Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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^talk 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)

Hashmonean map

I do not see that the "map of the Hashmonean kingdom" has a source, except that it first appeared in the Dutch Wikipedia. Did I miss it? Maps need to be cited to reliable sources like everything else. Zero^talk 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^talk 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^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot use the bible to describe an encylpodian article. If so,you should write in muhammad's article that he said that all heretics shall die by a laking fire. <personal attack removed> 84.229.173.5 (talk)

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 [1] - 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."[2]
• International Committee of the Red Cross - dead link [3] probably same issue.
• the only sources that seem to have any substance is the EU one [4]. and possibly the arab league one [5] and the U.S. (although a bit of a general description here "U.S.") [6]
• 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 [7] --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, Wikipedia 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)

You keep it up and you will be topic-banned before long. nableezy - 02:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you at least have a mirror right next to your PC monitor. Amoruso (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Have I repeatedly accused you of "hijacking" articles? nableezy - 02:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to appropriateness of a topical ban according to your edits. Amoruso (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You want to try to make that case go right ahead. nableezy - 03:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a life. Amoruso (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I seriously suspect that some users here edit Middle-East related articles as part of a campaign. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some "tag team groups" are actually part of an organization or association that triers to make a political impact through editing WP and other similar websites. I cannot prove it for the moment, but there are too many circumstantial evidences, mainly the fact that you cannot edit an article without it being reverted in a matter of minutes. The users involved protect one another very efficiently, and target anyone who seem to disturb them. DrorK (talk) 05:52, 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.[6][7][8][9][10] [11][12] [13]The Israeli law itself was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 497 [14]and the General Assembly has continued to reaffirm support for this resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

Non of these changes was agreed upon on the talkpage: [8] I brought up some of the changes here [9], 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:[10] and you did not address the issues, if you want to do any of the changes like for example removing "motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan"", like you did, get consensus first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNGA resolutions on Golan Heights

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

A/RES/48/212 1993 [11], A/RES/49/132 1995 [12], A/RES/50/129 1996 [13], A/RES/51/135 1997 [14], A/RES/52/54 1998 [15], A/RES/52/68 1998 [16], A/RES/53/57 1998 [17], A/RES/53/38 1998 [18], A/RES/53/55 1998 [19], A/RES/53/196 1999 [20], A/RES/54/230 2000 [21], A/RES/56/32 2001 [22], A/RES/56/61 2002 [23], A/RES/56/63 2002 [24], A/RES/57/112 2003 [25], A/RES/57/128 2003 [26], A/RES/58/100 2003 [27], A/RES/58/23 2004 [28], A/RES/59/33 2005 [29], A/RES/60/40 2006 [30], A/RES/60/108 2006 [31], A/RES/61/27 2007 [32], A/RES/61/120 2007 [33], A/RES/62/110 2008 [34], A/RES/63/99 2008 [35], A/RES/63/31 2009 [36], A/RES/64/21 2010 [37], A/RES/64/185 2010 [38]

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

Reverted non agreed edits

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

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

I have also removed some advocacy websites in the external links section. [39] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)