Talk:Golan Heights

Accuracy?

I have changed it to the most accurate article. MC

Truce violations on the Golan

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

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

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

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

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

Israel was trying to establish sovereignty over a region that it had no right to under the armistice agreement. That was a type of invasion, and Syria had a good case for taking it that way. The moral argument doesn't impress me because Israel was even more forceful in protecting its sovereignty than Syria was. At this time there was a "shoot to kill" policy against all unauthorised people crossing the borders (Morris quotes from the actual order) and a large number of people (mostly unarmed) were killed especially on the Jordanian border. (This policy was moderated after an incident became public where a couple of Arab children were murdered after being captured.) Israel also executed frequent attacks on villages in Jordan. Usually they were retaliation after attacks by Arab infiltrators, but the attacks were not generally against the place the culprits came from (which was usually unknown) but against some convenient target. Typically a village was shelled from a distance, but sometimes they did things like waiting beside a road and killing the occupants of the first car that came along. In another incident, 120 suspected infiltrators were dumped in the Arava desert without water and many of them died of thirst. All of this is in Morris, "Israel's Border Wars", usually sourced to Israeli archival documents. In summary I am not persuaded by the Israel-good Syria-bad style of argumentation.

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

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

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

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

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

Map, Is it to scale?

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contradictions

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

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

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

versus

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

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

Editing wars concerning "strategic advantage"

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

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

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

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

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

Geography of the Golan Heights: Borders on FOUR countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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