Talk:Israel

Long standing issue in lede

For years, the lede has downplayed the Arab history of modern-day Israel, and also its legitimacy.

“ Later rulers included the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Empire, the Hasmonean dynasty, and, from 63 BCE, the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire. From the 5th century CE, it was part of the Byzantine Empire, up until the 7th century Rashidun Caliphate's conquest of the Levant. With the First Crusade of 1096–1099, Crusader states were established. Muslim rule was then restored in 1291 by the Mamluk Sultanate, which later ceded the territory to the Ottoman Empire. ”

None of the empire's mentioned are labelled as "conquerers", except, it seems, for the Arab Muslim Rashiduns, who, paradoxically, do not come from a different continent or culture, as do the Romans, Crusaders, etc. If we are going to mention civilizations that have had minimal effect on Palestine's ethnic and cultural make up, namely the Seleucids, then we might as well mention the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid and Ayyubid empires that have had enormous effects living on to this day.

The cherry picking on such an important aspect of any state's history deeply hurts Wikipedia's credibility on a page that is frequented by millions of people every year. There needs to be a discussion here that sets out clear criteria on the civilizations that deserve to be mentioned in this paragraph, and the weight given to each. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Islamic or Arabic history is often rather underplayed in many articles in this area, whether due to active expunging or passive disinterest I do not know. However, lead summaries should be brief, and some of what you mention above has simply come about by way of editors seeking brevity. But yes, objectively, there are almost certainly some issues with due weight and balance. At the same time, there is almost as much an argument to be made that all of this material should be removed as it should be expanded. As for the 'conquering' framing, tweak away! Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, what happened in the 5th century CE was the fall of the Western Roman Empire, one of the two halves which the Roman Empire had been divided into before and after the time of Constantine the Great. "Byzantine Empire" is just a name with which the eastern half of the empire, which continued to exist until the 15th century CE, was later labelled, the name stemming from Byzantium, the original name for Constantinople, the empire's capital. I think, therefore, the statement that the area encompassing modern Israel was part of the Byzantine Empire from the 5th century CE is, at best, misleading. Unless it actually ceased to be under the control of the continuing, eastern half of the Roman empire at some point, it would be truer to say that it remained under the control of the remaining part of the Roman Empire until the "Islamic" invasions.     ←   ZScarpia   12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Romans and Byzantines in Palestine were "invaders" and "conquerers" as well. The Byzantine Empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire but it is treated as a separate entity in the literature. The point here remains the same: there is bias in listing and describing the civilizations that ruled over modern-day Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Byzantine Empire article:

"The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the "Roman Empire" or the "Empire of the Romans", Romania, the Roman Republic, or in Greek "Rhōmais". The inhabitants called themselves Romaioi, and even as late as the 19th century Greeks typically referred to Modern Greek as Romaiika "Romaic". After 1204 when the Byzantine Empire was mostly confined to its purely Greek provinces, the term 'Hellenes' was increasingly used instead. ... The Libri Carolini published in the 790s made the first mention of the term "Empire of the Greeks", which was an insult first formally attributed to Pope John XIII, with western medieval sources thereafter using the same terminology. This was done to reestablish equal imperial dignity to the Empire of the Franks and what would later become known as the Holy Roman Empire. No such distinction existed in the Islamic and Slavic worlds, where the empire was more straightforwardly seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire. In the Islamic world, the Roman Empire was known primarily as Rûm. The name millet-i Rûm, or "Roman nation," was used by the Ottomans until the 20th century to refer to the former subjects of the Byzantine Empire, that is, the Orthodox Christian community within Ottoman realms."

So ... the labelling started as a Papal insult and was based on Catholic European envy. Non-Orthodox Europeans like to think that the whole Roman Empire ended in the 5th century CE. It's worth remembering that one of the first acts of the "Franks" when the crusades started was to sack Constantinople.

If, as you wrote, the "Byzantines" were invaders and conquerors in Palestine, when did they do that invading and conquering? The 5th century CE, when, according to the current version of the article, Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire?

    ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Just remove all references to conquest, leave rulers and have done with it. This is some serious lead summary minutiae of very little import at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and enacted this. The lead summary shouldn't be getting into how each and every empire came to acquire this land plot. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: You're bloating the lead again with this diff, and blending macro and micro history. Failed revolts, for example, are not historical details that stand shoulder to shoulder with the passage of empires. More ambling prehistory is also far from helpful. The notability of the Hasmonean's semi-independence is debatable. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, both sources ("The human habitation of coastal Canaan can be traced back to Paleolithic and Mesolithic times, and excavations have revealed that a settled community and an agricultural way of life existed at the site of Jericho by 8,000 bce."[1])("The southern Levan has been more or less continuously occupied for more than a million years."[2]) directly contradict this sentence: "The land held by present-day Israel saw the earliest traces of the human occupation, and was inhabited by the Canaanites during the Bronze Age." (The sentence it replaced: "Inhabited since the Middle Bronze Age by Canaanite tribes,[20][21] the land held by present-day Israel was once the setting for much of Biblical history, beginning with the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which fell, respectively, to the Neo-Assyrian Empire (c. 720 BCE) and Neo-Babylonian Empire (586 BCE).")     ←   ZScarpia   12:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there seems to be some clear contradiction. It's also pretty useless without specifying the level of civilization being discussed. If it's the first source that's being preferred here, i.e.: the one referring to urban human occupation in the form of Jericho, well, that's a firmly Palestinian city these days, so wrong article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the part about earliest occupation, which is simply false and the source doesn't say otherwise. Some question exists of what "human" means; does it include pre-sapiens humans? The next part "inhabited by the Canaanites during the Bronze Age" is a bit silly, they are called Canaanites because they lived in Canaan so it's rather like "America is inhabited by Americans". Zero^talk 13:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources mentioning ancient human remains found in Manot and Misliya caves: [3][4]. On hybridisation - Race (1974), John R Baker, p11: "Very strange facts are revealed when we turn to the Neanderthaloid remains of the mid-Pleistocene found on Mount Carmel, south of Haifa in Israel, and in other parts of Palestine. A considerable number of rather well preserved specimens have been studied in great detail by McCown and Keith. The people who lived in this area at the time were remarkably varied in structure, some of them verging towards the Neanderthal, others towards the early sapiens type, others again intermediate. It was suggested by the American anthropologist C. S. Coon that hybridization between Neanderthal man and sapiens might be the explanation. This view was strongly supported by Dobzhansky, an authority on the origin of species and races." Modern genetic testing has shown that anybody with ancestry outside Africa (if I remember correctly) carries Neanderthal DNA, with the area including modern Israel being a favourite for where the hybridisation with Homo Sapiens took place.     ←   ZScarpia   15:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Source concerned with ancient settlement in the Levant: the examination of the remains of a neolithic shepherd[5].     ←   ZScarpia   11:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

“ A successful Maccabean revolt led to the rise of an independent Hasmonean kingdom, but it was gradually incorporated into the Roman Republic. A series of large-scale Jewish revolts against Roman rule were unsuccessful, and led to wide-scale destruction, a high toll of life, and mass displacement. ”

A series of -objectively- irrelevant and undue historical events that occurred more than 2,000 years ago are given more detail and weight than a macro-historical narration of the lands that make up what is today modern-day Israel. Again, we have to agree on an inclusion criteria, so this discussion doesn't have to keep popping up again every week. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take advantage of this discussion to leave my opinion, suggestions and a question. Israel is a Jewish state, so it is relevant to mention the Jewish states that existed in the region in the led because it is the legacy of these ancient Jewish states that influenced the creation of modern Israel. The current led is almost perfect. I noticed that the introduction does not mention the name of the land held by present-day Israel, and this makes sense due to the various names that this land has and the polemic with the term Palestine that can confuse the reader. The article avoids citing the name of this land until it mentions Ottoman Syria, a term that can also confuse a lay reader and that I suggest be replaced by Levant, an equivalent term, or just "region". “West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan e Egypt”, I think it's better to replace this with "were occupied by Jordan and Egypt". “whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement (in 2005) is disputed”, as I have suggested before I think we should put the year in this text. The question: why does the article only mention 260,000 Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel, while the article Jewish exodus from the Muslim world mentions 850,000? Why is that 850,000 not mentioned here? Mawer10 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Being a Jewish majority state does not mean the state has no non-Jewish history. There's a big difference between mentioning supposedly ancient Jewish kingdoms, and mentioning revolts and their proceedings, in a space that should be taken up by a macro-historical narration. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mawer10 – re your question – this discussion from the archive and this discussion about that number explains the reasoning for the difference in the number; briefly: 260k in the first several years after 1948; the rest came over a longer period of time; LavenderGroves (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to trim the ancient history in the lead a bit further, notably removing the random bible reference: this does not need mentioning here; it is not a pertinent geographical detail. I also trimmed the duplication of the word 'caliphate'. Unfortunately, the remainder is rather tricky to summarize further without loss of fidelity given the long history. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The regime of Israel

There are strong disagreements in Israeli society about which institution cause the state not only a risk to its democracy but actually undemocratic I propose to change every mention of democracy in this article from 'is' to 'officially is' until the dispute is resolved and corresponding to the article about North Korea or 'de jure' in the article which is written on Syria, without any qualification if Israel is under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes as in those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilad1250 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

wrong information: the new israeli prime mister is Benjamin Netanyahu and not yair lapid 84.110.99.216 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

change "while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt" to "while the West Bank (as the area became known after the 1948 conflict) Gaza and the Eastern part of Jerusalem were held by Jordan and Egypt. Those territories were formally annexed in 1950 ". Ross 02:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it's necessary to specify this for readability or clarity; prospective readers can read the article linked to for that information. —Sirdog (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the British empire

The flag of the British Empire should be added in the infobox.

Qplb191 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? Israel is not a part of the British empire. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It is written on the declaration that the State of Israel was freed from the British Empire, therefore there should be a flag of the British Mandate Qplb191 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: South Africa doesn't have the Union Jack in the infobox. Where would we even place it? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Near “ Independence out of British Palestine” and then the British flag. Qplb191 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO near “independence out of British Palestine” there should be the British Union Jack flag. Qplb191 (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Independence out of British Palestine
Independence out of British Palestine

@Qplb191: The Manual of Style for icons generally eschews the use of flag icons in infoboxes except for some human geographic articles, where the inclusion is based on editorial consensus. I'm still against inclusion because it would place undue weight to the UK when they have nothing to do with Israel for a long time. If Israel were a Commonwealth nation, then I would've leaned towards neutral. Having the flag sandwich between out and British also makes no sense for text-only browsers. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO Israel got its independence from the British Mandate that ruled over it therefore the British flag must be there since Israel belonged to Britain. The flag should be added, by the way, Israel is not a member of the Coomonwelath, but it was controlled by Britain for a long time and Britain's control of Israel is among the most famous, so the British flag must be excellent. Except that before the establishment of the state (1947-1948) the flag of Great Britain was the official flag displayed in the area that was called "Palestine" or the Land of Israel and before the establishment of the state the British flag was used as the local flag Qplb191 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The example you gave should be in the infobox Qplb191 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: Other former British colonies that lasted longer than Mandatory Palestine don't include the flag. It's been 74 years since Israel's sovereignty from the UK so its national ties aren't strong as, say, an Olympic athlete. The Union Jack is in my honest opinion simply obsolete and its color gives too much emphasis on the colonial past. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

But we are only talking about the period before the establishment of the state, which was the flag of the area then called Palestine. Qplb191 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO but that’s was the flag before The establishment of the state of Israel , it’s should be mentioned. Qplb191 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: Back then, yes, the Union Jack was the official flag. But the reign only lasted 20 years out of thousands of years of history, which, per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, would give too much prominence to the United Kingdom for no good reason. You say that "Britain's control of Israel is among the most famous" but untrue both ways: first, there's Hong Kong, Australia, Canada and the US, all of them speak English today, meaning the colonial times of the past had great of influence on the modern state; and second, interpreting it as "among the most famous in Israeli history", again, it can get inflammatory when hanging the flag of the colonial past. Also, why not include the UN flag at Admission to the United Nations – 11 May 1949 in the infobox just a bit below? Reader can click the link and click some more to get to see the flag at Mandatory Palestine. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@lol1VNIO Once again, the flag has no connection between Britain's relations with Israel, we are talking about the fact that Israel was founded by Britain, Britain was the country from which Israel was established and the flag before that is the British flag, so I think it is important to add the previous flag that was the flag of the region before the establishment of the state. Qplb191 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel was not "founded by Britain". Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qplb191: None of the other former British colony articles feature the UK flag in their "independence" section of the infobox. This should also be consistent with this article. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply think that for every country freed from British rule the relevant flag should be displayed. Qplb191 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel self declared on part of Palestine mandate territory following Britain's surrender of the Mandate, that is not a country being "freed from British rule" either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless we don't do formerly apart of anyway in any modern day country infobox, these are only features on historical state articles, Lithuania's for example features no 'Independence from the Soviet Union'. Tweedle (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@selfstudier yes I agree but it was the flag unlike other countries, so why shouldn't it be excellent? Qplb191 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are confusing 'excellent' with 'excluded' (and shouldn't with should as well), your last sentence does not make sense with the former. Tweedle (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I just meant that because the Union Jack was the flag of this era before the establishment of the state it’s should be mentioned as well Qplb191 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Remove the Arabic text Arabic is not Israel its Palestine and does not belong on Israel article but only the Palestine article 71.241.203.240 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Israel’s nominal GDP per capita ranks 14th. Qplb191 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done In general, please remember to be specific with regards to the changes you suggest; it makes the reviewer's job a lot easier! Actualcpscm (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Arab countries 'intervened'?

I would argue that the word invaded would be more accurate given that is how it is recorded in its own article. 81.99.198.47 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel.

Jerusalem is not the largest city in Israel Tel-Aviv is. 67.246.161.112 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Prime Minister Changed

Bibi Is back on business 2001:4DF7:1:5972:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Human rights criticism should be mentioned in lede.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, as well as country articles in other regions, mention accusations of human rights violations in the lede. Given that Israel is also widely condemned by major human rights organizations for its human rights violations, it seems to make sense to include that in the lede, alongside the "Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state, and as the nation-state of the Jewish people." sentence. Iran and China also define themselves as democratic states, but neither of those country articles are afforded this self-designation, yet the Israel article simply goes with Israel's self-definition without mentioning that major human rights organizations have stated that Israel is undemocratic, as have prominent scholars: [6] [7]. In fact, Wikipedia's article on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, has a mention of the Basic Law being described as undemocratic by critics. I suggest that criticism of Israel's human rights record (and being called undemocratic) should be mentioned in the lede, as is standard in other country articles, and the Israeli government's self-descriptions should not be given undue weight. JasonMacker (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Think we need some good source analysis on this question, can't just look at one or two and conclude something. Self serving descriptions are not worth much though, needs to be RS, and be balanced by contradictory sourcing, if it exists. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'Freedom House' quote may have outlived its usefulness. Also, what a country defines itself as does smack distinctly of a WP:MISSION issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, four points should be highlighted, that Israel: maintains what is now the world's longest military occupation, established an apartheid system, continues illegal settlement expansion, and often uses excessive violence against the Palestinians. These are all well-established and reported by reputable Israeli, Palestinian and international organizations, and failure to mention any of those in the lede is fairly hypocritical to say the least. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I propose adding this to the lede:

Israel has faced increasing international criticism, for maintaining the longest military occupation is modern history, expansion of Israeli settlements despite illegality under international law, and accusations of apartheid over its treatment of the Palestinians. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:::It seems an unnecessary one-sided POV addition. Lead already mentions the occupation, Palestinian exodus and rejection of settlements by the international community.--Shuvam Koleyri (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What's POV about 'the longest military occupation in modern history'? That's factual (the West Bank was never annexed) and fairly remarkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The longest thing would be fine if it is to replace/supplement the existing although imo it is more interesting that the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself is now being questioned and an ICJ opinion about it is being sought. There is the statement yesterday from the US on settlement activity - "The Homesh outpost in the West Bank is illegal. It is illegal even under Israeli Law. Our call to refrain from unilateral steps certainly includes any decision to create a new settlement, to legalize outposts or allowing building of any kind deep in the West Bank, adjacent to Palestinian communities or on private Palestinian land." And of course the apartheid accusations are notable and not going away (this is in the body but not in the lead). Selfstudier (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

These two could be combined: the first line of Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself remarks on the length of the occupation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the legality issue revolves around the idea that an occupation is supposed to be temporary, instead there is the length + lack of evidence of any intent to terminate, instead all the evidence points to permanence, including de facto annexation done and planned. What would be useful is to find one source with all these things in it (they are all interconnected) rather than a bit here and a bit there. I will take a look around, maybe the Amnesty report + secondaries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-claimed-some-wins-in-un-vote-but-the-icj-process-is-a-serious-threat/

https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-general-assembly-committee-adopts-resolution-requesting-second-advisory-opinion-from-icj-on-occupied-palestinian-territory/

These two cover all the bases, any more? Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a polite reminder that this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that strives to be as objective and trustworthy as possible and is open to all readers, who expect to consume verifiable and neutral content. Wikipedia is not a discussion board, not a platform for activists, not a BDS leaflet, nor anything of the sort. The international community's opinions on the settlements and the present situation of the 1967 territories are already presented in the lead, and this is more than enough. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to advance a political agenda, otherwise, we risk undermining the project's reliability. Tombah (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Golan Heights

@OuroborosCobra: The Golan Heights is Syrian. That is an indisputable fact. If it was so “inconsequential”, the edit wouldn’t have been reverted twice in an hour. There’s no reason whatsoever not to mention that the Golan Heights is Syrian, given that in the very same sentence the territories are described to be Palestinian. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That they are internationally recognized as Syrian isn't the inconsequential part. That you want some specific form of "consistency" in how that is communicated is what is inconsequential. Both versions call the Golan Heights occupied territory, meaning not Israeli. Clicking on the link to Golan Heights will bring you to an article that says they are internationally recognized as Syrian (worth noting that parts of them are also claimed by Lebanon, which may be why specifically saying "Syrian" was left out in the first place). You aren't edit warring over whether they are Syrian or Israeli, just how it is expressed. That's the inconsequential part. This article is already under discretionary sanctions and you are getting into an edit war over a sentence in the lede. When you were first reverted, you should have come to the talk page to discuss this, but instead just re-reverted. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of an obvious reason why it shouldn't be mentioned that they are Syrian. It may well help readers unfamiliar with the what/where geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not stress that it is occupied Syrian territory? What is the problem with that? Every single source mentions that fact. The talk page could have been used by the user who first reverted my edit, who is nowhere to be seen here. You are yet to provide a convincing argument on why "Syrian" should not be included in the very same sentence where the territories are said to be Palestinian. The fact that Shebaa farms are Lebanese is "inconsequential", considering that the overwhelming majority of sources describe the territory to be Syrian. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The infobox says "the annexed Golan Heights" as if it were an approved thing, when it is rather a unilateral annex and the settlements there are just as illegal as those in the WB, per UNSC resolutions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Corrected that. nableezy - 16:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My primary objection to what was happening on this page was that edit warring was happening in an article with discretionary sanctions over not even what is to be presented or what facts are presented, just the how. That was a very silly thing to get into an edit war over rather than coming to this talk page, which is what Makeandtoss should have done when they were first reverted. That said, there is an interesting issue here as to what we should say. The international community overwhelmingly (the United States not withstanding) recognizes the Golan Heights (or at least what Israel controls of it) to be Syrian territory. However, Lebanon claims Shebaa farms, which are within the Israeli controlled area of the Golan Heights, as its own territory, to the point that they claim Israel never fully withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Certainly, that's not a position shared by the international community (the UN even certified the Israeli withdrawal as complete), but it is a position shared by Syria, which claims that the Shebaa farms are part of Lebanon and not part of Syria. So, it's an odd situation where the international community says that Israel is occupying Syrian territory in the Golan Heights (and only Syrian territory), but Syria themselves claim that only most of the occupied territory is theirs, and that some of it is Lebanese. I'm not sure I know of another example where the international community sides with a country in a border dispute only for that country to disagree with part of that international position. This is all contained in our article on the Golan Heights. So, is it proper to only say that the Golan Heights are Syrian when Syria says they are Syrian and Lebanese? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)