Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:52, 11 April 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Volcanoes Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

my edit

My edit. I checked through the edits Gilbrand made on januari 1. I re added the entire dayan quote, there is no reason why it cant be in the article. It looked like Gilbrand had removed the parts she didn't like, and somehow interpreted "80%" to "some". "Israeli-occupied territories" re added to see also section since Golan is a part of that. Corrected Lake ram name. Re added the "due to UN and US pressure but resuscitated" reason for Israel stop of taking the water. I removed this sentence because it is unsourced: "Before the Six-Day War, Israeli farm communities in the Hulah Valley were subjected to constant shelling from the Golan. Syrian attacks killed 140 Israelis and injured many more from 1949 to 1967." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

your version slanted the article considerably toward the pro-Syrian POV. If there are unsourced sentences, you should tag them, rather than removing them. Please get consensus for your changes here before re-introducing them. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So if there is something anti-syrian that is unsourced, I can not remove it but have to tag them, and if there is a statement from an Israeli general, that is sourced, then that quote can be perverted and twisted and everything the "israeli side" don't like in that quote can be removed without any need of getting consensus at talkpage. Also notice that I added a "Citation needed" tag at one place but your disrespectful revert removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's something unsourced, be it pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian, you need to tag it. The issue with the quote you provided is differeent - it appears to be (a) too long, and (b) an attempt to "explain" certain actions, in a way that would be synthesis. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not up to you to decide if its to long or not, Its a informative quote and its presented as a quote in the article, nothing else. So if you wanted to remove everything from that quote not in accordance with your personal pro-israeli views and change "80%" to "some", then you should follow your own advise and get consensus at talk page for that. You are telling me that I have to tag it, but you didn't tag anything, you removed it instead. As I said I added a tag at one place that you removed so your post doesn't make sense, you are telling me that I have to do something (ad tag) that I did, and then you revert it and remove the tag that I added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dayan quote belongs and has been on this page for years. The idea that a Misplaced Pages editor thinks that what Dayan meant when he said that "80%" of the interactions with the Syrians were instigated by Israel means that "sometimes the attacks were provoked by Israel" is slightly funny but not in any way meaningful. nableezy - 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote be important because show how zionists precious" Dayan support genocide of Arab and other non jew living in Palestine. Israeli attempt to censor article by remove of IMPORTANT FACT will no be tolerate. Ani medjool (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not helping. nableezy - 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To Drork: Can you please explain what in this edit is pov, since you reverted it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you cite an irrelevant source and then jump to conclusions that are not derived from this source, and phrase them as an accusation against Israel. The fact that the British Mandate had a contract allowing French-Mandate subjects, or later Syrian citizens, to use the Sea of Galilee for fishing and drinking water does not entail that Israel was obligated to this contract (and we must bear in mind that Syria did not recognize Israel and declared the Israeli government an enemy). You say that Israel tried to prevent Syrians from exercising their rights without any proof that these rights actually existed, and without considering that the Israeli patrols in the Sea of Galilee could have been for other legitimate purposes. In my opinion, even without this edit the article is currently pro-Syrian biased, but this last edit is really a bit too much. DrorK (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this book: and this UN document irrelevant sources? The sources says specifically what the mandates had agreed, and that is what I wrote, that the mandates had given these rights, and the sources says specifically what Israel did not accept, and that is what I wrote. There is a UN document that I sourced from that clearly show that the rights existed, and the same rights are also mentioned in the book. You also removed the section that Israelis used to go into the DMZ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Mandate and the State of Israel are two different things. Is that so hard to understand? DrorK (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? The sources do not say they were the same thing and nor had I written that they were the same thing. You have failed to defend your revert.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain once again: your sources indicate that there was an agreement between British Mandate Palestine and French Mandate Syria regarding the use of the Sea of Galilee and the northern part of the Jordan River. As far as I know, such agreement existed indeed and was implemented, and was probably honored after Syria gained independence. However, the British Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist at midnight of the 15th of May 1948. The Mandate would have ended on that time even if the State of Israel had not been declared, since it was a British decision, considering the fact that the UN did not extended the UK Mandate rights over this region. Eventually the State of Israel inherited the British rule in the region known as the Galilee, and yet Israel had no obligation to honor all of the British Mandate's international agreements, especially as Syria never recognized it and declared itself an enemy of the Israeli government. To sum it all up - you cannot represent an agreement between the British Mandate and Syria as if it were an Israeli-Syrian agreement, and you cannot suggest Israel broke an agreement it never signed. DrorK (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The source do not say that the deal was for the mandate of Palestine but for "Palestine". I have not presented the agreement as if it was a Syrian-Israeli agreement. I have followed exactly what it says in the sources, deal between the mandates, that is what I wrought, Israel did not accept the deal, that is what I wrought. What you say about what Israel had no obligation to is OR. Bring sources that is directly connected to this issue. According to the source "UNTSO held that these agreements were still binding." You have not answered why you removed that Israelis used to go into the DMZ.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I've seen this abuse of the verifiability rule too many times in articles related to the ME, and you are trying to play this trick again here. You present a pro-Syrian source that makes a far-fetched claim. When I point to the weakness of this source, you send me to look for a source that refutes the claim, rather than making the effort and look for a better non-biased source to support this far-fetched claim. This is not how we do things here. In the context given here, Palestine is British Mandate Palestine. There was no other geopolitical entity by this name at the time. Now, this is an article about the Golan Heights. How does a British consent that Syrians use the Sea of Galilee control by their mandate government relevant here? You suggest that the relevancy is the (alleged) attempt of Syrian fishermen to make use of this consent during the 1950s and 1960s resulting in exchange of fire between Israel and Syrian. There is a slight problem with this theory - the British Mandate ceased to exist at midnight, 15 May 1948. Hence, it is impossible to talk about Syrian rights per an agreement with that entity when this entity is non-existing. You can find many sources that claim UFOs exist, but you won't trust these sources, would you? It is also inconceivable to trust a source that talks about obligations of the British Mandate after it ceased to exist. Just to make things even clearer, here is a link to the the Palestine Act 1948 adopted by the British Parliament, which officially announces the end of the British Mandate and, more importantly, does not designate any successor entity to the Mandate. DrorK (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still have not answered why you removed the DMZ part. How are the sources pro-Syrian? As I have already told you, I did not ad that Israel was obligated to do anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The DMZ are not part of the Golan Heights whatsoever. If you are referring to the British Mandate rule, then it ended at midnight, May 15, 1948, so I don't see its relevance here. If you are talking about the DMZ, then they are not part of the GH, neither politically nor geographically, so once again I fail to see the relevance. What point are you trying to make here? DrorK (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Large parts of the DMZ is part of the Golan: look at this map: and even if it wasn't, it was where Israel provoked clashes, and this is connected to the conflict that led to the Israeli invasion and occupation of Golan. Mandate negotiations, it doesn't really matter if Israel was obligated or not, I have not written that it was, but the fact that UNTSO and Syria were still following these deals and Israel not, led to Israel killing 50 Syrian solders in the Golan, which is a an integral part of this conflict, and therefore belongs in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Negev and Sinai lies next to each other on the map, but they are two distinct regions. Similarly, when you look at the map, you see that the DMZ are adjacent to the GH, but that doesn't make them part of it. The geographical border of the GH is very well defined by the slope from the Heights to the Hula/Jordan/Sea of Galilee valleys. Politically the DMZ were never part of Syria, unlike the GH that has been part of Syria for about two decades. The clashes in the DMZ have little relevance to this article. It was a struggle between Syria which wanted to take control of territories inside the former British Mandate, and Israel which sought to gain sovereignty over the whole former Mandate territory. The GH were captured by Israel following attacks from Syria beyond the DMZ on Israeli undisputed territory. This is a description of these attacks . DrorK (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I re added the USCRI part based on my comment here: I changed the chronology of the "Towns, villages and settlements" section, since the towns and villages are Syrian and the settlements are Israeli, the Israeli section should come last. I also changed the picture from Quenitra, it didn't show much, a picture where the city is still intact, I have replaced it with a newer one better showing what happened there. I have also labeled CAMERA as pro-Israeli so people can see where that info is from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I wish that you will give a proper explanation to why you reverted every single one of the points here above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very simple: (1) The picture - I have added a picture of what was left from Quneitra after the Six-Day War. I believe it is interesting to see how the deserted city looked after that war. The picture comes from the archive of Kibbutz Merom Golan. Members of this Kibbutz resided in some of the deserted buildings shortly after the war, and even operated a canteen for soldiers there. You changed the picture into a recent picture of a destructed building. We don't know exactly where the picture was taken, when the building was destructed, by whom - the picture, in fact, illustrates nothing relevant to this article. (2) You try to bring more sources to support the allegation that Israel leveled Quneitra before handing it back to the Syrians. We have enough sources for this allegation, and quite a few sources that seriously question it. This is quite enough. What you are trying to do is artificially make one claim seem stronger than the other. (3)The is no need to use terms like "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Syrian", information about the relevant bodies is available on WP itself, and there is no need to describe them with tendentious terms. DrorK (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The picture after the six day war show the entire town intact, before it was destroyed. It doesn't show anything really, the picture I added show what had happened with the town, it shows several buildings collapsed with their roof still intact, so how is it not relevant to the topic when the topic is the towns destruction? It is from Quenitra. No its not "enough", the USCRI is a serious notable organ, you added comments from an unknown Israeli soldier, this is the USCRI, you removing this is pure censorship. If you do not like it, get consensus for its removal. You have not answered why you changed the chronology of the Syrian/Israeli towns/villages/settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme, please bear in mind that we are here to convey information. We are not campaigning here. You seem to be very eager to tell the world "Israel destroyed Quneitra", but as I said, we don't know that, and it is not the topic of this article. The picture of Quneitra following the Six Day War conveys valuable historical information. The city looks damaged, but still standing. The viewers are informed about the date of the picture, so there would be no misunderstandings. As a side remark: it might interest you that the Syrian army heavily bombed Quneitra after the Six Day War, because they wanted to hurt the Israeli soldiers and civilians who used the city's buildings. I know this because I talked with Israelis from the Golan Heights, and some of the older people lived in Quneitra for a while and remember the bombing. Perhaps I could also find a written document and incorporate it into the article. The picture you added show a leveled house sometime in the last decade. We don't know why this house was leveled. Perhaps the Syrian authorities had to level it due to a collapse hazard. From the picture we cannot tell that it was taken in Quneitra. Considering the amount of disinformation we have about the subject, your picture creates more damage than benefit. The source I brought is from Time Magazine. We know who the reporter is. The reporter did not bother to write the soldier's name, but we can trust the reporter that he wrote what he heard (why would he do otherwise?). His testimony is valuable because it brings the Israeli view of the controversy. USCRI merely reiterates information that appear in other sources. There is nothing new about it, and USCRI do not say they conducted a research of their own. Mentioning it here is simply redundant. If you want to, you can add this source to the footnotes. You can write that the Syrian Government maintains that the city was deliberately destructed, and this view was adopted by several bodies (footnote: the bodies' names and links to their websites), and then write that Israel denies this claim and bring the relevant sources in a footnote. DrorK (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not ad that Israel destroyed Quneitra although that is what all reliable sources say. The topic of the Quneitra section is by large its destruction, your picture shows almost the entire town standing, mine shows what happened there - the destruction. Therefor it is more fitting to be in the article. If you want we can have both pictures. The soldiers "testimony" brings his own personal views, not Israels. And maybe not even that, what was he supposed to say? "Were destroying all these Syrian villages so the native people cant come back so we can bring in russians to live here instead" ? No, he is not gonna say that, so he pulled the dogs and cats story instead. You don't know what the USCRI had investigated or not. Its a notable organ and mentioning the view of it is important. You also changed place of the Beer Ajam picture where it doesn't belong, Quenitra province is different then the town of Quenitra. You have not answered about the chronology of the "Towns, villages and settlements" section. I have reverted most of my previous edit and added the Al-Marsad link to see also section as it is related to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quneitra

Drork, please explain why you re-reverted several errors, lies if they are intentional, into the text? The word "destroyed" is commonly used to describe what Israeli did to Quneitra, not "ruined". Also, it is not a "Syrian claim" that Israeli destroyed the city, and you again phrased it that way without regard to the numerous third-party sources that explicitly say that Quneitra was systematically destroyed by Israel. Also, why did you remove the quotes from western news agencies documenting its destruction? Also, "he United Nations General Assembly decided by vote to adopt Syria's position and condemned Israel for allegedly destroying Quneitra." is blatantly false. The UN established a committee to investigate the events surrounding the destruction of the city, they did not "decide by vote to adopt Syria's position". The text I copied from the featured article Quneitra retains Israel's denial and gives it proper weight, yours places it ahead of what nearly the whole world knows as fact and treats that fact as simply a Syrian claim. Explain yourself. nableezy - 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, we have no evidence whatsoever that Quneitra was destroyed or that Golan refugees were expelled. The fact that people saw the city in its ruins indicates nothing. We might as well think that the Syrian forces destroyed the houses because they were too dangerous to live in, or even to make a false impression as if Israel destroyed them. These are speculations, but they can easily be derived from the sources you've brought. Time Magazine, which is a very reliable source explicitly says that Syria and Israel maintain different positions about the matter, and does not try to determine who is right, because it is probably impossible. There is also a report by Time Magazine that about destruction of houses in abandoned Syrian hamlets. When the Israeli officer is asked about the issue by the American reporter, he says it is necessary to destroy the buildings due to health problems and to prevent crime. You can chose whether to believe the officer or not, but this report should appear here as is, without passing judgment on our behalf. The UN never investigated the issue on the ground. The GA heard testimonies brought by the Syrian government, and put them to vote. Nothing more than that. Sources like Masrad are problematic because they are pro-Syrian and have special interest in presenting Israel as the "villain" of the story. I am very careful not to bring pro-Israeli sources here, knowing they might be biased. I expect you to refrain from relying on sources biased to the other side. DrorK (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Have you read anything about this? Did you see the sources used? The sources provide the evidence, they say that X happened, we say that X happened. Read the sources cited in Quneitra. The sources are nearly unanimous in saying that Israel systematically destroyed the city. Yes, Syria and Israel maintain different stories as to what happened, our text says that. But nearly nobody accepts what Israel says about what happened at Quneitra. We dont give two sides the same weight when the sources overwhelmingly dismiss one of those sides. nableezy - 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Several issues

1. As long as we don't know whether pre-1967 inhabitants of the Golan Heights simply ran away (just as I would in such circumstances) or were forcefully driven away, we are not to use terms like "deported", "expelled" and the like. And before you mention sources - no, pro-Syrian sources are not reliable sources, because they have explicit interest in portraying Israel as violent and aggressive, and we are not in a position to rely on such sources.
2. As you can see from the sources added, there are a lot of problems with the testimonies and reports about the alleged deliberate destruction of Quneitra. I doubt if we ever know what exactly happened there. It is hard to trust a Swiss engineer who had a company doing business in Syria, and who used a Syrian team for his survey. The fact that the GA approved the report means nothing. This is a political body which adopts resolutions by political votes (and so it should be - it has political missions). As you know, Syria has more fingers in the GA, so pro-Syrian positions are more likely to be endorsed. Again, as long as we don't know, we cannot present deliberate destruction as a fact.
3. There is a nice picture of Quneitra from June 1967 which was contributed by Kibbutz Meron Golan. I don't know what you have against it. It shows that some of the buildings stood and some didn't. They also donated some pictures showing they used buildings in Quneitra for lodging and for small cafeterias back in 1967-8, but one picture is quite enough. Of course there was a vicious war after these pictures were taken, so nothing can be concluded from them with regard to the aforementioned issue.
4. Resolution 242 does not talk specifically about the Golan Heights. I am not going to get into the long debate about how to interpret it, but you cannot present this resolution as if determining something explicit about the Golan Heights. DrorK (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot decide what is or is not a reliable source based on whether or not it is "pro-Syrian" (and I have no doubt that every single source that says the people were expelled will quickly be labeled "pro-Syrian") and then use CAMERA as a source. The rest of your "points" are likewise meaningless. Reliable sources say that Quneitra was destroyed by the IDF. We can say that. We can also say that Israel denies this, and we do. But just because Israel denies something does not mean we have to accept what they say and disregard what third-party reliable sources say. And if we are discussing several issues, would you care to explain why you are using the favored phrasing of a finge-sized minority and calling settlements in the Golan "communities"? nableezy - 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with nableezy. Cannot have one standard and ignore under other condition. Ani medjool (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources showing that Israel destroyed Quenitra, just like Israel destroyed the other 100+ towns and villages in the Golan. And also, I will change the name back from "community" to Israeli settlement, because that is what they are, and its the majority viewpoint. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked - no one knows for sure what happened in the Golan Heights at the very tensed time between the end of the October 1973 war and the finalization of the Disengagement Agreement. Nothing too objective can be said about the matter only conflicting positions from either side. I see a lot of references to "Al-Marsad" movement's site. This is a movement of Druze from Majdal Shams who hold Israeli permanent residency, but advocate strongly for handing over the Golan Heights to Syria. They have every interest to stain Israel's name and to present it as an oppressor, because it promotes their cause. Similarly, I wouldn't suggest relying too much upon right-wing Israeli movements. I have brought one semi-political source, namely Tamar Sternhal, because she doesn't bring original information, but rather points to serious weakness of certain reports and quotes reliable sources. Even in this case, I mentioned her name within the body of the text, to make the attribution very clear. Furthermore, when a Time Magazine reporter writes that an Israeli officer told him he had to level an abandoned Syrian village to prevent crime and plagues, you can either believe him or not, but that's a good argument. Ghost-towns are indeed a source of plagues and hideouts to criminals, and war-affected towns were often leveled for these reasons alone.

By the way, the fact that Syria has never had free journalism and transparent political system is one of the major obstacles here. We can't find news items or articles written by independent Syrian reporters who had been in the battlefield. We don't have reports of impartial Syrian fact-finding committees. Relying on a Syrian citizen's testimony is always problematic, unless he lives with his entire family in Europe or America and has no plans to go back to Syria. You know what I am talking about, it is hardly a secret. All the good information we have about 1967 and 1973 comes from American or Israeli journalists, and to some extent from Israeli fact-finding committees. Occasionally we can find other stuff, but not too much.

Now I won't start a new debate about "settlement", only point out that Quneitra is also a settlement. It wasn't there from the beginning of time. It was established on a certain date and not that long ago. DrorK (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli settlement" is not simply modifying the generic word "settlement" with the adjective "Israeli". It is a noun-phrase that has a specific meaning. That meaning is locality built by Israel in the occupied territories. Yes cities, towns, villages, are "settlements" in the generic sense of the term, but "Israeli settlement" has a more specific meaning. I think you already know that though. nableezy - 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So why do you insist on terming "a settlement" even Jewish communities that had been established (and voluntarily dissolved) before the State of Israel was founded? DrorK (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont. nableezy - 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If they ran away they had good reason to. No one leaves their homes unless they have to. It's the same old "they fled" story. Even Israelis and Americans are starting to hear what happened in Golan. Lets not forget they live under intense propoganda and these truths take ages to surface. There are a growing number of Israeli authors now covering these subjects. Anyhow, it's the modus operandi of the IDF ever since it's forerunner haganah used similar methods against the watch of the British in 1947 i.e. even before the 1948 war. In point of fact, haganah and the Brits killed IRO 5,000 Palestinians 1936-1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.193.205 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Res 242

Of course Resolution 242 does include the Golan Heights: "territories occupied in the recent conflict". We do not need to refer to fringe theories, especially when they are logically equivalent to white=black. Zero 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The 242 resolution talk about Israeli withdrawal from these territories to recognized secure borders. There are many interpretations to this resolution, but one thing is quite clear: it leaves a lot of room for negotiation about territory. Therefore I wouldn't mention it at all here. Technically, one can say that the current Israeli-Syrian border is the only secure border possible, hence the 242 resolution does not include the Golan Heights. If the idea is to prove that the UN SC consider the territory under belligerent occupation you have other resolutions saying that. BTW, none of them regards this occupation illegal in the current circumstances, and it is also to be noted, that none of the inhabitants of the Golan Heights suffer from the typical occupation-regime restrictions (often observed in the West Bank, for example), especially since the ordinary civil law was enacted in the territory in 1981. DrorK (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well most of the inhabitants fled to other bits of Syria which means that the Israelis can deal with the rest as they do with the Arabs who live in Israel itslef rather than the much more numerous Palestinians in the other occupied territories.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this is not something you can write in the article. There is also the fact that Druze have longstanding tradition of "minority community" which guides them toward cooperation with any ruler. Israel cannot make the WB&Gaza part of the State, it would undermine its very foundations. And yet, there are two weaknesses in this argument: (1) Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula in return for Egyptian recognition despite it being scarcely populated (2) In Jerusalem, Israel annexed adjacent villages and towns despite its reluctance to make the Palestinians there Israeli residence. Again, this is quite beside the point of this article, so feel free to ignore this twist in the discussion. Back to the point - why do you need to mention the 242 resolution at all? Resolution 497 is much more explicit if you want to have the UN SC opinion about the GH (even though the resolution never led to actual steps against Israel). DrorK (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No one leaves their homes unless they have to. It's the same old "they fled" propoganda. Even Israelis and Americans are starting to hear what happened in Golan. It's the modus operandi of the IDF ever since it'd forerunner haganah used similar methods against the watch of the British in 1947 i.e. before the 1948 war. In point of fact, haganah and the Brits killed IRO 5,000 Palestinians 1936-1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.193.205 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

USCRI

I reverted an edit introducing this source for two reasons:

1. We have enough material about Quneitra already. This article is an encyclopedic account about the Golan Heights, it is not a court debate or a fact-finding committee's report. We've brought many attributed statement and counter-statement. We are not going to bring every source that commented about the matter.
2. If this source is to be relied on, we should write that the pre-1967 Syrian population fled the region. We agreed on a non-committing phrasing of this issue since there are conflicting positions about what actually happened during the 1967 war and shortly after it. If you really think this source is sound and reliable, it means that we should change that phrasing as well. DrorK (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If it can be added to the article a sentence from one unknown Israeli soldier that "'They had become a health hazard, 'They provided refuge for stray dogs, cats and fedayeen." then it certainly can be added a sentence from the USCRI. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I make any reverts

I am not at all comfortable with this edit: . I'm afraid it skipped my eyes, but with so many edits and information, it is very hard to trace them all.

1. The UN committee mentioned in the paragraph was not established to investigate the issue of Quneitra. It is a committee established during the 1970s for several purposes. I don't know if it still exists. I did a lot of effort to bring an accurate description of the major events in this story. According to UN documents available on the web, the committee was entrusted with the task to investigate the case of Quneitra. The major step taken by the committee was hiring Engineer Eduard Gruner to conduct a professional investigation. While the UN GA decided to adopt his opinion, the credibility of his report is questioned. As I said, no one really knows whether Quneitra had been deliberately destroyed. Gruner himself noted a significant damage caused by the war. He claimed several thousands of houses were deliberately destroyed, but this report of his is problematic for various reasons (Tamar Sternhal pointed to the major one). In any event, it is important that a reader of this article know about the process that led to the UN GA determination.
2. As long as we don't know, we should not imply a deliberate destruction. We cannot say "reportedly destroyed", it should be either "allegedly" or "said to be" or something else indicating that these are claims not fully confirmed. Also, saying "Quneitra was ruined" is better than "Quneitra was destroyed".

I am going to reintroduce these phrasings into the article unless I hear good reasoning why I shouldn't. DrorK (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to find something better than an automatic rejection from someone at CAMERA if this source isn't to be used. Zero 10:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

She points out to the fact that he had conflict of interest and explains why. You don't need to be Einstein to do it. His businesses in the Arab world are well attested from other sources as well. DrorK (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, you have no support for any of your reverts.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't counted on YOUR support. DrorK (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we have many sources saying that Quneitra was deliberately destroyed by Israel, not "allegedly" and that is what it should say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, the good reason is that instead of simply presenting both "sides" you instead try to rebut one "side" with the other. Saying things like "On the other hand" read like such a rebuttal. And it was "reported" to be destroyed, not "alleged". Several reports of the destruction are cited, it is only because you are raising such a fuss that we include the word "reported". Several RSs say that it was destroyed, we can just say "Quneitra was destroyed", but to appease you we say "reported". Also, see WP:WTA. You also introduce the word "accused of X" when the source says that X happened. Britannica say when the Israelis withdrew in 1974, they systematically stripped and destroyed the town, not that they were accused of doing this. You cannot keep adding these phrases to make it seem as though most of this is simply a few loose accusations. I reverted the changes. nableezy - 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, please dont continue to try and push in a favored version. Several problems with your version have been raised and you have not addressed a single one. nableezy - 16:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We Have EB that talks about Israeli "systematic destruction" and we have some UN reports. We have many other reports that say the city lies in ruin without saying who destroy it why. Now, EB does not give any reference to their claim. If you want to trust their staff, you should be consistent and adopt their description of the State of Palestine as a "quasi-state" (to which you object), and their saying that the pre-1967 Syrian inhabitants "fled" the Golan Heights. If you don't accept their opinion on the latter points, why should you adopt the former? Now, the issue of deliberate destruction is an accusation, not a fact. It might be true, it might be false and it might be partially true (e.g. too many houses were on the brink of collapse after the war, so the IDF forces decided to level the town in order to protect their soldiers). All of these speculations are equally valid, we simply don't know what happened there. Now, if Syria and the UN makes an accusation against Israel, you should write they make an accusation. You cannot present the accusation as a fact. You can improve my phrasing a bit if you think there are problems with it, but don't delete attested relevant facts, and don't introduce false information. As I said, the UN GA affiliated committee was not established especially for this end, and it is extremely important to describe the method of work as elaborated in the UN documents available on the net. DrorK (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, include whatever you like from Britannica, you will not see me remove it. And a RS reports it as a fact, not an accusation. We do the same. And I re-added what you had about the committee, if there is something incorrect then re-introduce it. But do not continue trying to rebut the report with something from CAMERA. I dont think that should even be used as a source, but if it is presented as their view, and only that, then fine. But when you take that to rebut actual reliable sources it is a problem. nableezy - 16:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, don't cite EB, because when you cannot base accusations upon encyclopedic article. It doesn't work that way. You can avoid accusations at all, but if you want to mention them you have to attribute, you cannot present them as facts per EB. As I said, CAMERA is not necessarily a RS. It is a RS in this specific context. Why? First of all, because the criticism is attributed to a person called Tamar Sternhal, and the orientation of the criticism is clear, so it's a fair play. Secondly Sternhal's criticism cites RS such as reports on the Los Angeles Times. Thirdly, Sternhal bases its criticism on Gruner upon his own report. She makes a very logical claim that a person with large-scale businesses in Syria is very likely to produce a report that would satisfy the Syrian Government. Actually, if you ask me, the UN chose one of the worst candidates to this mission, but that's not our problem. The fact is that Sternhal points to a serious issue, and her background doesn't make her claim weaker. DrorK (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You write that the Encyclopedia Britannica claims X and do not even attribute CAMERA's opinion. Lovely. nableezy - 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopaedia Britannica claims that "when the Israelis withdrew in 1974, they systematically stripped and destroyed the town".... Drork, you need to stop this nonsense immediately. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody revert that garbage edit? CAMERA is used as an authoritative source but the Encyclopedia Britannica makes "claims". nableezy - 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I have reverted your edit. You must follow policies. If you can't follow policies you must stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Violence works. Nableezy, Harlan, Supreme Deliciousness, Tiamut are all aggressively insert their political views into articles, and "hijack" articles in a way that any edit which does not comply with their views is reverted. This approach gains a lot of support from editors on WP, and therefore this violence will persist, and violent editors will have their way. This article contains slanderous remarks backed by EB and Lonely Planet. That makes WP ridiculous to say the least. Slanders against Israel are not uncommon these days, and the way articles are edited on WP is probably part of this wave. The hope that WP would stay out of this unpleasant political arena has been proved unrealistic, especially when so many editors cherish this violent slanderous approach. DrorK (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted, but have refrained from participating in the discussion or edit war that you instigated here to insert your views against consensus. However, you still see fit to slander me, and others, simply because we do not agree with you view at various articles about how events should be described here at Misplaced Pages. Editing with you is impossible because it is your view that only you know how to write articles neutrally, while everyone else is writing here with an agenda. How offensive! You are making no friends here because you do not know how to collaborate, nor do you seem to understand NPOV or OR. When you learn these things, perhaps you will find your editing experience will improve. And please do not mention my name again when I am not involved in the edit war of the day that you are carrying out. Tiamut 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How incredibly foolish I was, thinking that we could use the Encyclopedia Britannica. From here on out I will only use CAMERA, HonestReporting, NGOMonitor, and other such fine and unbiased sources. I have seen the light Drork, you should be proud of yourself for showing me the way. nableezy - 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you (Drork) made some edits yesterday which removed referenced text without explanation. There is an option that you can tick on the Editing tab of the my preferences' screen which reminds you to provide an edit summary. Please tick that. Otherwise people might interpret such actions in a way that does not WP:AGF.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying Israel deliberately destroyed Quneitra is a slander, unless properly proven. We CANNOT use Ecncyclopaedia Britannica and Lonely Planet to validate such an accusation, especially as we have sources saying the city was already in ruins long time before the time referred to in the accusations. Since we are talking about accusations, we cannot simply bring the UN opinion, without describing how the UN reached its conclusions, as reported by the UN itself. Since we are talking about accusations, it is perfectly legitimate to bring pro-Israeli sources pointing to the weaknesses of the UN report. Currently this article contains slanders, not in the pure legal sense, but in the moral sense, namely poorly based accusations against a group of people. I have done a lot of effort in order to retrieve more information about the issue and present a more balanced picture, but apparently people here don't care too much about the real picture. This is not what Misplaced Pages meant to be. DrorK (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn't use Lonely Planet as it is too tertiary. Otherwise, you are completely and totally off the mark on this. I can't see any connection between your comments and Misplaced Pages policy. Meanwhile I read Gruner's report and was surprised at how thorough and conclusive it is. Zero 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That premise is patently false and everything that follows from it is as well. But if the Encyclopedia Britannica is not good enough, and it is, here you go:
The Middle East and North Africa 2003, Routledge, 2002. p. 581:

Prior to the Israeli occupation, the Golan Heights were incorporated by Syria into a provincial administration of which the city of Quneitra, with a population at the time of 27,378, was capital. The disengagement agreement that was mediated by US Secretary of State Henry Kiddinger in 1974 (after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War) provided for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Quneitra. Before they withdrew, however, Israeli army engineers destroyed the city.

According to you the Golan Heights is not only not occupied, but it is in Israel. Thankfully your delusions are not valid sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica and the source quoted above are. nableezy - 07:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero, I cited Gruner's report, but it was reverted. Then again, Gruner's biography as mentioned by Sternhal and the Swiss Encyclopedia (an article signed by a specific person, so it can be specifically attributed) clearly shows he had large-scale businesses in the Arab world, and therefore he indeed had conflict of interests. That's the problem here - you can decide you trust his work, but you cannot ignore the conflict of interest, which leaves the issue of deliberate destruction open. We'll probably never know for sure what happened there, and we cannot present accusations as facts. DrorK (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, EB also says: "The Israeli portion of the Golan rises to 7,297 feet" (you objected calling any portion of the Golan "Israeli"), about the the 1967 battle they say: "The Syrian defenders and most of the Arab inhabitants fled, and Syria asked for an armistice" (you insisted on "expelled", both citations taken from here). On another subject, the State of Palestine EB says: "On Nov. 15, 1988, the PLO proclaimed the “State of Palestine,” a kind of government-in-exile; and on April 2, 1989, the PNC elected ʿArafāt president of the new quasi-state." (, fourth paragraph, you insisted on that article that SoP is an actual state). So you have to decide whether or not you trust EB, you can't be so selective. Now, you cite sources offhand as if it were a game of who scores more points. Have you checked who Routledge bases his claims on? The Los Angeles Times, for example stated they based their accusations on the UN report. If so, why not cite the report itself and the criticism of it? Did Routledge conduct his own investigation? If so, it is a valuable source. If it merely cites the reports we already know, why bother mentioning it? It is like "proving" a point by showing different copies of the same newspaper. DrorK (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that? The only thing I see from them is that it was "occupied" in 67 and "unilaterally annexed". And "expelled" is a refernce to the other destroyed villages, were does Britannica say that they "fled" from there. And I think you are confusing what EB gives as "External links" and with actual citations. And I have provided you many high-quality sources that say Palestine is a state, but in your zealous adventures to protect your country you may have missed those. AGF and all that. And I dont have to check to make sure that reliable sources are correct, that is kind of the opposite of what we do here. If reliable sources say something as fact then we say it as fact. Verifiability, not truth. nableezy - 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot read a plain simple text, I can't help it. Use the links I provided. Now, when it suits you, you settle for EB, when it doesn't you want better sources. This is very convenient, and yet inconsistent, unfair, and eventually misleading. Either you trust EB or you don't (and read the text in the links, it is not that hard). As for Routledge, unlike EB, Routledge does bring his sources, so it won't be hard for you to check what it bases its claims on. Unfortunately, "Google Books" does not show page 585 where the references about the Golan Heights should appear () so you'll have to use a hard copy. DrorK (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot understand what Encyclopedia Britannica does or does not say I cannot help you. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not say any one of the things you wrote above. If they do please provide a direct link to the article on the Encyclopedia Britannica that says those things, not a link to the JVL or another 3rd-party site. And I do not have to do any such thing, if a RS says something is true I do not have to then check that RSs source. That is not how it works. nableezy - 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, I don't get it. If I point a gun to your head and you run away, it is fine to say that you "fled". The word "fled" doesn't indicate the reason, though it does give the feeling of running from something, not just for the fun of it. Similarly "Israeli portion of the Golan" is just a convenient way to refer to the part under Israeli control and doesn't mean anything I'd disagree with. Zero 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I have given you direct links. Did you use them? And what about Routledge? Did you look up page 585? You are so keen about sources, but it seems to me that you don't know how to use them. Zero, if you want to interpret EB's language, so do I. I want to write that Israel had done a huge favor for the Golan Heights' residents because they now enjoy better economy and better freedom of speech. I can source it by showing the difference between the quality of life in Israel and Syria per EB. Would you allow it? If not, why do you expect me to accept your interpretation? DrorK (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an Encyclopedia Britannica article that says any of the things you claim they said. Not a link to a third-party site that Britannica includes as "External links", but an actual Britannica article that says those things. I already know the answer is "no", but I would like to see you admit it. And no, I would not accept such an edit relying on a source like that. The source would have to make the conclusion that you are making. Otherwise it would be your personal interpretation that the source does not support. nableezy - 16:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My "interpretation" is just an explanation of plain English, take it or leave it. As for the rest, if you had asked whether I'd support a report of socio-economic indicators from the best possible sources over a period extending both before and after 1967 I would agree and help. But you asked whether I'd support your POV pushing, so no thanks. Besides, writing "huge favor for the Golan Heights' residents" when the vast majority lost their homes and land and were exiled out of the area seems a little rich to me. Zero 10:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, these kind of edits I do not introduce. But other people do introduce similar ones, providing they back pro-Syrian POV. DrorK (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hashmonean map

I do not see that the "map of the Hashmonean kingdom" has a source, except that it first appeared in the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Did I miss it? Maps need to be cited to reliable sources like everything else. Zero 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose tracing it back to nl-wp would solve the problem. What does it say on nl-wp? DrorK (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it says nothing about the source. Another map that I found has a quite different shape (though it does agree that the Golan was part of the Hasmonean kingdom for a time). Zero 11:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle with Israel

In Deuteronomy 2, 31 it says: The LORD said to me, "See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land." after that the conquering continues to Bashan. So the neutral wording should be "invasion" and "conquered". I have also removed the quote farm tag since there is no problem with quotes in the overall article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

this is controversial change and I disagree. Conquer ok, but not invade. It doesn't say invade. Amoruso (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using quotes from the Bible or Tanakh is that the wording presented depends on which specific translation is used (King James, JPS, International etc). When in doubt we should take extra care to ensure the use of a neutral and dispassionate tone, and not use holy books to try to "win one over" our competition. --nsaum75 05:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead is a mess

It seems that the only issue of the article is its political status. It appears that it was important to detail every organization that thinks the Golan is occupied (where it doesn't seem common to do that sort of thing in other articles anymore - why not make it more succinct?) It implies that if it's occupied, it's illegitimate (which many legal scholars would disagree with). And it seems to suggest that a General Assembly resolution which according to the UN Charter itself is nothing more than a recommendation, has some important meaning. At the same time, Israel's position regarding its responsibility under Resolution 242 has been removed from the lead. Amoruso (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Israel's position about 242. But the lead is the way it is because a number of users insisted, without any type of source backing them up, that most countries do not agree that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The UNGA resolution itself does not have any force, but it does show which states agree with the text of the resolution (almost all of them). nableezy - 04:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, So "for spite" people added numerous references of countries instead of putting them all in one ref? and doesn't the GA resolution's description seems long and overweight for a lead? Amoruso (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say that. Please dont make such implications from what I say. People demanded multiple refs so multiple refs were provided. And there is only one on the resolution. How much shorter would you like to make it? nableezy - 05:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that you said that... I'm careful with that. Concerning the map, why not return it to what it was? It was the agreed version by all sides at the time, and now that i'm reading it all again it was actually uploaded as compromise by Viewfinder. it's more NPOV (even if only Israel disputes the occupation status among countries, officially). Just a brief mention of the GA or not at all.. or reduce other things - it's all political in the lead and it repeats itself. The article deals with history, sites, and other things. Amoruso (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I'll make an attempt to rewrite/shorten some of the assertions and I'll explain here why:

• The sources don't explain what's the significance of the "occupied" terminology. For example, Human Right watch here - this is the source: "Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights since 1967." --> this is the only mention of the Golan in the source. Really, what's the significance? so they said "occupied" instead of "controlled" or something else? it's meaningless. The question is whether the control or occupation is LEGITIMATE, not if it's occupied or not. The whole paragraph doesn't give us any REAL information.
• Amnesty international - same issue - "Israel occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, as well as Syria's Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula, which was later returned to Egypt."
• International Committee of the Red Cross - dead link probably same issue.
• the only sources that seem to have any substance is the EU one . and possibly the arab league one and the U.S. (although a bit of a general description here "U.S.")
• What we have therefore is simply a terminological declaration if one looks at most sources (the phrase "occupied golan" being more popular than the term "X golan" or "golan", and not the core issue that's of any interest - is it legitimate for Israel to XXXXX the Golan Heights? the answer/debate is what's encyclopedic and of any value at all. Amoruso (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The differentiation between controlled and occupied is not meaningless. First of all occupied is the standard verbiage used by Courts, NGOs and GO's. That the land is occupied has real significance in terms of responsibilities of the occupying force. A number of sources have been presented here. Since there are editors and readers that seem confused regarding Israels internationally recognized status as an occupying force I think that it would be fair to say that we should increase the visibility of the facts. Unomi (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're very much correct that the differentiation between controlled and occupied is not meaningless. What I'm saying is that the references don't make a differentiation. They don't analyse the situation and come to a conclusion that the Golan Heights are occupied. They just refer to it automatically as "occupied", this is a coined term obviously. It too has meaning of course, but it's inaccurate to say that they "consider" the Golan to be occupied without any real discussion as to why. Other than responsibilies like you say, which sources should reflect and brought into the article, what I believe users wanted to say is that Israel's presence there is illegitimate. For example, the GA resolutions call for "withdrawal", but those other sources don't. The SC doesn't call for withdrawal except in a framework of a peace treaty, and it might not have to be full withdrawal. 'occupied' does not mean absolute withdrawal requirement. Amoruso (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it reasonable to believe that since the US State Dept uses the term occupied and to wit so does the CIA fact book - that they have thought about it first. The ECJ ruled that goods produced in the occupied territories do not enjoy the same import benefits as those produced in Israel proper, and the ICJ indicated that the legal consensus is that Israel is an occupying power. Legitimacy doesn't really play into this at all. It is certainly true that final status negotiations could end up with borders very different than the pre 1967 ones, but we won't know until such negotiations have taken place and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unomi (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. It's just important to emphasize the meaning of terms and balance it out between the lead and the actual content with proper sources. The natural reading of the previous version suggested heavily that it had everything to do with legitimacy. Amoruso (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead right now, I find it pro-Israeli. The UNSC 497 specifically calls it the "occupied Syrian Golan Heights", which was removed. The part about "It is a popular tourist attraction" is economic exploitation of Syrian land and nothing is said about that. Same thing with the "Wineries" at the bottom of the article. And "However, despite the application of Israeli law" - as if this is something that other countries was supposed to accept. Its completely unneutral. Amoruso, your edit is unacceptable --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very acceptable. The lead had nothing to do with wineries and there's tourism in the golan heights. Occupied already has 8 references, so i'm not sure what you're getting at... it seems you're just looking to say occupied occupied occupied instead of contributing to the article. That's not helpful.Amoruso (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to by saying "The UNSC 497 specifically calls it the "occupied Syrian Golan Heights"? I didn't add anything new about a winery. Amoruso (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso, do you accept that the consensus opinion of NGO's, GO's and Courts is that Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied territory? Unomi (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Are you unhappy with the current lead? Amoruso (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple and general question. Do you accept that this is the world view? Unomi (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And I asked what's bothering you with my versions? Make changes to it if you like, but don't erase all the new version without any justification. No reason to list all these bodies just because the term appears in their documents like I explained above, and no need to detail it so much withut other issues cocnerning the Golan. If something specific bothers you, change it. The vesrion says that most countries and NGO's think it's occupied, what's your problem?Amoruso (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it downplays the emphasis that most countries and NGO's put on the occupied status. Please just introduce one change at a time, if you understand that the world consensus opinion is that it is occupied then it should be obvious that substituting occupied with governed and controlled misses the mark. Unomi (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The official position of most governments and international organization is that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. Are we going to say in the lead of the article about ROC "Taiwan is a rebellious province of the PRC"? I believe most scholars and NGOs agree that the Syrian regime is in fact a dictatorship. Are we going to say in the lead of the article about Syria "The Syrian Arab Republic is a dictatorship"? Many countries worldwide define Hezbollah a a terrorist organization, and yet I don't see the word "terror" or "terrorist" in the lead about this organization. So let's make this deal: let's write in the lead of Hezbollah "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization" then we could write in the Golan Height's lead "an occupied territory". If we go by the vague concept of "world consensus opinion", we might as well be consistent about it. DrorK (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

6 countries in the world say Hizbullah is a "terrorist organization" (and the lead of that article, in fact the first paragraph, does say that Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.). 161 agreed that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel (actually 162, the US agrees but disagreed with other statements in the GA resolution). And I would have no problem with the Syria lead saying that the regime is a dictatorship, same with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, well really every Arab country except for Lebanon. They are dictatorships, Misplaced Pages shouldnt be in the habit of not saying things that are plainly true. nableezy - 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there's nothing more I can do when the article is being hijacked, WP:OWN, by two particular users (Unomi and Special Deliciousness) who make no attempt to explain their reverts. This is something for ANI. DrorK, any article that has to do with Isarel is fair game but it's impossible to even make a single edit or open a single discussion on the article of Syria. Nableezy, even the article of Hezbollah it only says "several western countries" and doesn't list every and each one of them in the lead - which is the only major change that I even introduced - the rest is phrasing with information that was agreed by nableezy (242) and a paragraph from the article. No attempt to explain the reverts have been made. Amoruso (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It says several because it is only 6. Over 160 is not "several". That part of what you removed I disagree with, you made it seem like the opinion on whether or not the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel is not as close to unanimous as it is. Now, there is one part of that is missing, that many states accept that the occupation is legitimate under the laws of war, and that while it is subject to Israeli withdrawal that should come as part of a negotiated settlement with Syria. But all of these states agree on several things, the Golan is Syrian territory, that it is occupied by Israel, and any attempt to annex the territory is null and void and violates customary international law. nableezy - 21:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The version did no such thing - it said the same thing that it did - that most countries regard Israel's presence as occupation. It didn't imply anything else. And I didn't talk about "several" - you can say most or all or whatever, just not list examples one by one (and they're not even examples - there's no discussion of occupation in almost any of them). Amoruso (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most" is not the same as "nearly all". Most implies there is a significant minority that disagrees, that isnt the case here. nableezy - 22:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have explained my reverts, you are the one who keeps trying to force through numerous unsubstantiated changes without explaining your rationale. You need to accept that the world consensus is that Israel is an occupying force and get on with editing. That the US and likely more countries sympathize with the notion that the Golan Heights offers a vantage point for attacking Israel is one thing, but such sympathies don't translate into supporting illegal annexation. If it bothers you so much that we state clearly and unequivocally that the consensus is that these are occupied territories then I would suggest you take it up with your politicians. Unomi (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. The new version still said that world consensus thinks it's an occupied territory, so what really bothered? I didn't mention the U.S. in the lead. Did you even read it before reverting? I think not , and I think your strange question revealed this. Amoruso (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you alluded to it re legitimacy in your discussion. Regardless, no, clearly the consensus opinion is that the annexationist practices are not legitimate and further that economic exploitation constitutes a violation of 4th_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories. The wording that you prefer violates WP:GEVAL by putting excessive emphasis on the preferred outlook of right-wing elements. Unomi (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no allusion to anyhting. Apparenly, we now came to the root of your confusion - you thought I made changes to the infobox. The proper thing would be to say that the lead is fine and begin discussions, unrelated ones, about the infobox (that says occupied very prominently in more than one place but God forbid also says adminstered and controlled, which you can't tolerate for some strange reason, which again has nothing to do with the lead). Amoruso (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hijacking articles is a common practice of a group of pro-Palestinian/pro-Arab editors. I can name Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, Harlan and Tiamut. Arguing with them is usually useless because they would eventually force their opinion with one protecting the other. Are you going to change the article about ROC, and term it a "rebellious province of the People's Republic of China"? If not, why do you insist on dubbing the Golan Heights "occupied"? Are you going to term Syria "dictatorship" in the lead about this country? Are you going to list all countries that consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the lead and repeat the word "terrorist" for each of them? Clearly there is no information-conveying motivation here, but an attempt to introduce political propaganda. DrorK (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Whot bothers Unomi?

most countries and NGO's around the world continue to refer to the Golan Heights as Occupied territory. The Israeli law itself was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 497 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: I brought up some of the changes here , 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: 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 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 07:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A/RES/48/212 1993 , A/RES/49/132 1995 , A/RES/50/129 1996 , A/RES/51/135 1997 , A/RES/52/54 1998 , A/RES/52/68 1998 , A/RES/53/57 1998 , A/RES/53/38 1998 , A/RES/53/55 1998 , A/RES/53/196 1999 , A/RES/54/230 2000 , A/RES/56/32 2001 , A/RES/56/61 2002 , A/RES/56/63 2002 , A/RES/57/112 2003 , A/RES/57/128 2003 , A/RES/58/100 2003 , A/RES/58/23 2004 , A/RES/59/33 2005 , A/RES/60/40 2006 , A/RES/60/108 2006 , A/RES/61/27 2007 , A/RES/61/120 2007 , A/RES/62/110 2008 , A/RES/63/99 2008 , A/RES/63/31 2009 , A/RES/64/21 2010 , A/RES/64/185 2010

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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics