jordan would tell you that your house belong to Israel? would you listen to it? nop. who rules this area,and I'm not asking humanitarian states like hamastan or libya. if I'll murder someone, in who's court I'll be judged? the answer Israel, even not Syria will judge me84.229.240.176 (talk) the EU and America is enough for, except from the Arab league and what I wrote, no state recognize or dis-recognize it. by the way the Arab world wouldn't support anytime Israel and you can be sure about that. can we the change the name of the article to "the Syrian Golan heights propaganda"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.240.176 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to bring to the discussion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

the sources I know are in Hebrew,you want to have them? I don't think you can read Hebrew, but do you want that I'll try to find them in Arabic?or Turkish(I don't believe I am able to get at this language). although you have evidence that the Golan heights it's belong to Syria, year to year, the Jews along the history were more the Arab occupation in the middle east.77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Most of what you wrote in unintelligible. If your point is that Israel has controlled the territory for a longer period of time than the modern state of Syria, the article already says that Israel has controlled the territory since 1967. You want to make the leap that because of this that means the territory is Israeli. Sorry, but that is simply not true. Countless sources can be provided making this simple and clear point. That you do not like the fact that the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel under occupation does not matter. If you want to voice the opinion, no matter how wrong it is, that because Israel has controlled (occupied is the word) the territory for over 40 years that it is Israeli territory you should get a blog. Wikipedia however will base its articles on what the sources say, and the sources say that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory. nableezy - 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

first let me begin,with your personal attack, that you are Illiteracy doesn't mean anything about me. now let's go on. wikipedia is an open encyclopedia,and with or because of this, it must to have both of the sides, or to be neutral, I don't care how much books you have which said that the Jews are guilty. you can also copy the protocol of Zion to here, to show your friends, how the filthy Jews robbed your land.if you won't respect obvious neutralism which wikipedia is ordered to have as an encyclopedia, you shall not be allow to edit any article, which related both Syria and Israel. this is a pro-Syrian article, it doesn't have any marks of '48, which shows that Syria, want a bigger "cake" than it had;and I'm wonder if I'm the only who is non-Muslim at this discussion, and if this article is not a stage to anti-Zionism or although anti-semitic 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Again, I dont believe the article once says that "the Jews" are either "filthy" "guilty" or that they "robbed" anybody of anything. And no, you are not the only non-Muslim here. I wont be responding to any more inane accusations or unintelligible rantings. Bye. nableezy - 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you probably don't know how to read,and you use English-Arabic dictionary; I tried to answer you at your talking page in your language, but unfortunately you aren't friendly today.If you won't protect your opinions, at least don't change the article with no consensus. by the way I protest, about the non-neutral administration of the administers, which are obviously inclining to favor of you. 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Dayan quote

There is no agreement to remove the Dayan quote. There is nothing in the article that says that "historians are very skeptical" about the reliability of his words. If you read everything in that article you can see: "They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament" "Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack." "Mr. Tal, who was then a reporter on a short-lived paper of which General Dayan was editor, said in a telephone interview that they held several conversations at the time, and it was his impression that General Dayan had been testing ideas for his memoirs, which were never completed." "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview said Shabati Teveth a biographer of Dayan" and at that part he spoke about the kibbutzes. Its from a reliable source and is presented not as a "truth" of what happened, but as a quote from Dayan. So there is no problem with the quote, its a very notable quote being from a defense minister which means it belongs here. And what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in other sources: Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon , and a former UN observer. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way this quote is too long -copyrighted- since you seem to be bent on keeping it you should summarise its content Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a copyright issue, if it had been the quote would not have been included in its entirety in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim, or in the NYTimes piece or in any number of other sources. And even if this were a copyright issue, the use of the quote clearly falls in the category of fair use. nableezy - 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

what ever the agreement received by A. Shlaim wp is not a partner in it, so I maintain that you have to summariseHope&Act3! (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And I maintain you are incorrect. This is a brief quotation which is acceptable on Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

May I say it? SYRIAN propaganda! do you want that I'll bring you a quote of Asad telling anti-semitic things,and says that the Jews should be in the sea and not in Palestine or the Golan heights? I think this article should not be related to the local politics; If you wrote this quote I'll write, this anti-semitic things, I don't care how much consensus you have, it ain't fair, and it ain't wikipedy.77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Let me get this straight. In an interview in 1976, first published in Yedioth Aharanoth in 1997, Moshe Dayan engaged in Syrian propaganda? Or is it that Avi Shlaim who included this quote in his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world that engaged in Syrian propaganda. Or is it that Serge Schmemann engaged in Syrian propaganda when he included this quote in a New York Times piece? If you have sources that provide quotes relevant to the topic of the article they may be used. Otherwise they will not be. nableezy - 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take an expression from the bible,"Who Are you The Ruler Of The Land TO..." decide which propagandize quotes will be at the article and which won't? this is not a reliable source,the book you mention it is an opinion one. as I said, and unfortunately you probably, don't understand(because in Syria, there are only one onion, of Assad) encyclopedia have the both edges of the stick. rather you believe or you condemn it, you have to show our side, or not to show yours,equation has 2 section and so an encyclopedic article, that is the different between your Syrian propaganda and the truth. 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

This quote appears in a number of reliable sources and not one source denies the Dayan said this. The quote is without doubt relevant to the topic of the article. If you have other quotes published in reliable sources that are relevant to the topic they may be included. If they are either not published in reliable sources or if they are not relevant to the topic of this article they will not be included. nableezy - 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

dead links

This action caused an international outcry including two condemnatory UN resolutions. Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the domino links have been fixed, and in the future use the {{deadlink}} tag rather than delete the link and replacing it with citation needed. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us be peaceful

if you want to be an Encyclopedia which worth something, you need to have both side's of the sticks. My wording was compromised and settle,OK nazaby by your comment I see your views, but with that, this is a controversial statement,it is not recognize by all the world or countries ,and it is not scientific proves. you cannot prove that is never been in Israel. you have Judea kingdom, and then Syria were yet to born, actually by the DNA examines the druzes, and the Christians Arabs has nothing in comment with your "Syrian Native". by the way if you are interested, few states have recognize that the druzes should have their own state, which not include the Golan heights.most of the "Syrian native population" you call, has yet to have any recognizability,that the druzes are the "lost native" of the Golan heights. By the way, all the Druzes who were at the Golan heights, got citizenship, few radicals refuse to have, but there is are also few radicals Christians who thinks Muhammad is a pig, so get everything to proportion. 84.228.155.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

Go away. Or at the very least provide a source to back your fantastical claims. Here, I'll give you one directly refuting what you say: [34]: the vast majority of the 18,000 Syrians, mostly Druze, that are left from the Golan's original population of 150,000, have refused to take Israeli citizenship. nableezy - 21:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)