Talk:Golan Heights

Geshur and Hasmonean in the lead

Rather than reverting material into and out of the lead, how about the following as a compromise, to keep the lead short: Change the first sentence of the paragraph to "The earliest evidence of human habitation on the Golan dates to the Upper Paleolithic period; later came the small kingdom of Geshur." Also, after mention of Alexander the Great and before mention of the Caliphate, shorten the others to "Intervening periods occurred involving the Itureans, Hasmoneans, Roman Empire and Ghassanids." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are more important and relevant aspects to the history of the Golan Heights than a biblical territory who only some scholars think it existed as a city-state 3,000 years ago. Such examples include Zahir al-Umar's semi-autonomous state and the Ayyubid Nimrod Castle. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If I understand you right, you mean Geshur might not have existed. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) OK, in that case I withdraw my suggestion about mentioning Geshur in the lead: it would be hard to shorten it to just a few words if there's that kind of uncertainty. However, for the other periods, I think my suggestion actually shortens rather than lengthens the lead, so as far as I understand you don't oppose the second suggestion (correct me if I'm wrong). Actually, I'd like to include a little more information: how about "At different times, the area was controlled or inhabited by Arab or Aramaic Itureans; Hasmoneans and Jews; the Roman Empire; and Christian Arab Ghassanids." This would replace about two or three sentences of the lead. By the way, if there's scholarly disagreement, I suggest getting that mentioned in the main body of the article, as it seems to me to say that Geshur and Hasmonean periods did occur. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It might not have existed as a city-state or kingdom 3,000 years ago. As for your other suggestion, although I think it is important indeed to remove two or three sentence from the lede, I think putting all of these civilizations and giving them equal weight might not be representative of their actual importance, example: Hasmonean kingdom lasted for a century, while Ghassanid kingdom lasted for four; the Golan Heights was much more central to the Ghassanids than that Hasmonean kingdom; etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If I may intervene, your assumptions appear to be wholly incorrect. For the best of my knowledge there is no controversy over the existence of the kingdom of Geshur, and the Hasmonean kingdom lasted nearly a century and a half, followed by the rule of King Herod and his descendants, making it 2 centuries of continuous Jewish rule until the destruction of the Second Temple. Even if we don't nitpick over the decades, the Hasmonean Kingdom was the beginning of the Jewish presence in the Golan Heights which lasted undisturbed for an additional 6 centuries, until the end of the Byzantine period, as is attested by multiple synagogues scattered over the entire geographical unit. As such, the demographic and historical importance of the Hasmonean rule in the Golan Heights is paramount. Uppagus (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"More recently, Juha Pakkala (2010; 2013) criticized the extensive scholarly discussion of Geshur, highlighting the minimal historical information we have about this kingdom, which is entirely derived from the biblical narrative with no further historical source to support it (see also Hafþórsson 2006: 235–36)." [1]

As demonstrated above, there is actually indeed controversy over Geshur kingdom's existence. As for the Hasmonean kingdom, its presence did not last for a century and a half over the Golan Heights, as it was only reached in a campaign by Alexander Jannaeus, and seems unknown for how long he had held it. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The view of Juha Pakkala s not widely accepted and therefore is a fringe view. And you did not respond to the main argument referring to the historical and demographic importance of the Hasmonean kingdom in the region. Uppagus (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Presence of synagogues does not necessarily tie them to the Hasmonean kingdom. The RS did not say they were fringe, Pakkala and Hafþórsson are two notable scholars, which proves the lack of consensus and the presence, indeed, of controversy. Either way this is being overblown attention over other more relevant history aspects of the Golan, including its more recent and relevant history. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim that synagogues tied the Golan heights to the Hasmonean kingdom, I was saying that with the Hasmonean kingdom came the Jewish presence which remained uninterrupted unti the end of the Byzantine period. As such the antiquity of the Jewish presence in the Golan Heights should remain. The RS referred to the mentioned scholars, and then mentioned Nadav Naaman, also a notable scholar, who rejected the view you are promoting, and then even mentioned that Pakkala himself admits that the biblical account of Geshur could not have been completely invented. In the conclusion of the article the authors see no reason to reject the existence of the kingdom of Geshur. The lede already includes an extremely detailed description of the Golan Heights during the modern period. Uppagus (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, it seems to me that the quote you give of Pakkala doesn't seem to say or imply that Geshur may not have existed, but merely to criticize the amount of time spent discussing it when we know so little about it, so it seems to me that my first suggestion is still valid; however, if this is not accepted, another alternative might be "...the Upper Paleolithic period; later, as the Bible recounts, came the small kingdom of Geshur."

It seems to me that leaving something out entirely is a worse error than having the same small number of words as another longer period. If the Jews were there for several centuries, that justifies using about the same number of words for them as for Christian Arab Ghassanids; i.e. just one word for "Hasmonean" and three words for the Jews i.e. "Hasmoneans and Jews". (in my suggestion beginning "At different times..." above.) I also think it's OK to list periods without necessarily giving the proportional number of words as the length of the period. I think it's interesting information for the reader whether Jews, Arabs, or Christians had a major presence there at some time in the past even if it was only a century, and deserves mention. If we were making a list of presidents of the U.S. we wouldn't leave one out, or make their picture smaller or shorten their name, just because they were only president for a year. We might write a shorter paragraph about them, or possibly even a longer paragraph because we would have to explain why they were only there for a year. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It just needs mentioning in passing as one of or something like that, Geshur link is more than enough for a biblical account. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Uppagus To say that it the Golan became "populated by Jews" is erroneous and lacking in context as the dynasty enacted a policy of forced conversion on the native population. I have changed this wording per sources to reflect this in continuity with the proceeding sentence which expands on intricacies of later rulership. JJNito197 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on some comments above and other information, I amend my suggestion to "At different times, the area was controlled or inhabited by Arab or Aramaic Itureans; Jewish Hasmoneans; and the Roman Empire with over-arching rule over first Jewish Herodians, then Christian Arab Ghassanids." I think this is a fair compromise. Has anyone suggested (or would now like to suggest) anything that does a better job of taking into account (even if not perfectly) the various concerns expressed in this discussion? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it could also be more succinct for continuity purposes; we could streamline the content as (controlled by) the "...Itureans, Hasmoneans, Romans and Ghassanids" before expanding on the most noteworthy (Arab) Muslim conquest and later (Turkish) Ottoman occupation; this leaves out who inhabited or subjugated the region and its residents entirely. We could also describe it as inhabited by Arabs (with emphasis) per Makeandtoss, as the length of habitation is unequal compared to other ethnic groups including Jews if counting the Iturean, Ghassanid, Muslim Arab, and recent Arab rule. It is worth noting the point about Ghassanid and Muslim rule which doesn't mention the religious change in demographics; only when it concerns Hasmonean or Herodian (Roman) rule is this noted with the dubious use of "populated by Jews". This could either be because the Ghassanid Arab Christian or Muslim Arab conquest didn't force conversion, but we will never know because it is not expanded upon. This makes this sentence out of place, as well as the proposed emphasis on Hasmonean (Jewish) affinity to the Golan which is a side note in comparison, especially as we are talking about events that took place more than a millennium ago. JJNito197 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@JJNito197 You keep mentioning the Ghassanids, this is very puzzling. If you are treating them as residents of the Golan, then considering the fact that their center was not in the Golan Heights but in Syria, their presence is much less prominent compared to that of other groups such as the Jews. If you treat them as rulers, they served as Foederati under the Byzantines, and once again they were not prominent in the region. A testimony to this is the location of the few sites attributed to them being almost exclusively along the eastern border of the Golan. I wonder, maybe they should be omitted from the article altogether. I also find it puzzling that you put so much emphasis on the early Muslim rule, when it is well documented that there was a massive decline in the population of the Golan during their rule. So absent is their influence on the region that only in four sites did they unearth any finds from the early Muslim period (Hartal, Moshe. 1989. Northen Golan: An Archaeological Survey as a Source fro the History of the Region (Hebrew). Qazrin. P.135) and the entire region was left to nomads. On the other hand it is well attested that Jewish communities continued to flourish until the mid 8^th century (Maoz Z.U. 1992. Qazrin In Ephraim Stern et al. eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. (Hebrew). Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society & Carta. P. 1426, Killebrew, Anne. Ibid. P. 1427-1428). Uppagus (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Golan Heights but in Syria" Golan Heights is in Syria. Palestine is Syria if we want to go that far.

"along the eastern border of the Golan" if you mean that eastern border of Golan after the 1967, then that would be still the Golan since Israel occupies two-thirds of it, so that would be the Syrian third. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Previously this wording didn't specify who inhabited the region, which saves us the debate. We should change it to just listing the empires and rulers instead per the talk page consensus and proposal of Makeandtoss which I have now edited in. Further information about the demographics should be given due weight elsewhere and we shouldn't muddle this up with who ruled the region as this is not synonymous. Due content should be edited in the article but not in the lead for continuity purposes with the subject which relates to geography foremostly. JJNito197 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"entirely derived from the biblical narrative with no further historical source to support it" is pretty clear in saying that its existence is dubious at best, unless we take biblical or other religious mythologies at face value. Speaking of, recently I have trimmed tons of mythologies relating to the origin of Arabs at Arabs. Mythologies can be mentioned in encyclopaedias but they should not take precedence over actual historical facts.

As for your suggestion, I think it is more editorial/journalistic than encylopaedic, the type one would expect to read in a newspaper. Not to mention the existing concern of overamplifying the Hasmonean existence there that barely lasted a few decades in the Golan over the more recent four century rule of the Ghassanids who had their entire political power base there.

I agree with JJNito197 that it is better to mention the empires/civilizations rather than the populations as is normal practice in most historical regions/countries.

This summarization would need more nuance, we can't just group a brief rule by a small kingdom with a centuries-long rule by the Roman Empire and later the Ghassanid kingdom, not to mention the subsequent caliphates.

My suggestion would be, not to be taken literally: (controlled by) the "...Itureans, and Hasmoneans, before becoming part of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century AD, it was home to the Ghassanid kingdom, which had its base there. It later became part of the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires. [something here to be expanded about them to give due weight]"

Mentioning Muslim [and Ottoman] conquest without mentioning Greek or Persian or other conquests would be misleading. Also now after having read the body, there is a clear underreporting of the Islamic period. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss We should not ignore the fact that, as has been demonstrated, Pakkala does not represent the consensus, nor even an accepted scholarly view. Furthermore, you did not address the fact that even Na'aman, who is no stranger to biblical criticism, does not accept Pakkala's thesis, and the existence of Geshur is not seen as mythology, rather as an historical fact.

Regarding the political base of the Ghassanids, You are mistaken, the Ghassanid power base was in Damascus and the environs. If their power base was in the Golan, they would have left a much greater mark. Oddly enough, even the one sentence about them in the article has no source, so please supply sources if you have any to add.

And it appears that there is more than ample reporting of the Islamic period, simply due to the fact that the Islamic period provided almost no archaeological finds, unless you mean the Jewish village of Qazrin, which you may be right about, it should be discussed more broadly. Uppagus (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No such thing as “representing consensus”. Consensus by definition is general agreement. If there is disagreement then there is no general agreement. As for ruins, clearly the most important historical site in the Golan is the Nimrod Fortress, an Islamic ruin built by the Ayyubids who would later overrun a European colonial crusader state in their midst. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@JJNito197 On the contrary, the erroneous claim is the one you present. See Syon, Danny (2014). Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989. Finds and Studies. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, No. 56. ISBN 978-965-406-503-0. p. 4: "Scholarly consensus holds that the Golan became populated by Jews following the conquests of Jannaeus in c. 80 BCE and as a direct result of these conquests."

And while it is true that Josephus states that the itureans were converted by Alexander Jannaeus, most scholars agree that this was anti-Hasmonean propaganda, and forced conversions did not occur, rather the Jewish population came from Judea, See Leibner below and Kasher, Aryeh. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE—70 CE). Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pp. 39-45, Dar, Shimon. 1991. The Geographical Region of the Hasmonean-Iturean Encounter. Cathedra 59: 3–11, (In Hebrew with English abstract). Recent archaeological finds support this, 'thus the scholars who reject Josephus' report as entirely unreliable appear to be correct'. See Leibner, Uzi. 2009. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee : An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pp. 321, 336 and Hartal, Moshe. 2005. The Land of the Ituraeans, Qazrin. (Hebrew) P. 374, who conclude that there are no signs that the Iturean population converted at all as opposed to the Idumeans who converted although most probably not through coersion, see sources above. Uppagus (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, your suggested wording looks OK to me. Regarding Geshur, since some editors seem intent on including it, I think we need to compromise and mention it very briefly. I suggest "...Paleolithic period; later was the biblical Geshur." If we mention Geshur I think we need to mention the Bible because if it says Geshur existed without mentioning the Bible some readers might get the impression there's evidence for Geshur outside the Bible, and a wikilink is not sufficient to clear that up. Also, mentioning the Bible fits in with the earlier part of the sentence, which is about evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Or better: "...later the Bible mentions Geshur". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think we might have a consensus that to keep the lead short and balanced, in the lead we won't mention the religion or ethnicity of the population at various times, but we'll only mention the rulers. Religion and ethnicity can be described in the main body of the article, under appropriate headings. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the "biblical Geshur" suggestion. But now rereading the ancient history section, why are we mentioning Geshur but not the Amorites or the Canaanites who preceded them, particularly as there is actual archaeological evidence for them in the Amarna letters? My concern is that we're giving this [alleged] civilization undue weight. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "Later, ancient writings indicate Amorites, Canaanites and Geshur in the region at different times." instead of the sentence about Geshur? Ancient writings includes both the Amarna letters and the Bible. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the suggestion but ends up conflating archaeological writings with mythological scripture. Maybe "Before antiquity, the Amorites and Canaanites controlled the region, as well as biblical Geshur later. After the 8th century BC, the region then became part of the Assyrian,... empires." Makeandtoss (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "Later came the Canaanites, the Amorites, then biblical Geshur." The phrase "Before antiquity" sounds odd to me, like "before a long time ago", which makes no sense. Wiktionary defines antiquity as starting at 500 AD, not quite what we want here, and mainly for Europe. I think this suggestion of mine weakly implies that the Amorites were after the Canaanites, whereas putting "and" between them tends to sound as if they were both there working together at the same time. Mentioning the Bible helps give a very rough sense of when this happened. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Biblical stuff without real evidence isnt history but there is evidence for Geshur: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is safer to say there is evidence which was tied to Geshur. Either way biblical doesn't imply this is entirely mythical but that the only historical written reference to it comes from the bible; so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, @Coppertwig, @Supreme Deliciousness, @Uppagus, hey, can I ask why we dropped Aram-Damascus? Its activities in the Golan are well-documented by scholars, especially after incorporating Geshur. On the other hand, I haven’t found any mention of Canaanites in the Golan during the Iron Age. What’s that based on? The Amarna letters from the Bronze Age don’t necessarily imply a Canaanite population; actually, scholars think the 'Land of Gauru' mentioned there is an early incarnation of Geshur. Mariamnei (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind: "biblical Geshur, then Aram-Damascus." As for Canaanites, this was taken from the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just checked the source in the body, and it doesn't mention anything about Canaanites, Amorites, or Labaya. So, I'm updating the lead to say, "During the Iron Age, it was home to biblical Geshur, which was later incorporated into Aram-Damascus." :) Mariamnei (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: I don't think it was good practice to remove that information from the body, particularly after the lengthy discussion here. That information is not likely to have been made up, and we have ways with dealing with this kind of situation, including the not in the source and citation needed in-line tags; which gives editors the chance to verify contested information, instead of their wholesale removal.

I don't have access to this source which would seem to discuss the Golan Height's Iron age period: [3]; or this source which might refer to subject as well [4]. As for the Arameans: "From the available information, it is highly plausible that Arameans settled in southern Syria

in the tenth–ninth centuries in the Beqaˁ valley and the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee and the Golan heights." page 798 While this biblical journal source page 17-18, claims that the area was originally part of Canaan. Also: "The reference, in the El Amarna correspondence, to Amorite kingdoms on the east bank of the Jordan and the Golan Heights indicates that the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and Og is not pure literary fiction." page 98. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently I don't see anything about Canaanites or Amorites in the body of the article. If it isn't in the body of the article it shouldn't be in the lead. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: That is because it was removed, despite having other options to deal with this situation. Plus, here we are discussing the body not the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mariamnei:. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"the latter being rejected", why is it only the annexation being rejected? I am sure the occupation was also rejected; UNSCR 242 as an example. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

242 is a call to withdraw from territories occupied via land for peace (as per Jordan and Egypt) and is applicable to Syrian territory as well. You cannot "reject" an occupation (defined as "temporary") unless declaring it illegal, which might happen shortly in the case of Palestine. The transfer of settlers to it is a war crime as it is in the case of Palestine already. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know just feels that it implies that the occupation is fine. I would propose switching to ", which was rejected"; as this would refer to the occupation and subsequent annexation collectively. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Would it work to say "effectively annexed in 1981 in a move not recognized by the international community"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"move" is singular so still same issue. ", which was rejected" this phrasing should solve this issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, as I think the international community recognizes that it is occupied, as the article seems to say, even if they condemned the occupation. However, the wording you suggest also seems fine to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. The change is fine with me, but I should tell you that I think the wording is ambiguous. I think it's OK for it to be ambiguous. Some readers may think it means the annexation and occupation were rejected, while others may think it means the annexation was rejected. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed ambiguous and might have been my intention away from implying only annexation is problematic; should be good for now unless we have a better proposal. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Request add word to opening paragraph

This sentence: "It is bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east."

Please replace "the Anti-Lebanon" with "the Anti-Lebanon mountains". Without knowing there are actual mountains called "Anti-Lebanon" parsing the sentence takes much longer. Bob Jed (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

Unrelated, but Quneitra has been misspelled as Quneintra multiple times in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:9A29:FF00:5589:C495:188D:F836 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Zero^talk 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

edit warring

We have previously discussed the weight given to the US position, and the consensus version should remain absent a consensus to change it. Edit-warring to force it in is disruptive. If you feel that the weight given to the US position is not correct then feel free to argue that point here on the talk page, but not through reverts. nableezy - 13:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing one-sided POV from lede

"Effective annexation" is subjective. Israel doesn't call it an annexation. Certainly some critics do. But the subjective views of some critics doesn't belong in a lede. In the body, we can and do discuss why some call it annexation. I have used the neutral term "extended Israeli jurisdiction" because that is objectively true. More detail is in the body.

Furthermore, the "international community" didn't declare the extension of Israeli jurisdiction to the Golan null and void. The UN did in 1981. But the United States (both Republican and Democratic Presidents) have recognized Israel sovereignty in the Golan Heights and currently do so. There is NO SOURCE CITED subsequent to US recognition in 2019 that says "international community." I cannot find any place in wikipedia where the "international community" is cited as all agreeing where the "international community" excludes the USA without mentioning that exclusion.

Originally, I hoped to state the controversy, both the view of the UN and that of the USA. But if you don't want to state the controversy, you can't just give one side of it. If the United States recognition is a "detail" that should not be included in the lede, the UN view should also be excluded. So I have removed the issue entirely from the lede. It is still in the body.

I'm happy with either: 1) stating both sides of a contested issue in the lede; or 2) leaving it out.

But I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to state only one side of a contested issue as if it were true and without mentioning the other side. It would be like saying, "Everyone agrees that the Yankees are a better team than the Red Sox" on the Yankees page. Either say what BOTH Yankees and Red Sox fans think. Or leave out the issue entirely.

In my most recent suggestion, as a compromise, I have removed the issue entirely from the lede and explained it in detail in a footnote to the lede as well as in the body.GreekParadise (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. The UN is signed on to a UNSC resolution declaring the annex null and void, which your edit removed from the lead. A unanimous UNSC resolution IS the international community. The US position is self contradictory and undue for the lead, explanation in the body is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "effective annexation", that's the way the Golan Heights Law is widely described, both at the time and looking back. We have plenty of RS cited in this article and the one I linked above that say as much: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please show me a source to say that the United States of America is not a member of the international community. Without such a source, the lede is untrue. Changed to "some"GreekParadise (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made it clear that the UNSC unanimously (including the United States therefore) declared the annex null and void and tagged your addition for clarity (since it is not even English). Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem your saying (truthfully) that the UNSC declared it null and void in 1981. But you can't say "international community" without pointing out that the USA disagrees. I have found no source that says the "international community" does not accept it since 2019. Have you?GreekParadise (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The US is one out of 200 countries and its unilateral flip-flopping does not override a UNSC resolution that it has already signed up to. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-israel-un/u-n-chief-clear-that-golan-status-has-not-changed-spokesman-idUSKCN1R623E/

...after U.S. President Donald Trump recognized the Golan Heights as Israeli territory."The U.N.'s policy on Golan is reflected in the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and that policy has not changed," Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats super easy lol, The occupied Golan Heights is still recognised as part of Syrian territory by the international community. Or Most of Majdal Shams's around 11,000 residents still identify as Syrian more than half a century after Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria and later annexed it in a move not recognised by the international community. Or Israel annexed the 1,200-square-kilometre (460-square-mile) Golan Heights in 1981, a move that was not recognized by the international community. Syria demands the return of the strategic plateau, which also overlooks Lebanon and borders Jordan. That's Al Jazeera, France 24 and Reuters, all after the recognition by Trump. Anything else? nableezy - 15:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

<- GreekParadise, are you using a disposable sockpuppet account? If not, what is the basis for your decision to use edit warring as a tool when edit warring in the PIA topic area usually results in editors being reported eventually and sanctions being imposed? I'm interested in how you made the decision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The UNGA overwhelmingly passes resolutions against the Israeli annexation on a regular basis. The most recent was resolution A/RES/78/77 passed 151-2 last December. It is the best indicator of the "international community's" view and shouldn't be hard to --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)find a secondary source for. Zero^talk 15:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

To Sean Holyand: Sockpuppet? What are you talking about? I've used this account for more than 15 years.

To Zero: I have no problem with your citing a UN General Assembly resolution or a UNSC resolution. But I do have a problem with your saying "international community" when that it is simply false. In fact, if you go to the wikipedia entry on international community, you can see why the term is NOT appropriate here, particularly when it excludes the United States, which by all accounts IS part of the international community.

Please fix this to make the false statement true or find me a source that expressly says the USA is not part of the "international community" or that it's ok to cite the international community when the USA disagrees. As the international community entry says, "The term is also commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue" and is criticized exactly for that concept, but that's the point. The international community is either a unanimous opinion where all countries (or at least all major countries) agree or it's subjective.

Let's just leave out "international community" and mention the United Nations. That's not subjective anymore. That's objectively true.

I will leave the disputed tag up until you fix the statement. If you disagree and insist that the USA is not part of the international community without having any source that says this, let's go to arbitration.GreekParadise (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "international community" does not mean every country without exception. It obviously couldn't, because Israel always rejected what the international community said and it too is a part of it. But I have provided several sources that continue to say "international community" does not accept the Israeli claim to the Golan. Ill repeat them here for you. The occupied Golan Heights is still recognised as part of Syrian territory by the international community. Or Most of Majdal Shams's around 11,000 residents still identify as Syrian more than half a century after Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria and later annexed it in a move not recognised by the international community. Or Israel annexed the 1,200-square-kilometre (460-square-mile) Golan Heights in 1981, a move that was not recognized by the international community. Syria demands the return of the strategic plateau, which also overlooks Lebanon and borders Jordan. That's Al Jazeera, France 24 and Reuters, all after the recognition by Trump. Anything else? nableezy - 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

US view is one single country. That view was also lobbied by the Israeli lobby, so the US view is infact an Israeli view through a proxy. This does not belong in the lead, but in the body of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Same content, in the body

Fun fact, the lede content stems from content in the body - so let's look at the section down there first.

It's completely accurate and appropriate to say the international community rejected the annexation, citing UNSCR 497. It's also fair to say that the "international community" continues to reject it, considering the UN General Assembly majority continues to pass resolutions (latest in 2023, and at least back to 2017). I think it's also DUE to include a mention of the US's current position - they are one of the biggest players in the UN, and were an original signatory to 497; noting the current, apparently contradictory stance is notable here.

I went ahead and re-organized the first paragraph of the body section to reflect this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the reorg of the lead is very good and undoes a recently affirmed prior consensus on the first paras. Instead we have an unwieldy third para, overstuffed with quotes that are inappropriate for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the removal from the first paragraph on the declaration being null and void was improper, and the third paragraph is placing far too much emphasis on the US position. I've reverted. I did however add one bit to the opening paragraph to clear up any concerns about the term "international community". nableezy - 17:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your addition to the last sentence makes it feel much more at home in the first paragraph. I like it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with it too, now that you've added with the exception of Israel and the United States. I will add the sources to the United States recognition as a footnote. GreekParadise (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources can be added in the article body, without the need for any footnotes. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup. WP:LEADCITE. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Deaf. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They did it anyway, this is all coming up because everyone keeps asking the US admin about the Golan and even though the Trump admin did it, Blinken did not actually endorse it and that is reported here again a couple days ago "seemingly reaffirmed the policy in 2021 (but stopped short of endorsing Trump’s decision)" and apart from that there is a lot of legal and other opinion just simply questioning the US position on this (because it is completely at odds with international law, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778420).

Actually, I don't think we can categorically say that the US policy under Biden is identical to that of Trump. Selfstudier (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need to be calling people deaf in article talk pages.

On the content matter, the Biden administration is absolutely continuing Trump's policy: the State Deparment in 2021 backed up Blinken's comments, saying "US policy regarding the Golan has not changed, and reports to the contrary are false"; and John Kirby said again a few days ago that US "policy on the Golan Heights has not changed under this administration". That's not to say both admin's policies have been identical, but Biden hasn't publicly changed much of anything since 2019. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week from the article for his troubles. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you two links that show that is at least qualified, State outranks Kirby. They say the policy hasn't changed but it is reported as not endorsing Trump (which the JP, surprise surprise, failed to report), after all how could they endorse a breach of international law. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy I'm just noticing, but in your revert of my lead change, you also reverted my re-organization of the body paragraph, but provided no explanation in your edit summary nor here. If this was intentional, I'd appreciate an explanation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think the language on The United States, though an original signatory to UNSCR 497, has recognized Israel's soverignty over the Heights since 2019. adds anything, and the though is editorializing. It also makes things jump around chronologically, with the US recognition placed before the negotiations on the original resolution. nableezy - 21:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point about the chronology. To that end, it's probably best to keep mentions of current or ongoing international reactions in the existing 'Territorial claims' section below (which already started off with a sentence similar to what was in 'History'). Mentioning resolution 497 segues nicely into the discussion about 242 anyway. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

'neutral term "extended Israeli jurisdiction' No, it is not WP's job to promote euphemisms used by governments involved in human rights violations. It is called annexation by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss in your revert spree, you've undone several of what I consider to be improvements to the article:

• Reverted the change of "was" to "has been" which reflects the ongoing nature of the Israeli occupation
• Removed the answer to the question "why is Israel still occupying the Golan" from the lead
• Removed the answer to the question "how does Israel justify their occupation" from the lead
• Generally worsened the prose around the annexation and subsequent rejection by international community

These improvements were brought about in recent days by editing and discussion from a handful of editors, so your instruction to "see talk page consensus" as justification for your reverts is odd to say the least... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely not call adding overcomplicated prose cited to the Trump Administration Archive website and the Jerusalem Post as an “improvement” to the opening paragraph. Restored “has been.” As for the why and how this is undue weight that does not belong in lede which serves as a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

How is explaining the core tenets of the disagreement of why the region remains occupied WP:UNDUE for the lead? For our readers coming to this article to learn about the Golan Heights, I'm sure they'd love to learn why Israel refuses to relinquish them.

And those citations in the lead were superfluous anyway (WP:LEADCITE), but I found it a succinct and accurate summary of the situation, as described in the body with plenty more citations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless the answer is "because Israel has zero respect for international law", I'm not sure what is worth adding. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"learn why Israel refuses to relinquish them;" here you are confusing the alleged reason, or how Israel markets its theft of Syrian territory, with the real reason, Israel's expansionism and disregard for international law. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We had reached a consensus. If this is all going to be upended, I suggest putting a disputed tag on it until we do. As I understand it, folks who oppose the consensus we agreed to believe that the United States is NOT part of the international community. I will seek arbitration on that point. I think we should tell the readers that the USA disagrees OR simply leave it out of the lede.GreekParadise (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it - by saying what the international community "rules" rather than "considers". Ruling is what the UNSC and ICJ do, so there's no argument there, and no need to weigh in on the opinions of individual recalcitrant states. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Except the "international community" has not "ruled." The United Nations has. Why not simply say:

Two thirds of the area has been occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War and then effectively annexed in 1981 – an action unrecognized by the United Nations, which has adopted several resolutions stating the Golan Heights to be Israeli-occupied Syrian territory.

That's undisputably objectively true. Plus readers may well wonder how the "international community" made a ruling. Let's be precise and accurate. (I would also add citations to the UN resolutions, but I know some folks prefer that footnotes be in the body and not the lede.) GreekParadise (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)