Talk:Golan Heights

duplicate content in "Israeli settlement " section

Almost the entirety of the first paragraph of the Israeli settlement section is repeated information. As this page is protected I'm unable to change it. I propose deleting the majority of the first paragraph of that section. Its very well stated previously that Israel is violating UN law by occupying the Golan heights sothis redundancy adds nothing. Bearz42 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to my original post, I believe the article should start with the already written sentence "The continued Israeli control of the Golan Heights remains highly contested and is still regarded as belligerent occupation by most countries." Bearz42 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Period of last vulcanic activity

In the article it says there is still active vulcanism in the region, correctly labelled as dubious. According to this article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00445-013-0712-7 vulcanism has stopped there some 100.000 years ago. Can't correct it myself, but perhaps anybody with enough status can correct it, using this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Codiv: This is not my specialty, but I'm not sure that source is sufficient. It seems to only concern a particular location over a particular time period. Please disagree if that's not correct. Zero^talk 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zero: You can be totally right, I do not have acces to the original article, so I only have the summary to go on. However, the present Wikipedea article states that activities have gone on until recent, but if I look at areal photo's I see absolutely nothing that looks like recent, vulcanic activity, unlike the connected area's in Syria and Saudi-Arabia. So this amount of time since last eruption seems much more likely than the recent statement I was triggered by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Codiv: If you send me mail I will send you the article. Meanwhile I think "continuing to this day" is unbelievable and was cited to a travel guide so I removed it. It would be nice to have a better source with a summary of the volcanic history. Zero^talk 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

short description

First, this article says explicitly that Since the Six-Day War of 1967, the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel and in the infobox it says Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. This is by consensus, and making us have the same argument over the short description is tendentious. This is already a settled issue here, and if you want to change the super-majority view to the Israeli POV of "disputed territories" you should not be doing so by edit-warring. Dunutubble, kindly self-revert your contested change. nableezy - 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

First off, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Keep in mind I said your edit was in good faith.

Second, I would imagine that the Israeli POV would be that the Golan Heights is Israeli territory. Saying that this territory is Syrian would likewise be the Syrian POV. Neither of these are in anyways necessarily wrong; just two differing viewpoints. According to WP:NPOV, we need to take both these viewpoints into account. That's why I tried to help that - it is well established that Syria and Israel do not agree on who it belongs to.

Third, I apologize if any of my actions seemed harsh. I didn't intend to make it appear that I was trying to push forward a particular viewpoint (rather, I was trying the opposite). I'm sorry if my edits made the situation feel stressful. Dunutubble (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What personal attack have I made here? And no, that is not what NPOV says. NPOV says we give proportional weight to viewpoints. The view that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel is a supermajority view in reliable sources. Your edit gave equal weight to views that sources treat as distinctly unequal. That is not NPOV. NPOV requires we give supermajority views, eg the Earth is round, the Golan is Syrian territory, considerably more weight than minority ones. It is not the Syrian POV that the Golan is Syrian territory, it is the view of nearly every competent party on the planet. nableezy - 15:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights is implicit. The US position is peculiar, I really want to say farcical, since they are signed up to the relevant UNSC resolution in direct contradiction to their individual position. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Was Golan ever part of Palestine?

Korman' "Right of Conquest" says in a footnote on page 260:[1] "Although originally forming part of British-mandated Palestine, in 1923 the Golan Heights were ceded by Britain to French-mandated Syria (see Ya'akov Meron, 'The Golan Heights 1918-1967', in Meir Shamgar (ed.), Military Govern­ ment in the Territories Administered by Israel 1967-1980: The Legal Aspects, i (Jeru­ salem: Hebrew University, 1982), 85)."

I don't think this is correct, per the detail at Paulet–Newcombe Agreement. What do others think? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Garfinkle, Adam (1998). "History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths"[2] Israel Affairs. Routledge, 135–146, shows clearly that the claim is not based on real history and more of a repeated error, or as Garfinkle calls it a "Zionist myth". You can see the 1920 line in this map: [3]. The majority of the Golan Heights within the French mandate for Syria including Syria connected to half the Sea of Galilee. So how do we go from this fact to the claim that the same line had GH as part of Palestine? I have the entire Garfinkle file, I can send it to you if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That map was drawn by user Doron (one of the best editors ever in the I/P area, whom I sorely miss) with help from me in tracing the 1920 agreement on a contemporary map and finding a British archival document with a pencil line drawn on exactly the same map. I've seen the correct line since then on printed maps but also some incorrect maps that show a bulging line where the agreement specifies a straight section. No maps, however, show more than a minority fraction of the Golan Heights on the Palestinian side. We should also remember that the 1920 agreement never intended to provide more than an interim rough border and a boundary commission to decide on a precise border. The northern part was under French control until approximately 1924. Zero^talk 06:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zero and Supreme. That all sounds right. In particular Zero’s penultimate sentence is what I was thinking too – Korman’s “originally forming part of British-mandated Palestine” makes little sense alone, as there were no “original boundaries”. They were negotiated over three years and that was that. I assume she meant “originally forming part of the Zionist proposal for British-mandated Palestine”. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

My library has the book in which Meron's article appears. It isn't clear what language it is in but I'll take a look next week. Zero^talk 07:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Supreme Deliciousness I have Meron's article. It only says that the 1920 agreement put the "northeastern part" of the GH in Palestine. The article is a lawyer's brief on why Israel should keep the GH and, in keeping with the genre, no tendentious non sequitur is off-limits. It starts with an argument that the UK and France were not entitled to adjust the 1920 agreement and goes downhill from there. Zero^talk 12:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha. Quality stuff then… Looks like they are bad at geography as well as history… The northeastern part! Onceinawhile (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Gulp, I have to plead guilty on that one. It says northwestern not northeastern. Zero^talk 00:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Ok that makes more sense, and is consistent with your map. From Biger p.147: Here the report mentions the major modification that was made in 1923, because the 1920 agreement dictated the setting of an international boundary through the lands of Emir El-Fa’ur. Palestine lost any foothold in the Golan Heights as a result of this change, and its boundary was moved to the west, almost following the Jordan river. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Schumacher Ostjordanlandes A2

CIA map of the Israel occupied Golan Heights and vicinity, October 1994 (cropped)

And from the 1920 agreement: …the Wadi Massadyie. It will then follow the course of this river upstream, and then the Wadi Jeraba to its source. From that point it will reach the track from El Kuneitra to Banias at the point marked Skek, thence it will follow the said track, which will remain in the territory under the French mandate as far as Banias. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have found some historical discussion on this: Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 11#Areas of dispute. @Zero0000: you mentioned you had the map the British used. Which one do you think that was? I have been looking at Schumacher. I cannot find Skek on modern maps – I am guessing coordinates (33.16, 35.72)? And the two wadis are perhaps today known as Meshushim River and the Jilabun? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just found another map from the CIA (see right). It shows all the depopulated Syria villages – should be added to this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll send you the two maps that I mentioned. The course is clear except that Wadi Jeraba forks a few times and which fork to take is unspecified. (It matters only a little bit.) However the archival map shows the boundary following the most straight-ahead fork so we used that. Zero^talk 08:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I now believe the remains of Skek are at 33.173, 35.734. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Schumacher's map has Wadi Jeraba with the spelling Wadi Dscheraba. That means his name for Wadi Masadiye is Wadi es Safa. You can trace Wadi Dscheraba up to Der es Saras. Then the boundary went to Skek, which is also on Schumacher's map. Zero^talk 08:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I imagine other maps at the time followed Schumacher, as his was (I believe) the only detailed survey that had then been carried out.

One question on your boundary map. The 1920 agreement says: From [the source of Wadi Jeraba] it will reach… Skek I believe you interpreted “it will reach” (in the French version “elle atteindra”) as a straight line – I can’t see what else it could mean, but are you certain that this is the correct meaning?

What I actually think is that there was no intention to specify a precise path, otherwise one would have been given. It was left for the boundary commission. The Banias-Mediterranean part of the boundary was even more vaguely specified. We drew a straight line because that's what the British map has. Incidentally, I have a far higher res version of the CIA map and will upload it. Zero^talk 09:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Separately, it puts an onus on “where exactly was the source of the Wadi Jeraba”. It isn’t clear to me on the maps, and river sources can be disputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Until further information comes up, the British map is best source for the British intention. Zero^talk 09:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, ok. I didn't realize that that was drawn by the British - so that is Hardinge's line? It seems that the wadi source as they defined it is in the vicinity of today's Israeli settlement Kidmat Tzvi. Which would make sense given the Israeli strategy to build settlements at high points. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume it is the British interpretation of the 1920 convention, of which Hardinge was the British signatory. It would be interesting to see if the French interpretation was the same. I predict it is the same, because the two parties probably played together with maps and colored pencils before writing the text. Zero^talk 11:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)