Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

Map of Israel

Hi everybody! Unfortunately, in a recent edit a useful map of Israel was deleted on the ground that the Golan Heights is not included. In response to that:

  • 1) First of all, the annexation wasn't recognized internationally.
  • 2) The map above, showing Israel on earth, also excludes the Golan Heights.
  • 3) The fact that there isn't a map with the Golan, doesn't justify leaving the page without a regular map like all the other countries in Wikipedia.

Therefore, I ask one of you to restore it, since I'm not a confirmed user: |image_map2 =Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg Thanks--Jahsnik (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Purple Line is the de facto border between Israel and Syria after an official agreement in 1974 between the Israeli and Syrian government. Hope this clears out your question. ה-זפרt@lk 18:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jahsnik. --Midrashah (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The Golan Heights is a part of Israel, according to Israel.[1] KamelTebaast 20:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And we should care... why? We use reliable sources for facts and attribute opinions, such as Netanyahu's. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Netanyahu has no opinion. He is a populist. Anyway, just like China, Sudan, Cyprus and Russia's maps include claimed, disputed and occupied territories, the map of Israel should include, in light green, territories the State of Israel claim are its sovereign territory. The fact is, de-facto, these are Israeli territories, while de-jure they are either Syrian territory (Golan Heights) or the West Bank (East Jerusalem). The West Bank is more complicated and not really claimed by Israel as an integral part of the state. With the West Bank, it is an "opinion", but with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, it's a "fact". There is no difference between Crimea and the Golan Heights. These are today, de-facto, territories of Russia and Israel, by law, while having no recognition whatsoever.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are other countries which have disputed territories in their maps: Azerbaijan, Moldova, Morocco, Serbia, India, Pakistan, Japan and Ukraine. Guess which country doesn't have it? That's right! Syria! Déjà vu.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
And to explain this is not just an "opinion": Golan Heights Law and Jerusalem Law. It is not Netanyahu's opinion.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"...the map of Israel should include, in light green, territories the State of Israel claim are its sovereign territory." You said the same thing I did, just more verbose. KamelTebaast 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I genuinely can't see where you wrote it, but whatever. Seems like we are having a consensus here, but I still couldn't find a good map.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The news article cited by Kamel Tebaast is titled "Netanyahu says Israel will never give up the Golan Heights", so it is his opinion. And Israel can pass laws that say the sky is green, or that the value of π is 3, but it won't make it so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I"ve added the disputed territories to the orthographic map (although it is barely visable). I suggest this map in replacement of the other map.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Golan Heights is not in Israel, so I don't support this map. The map of Russia, for one, clearly marks Crimea in a different colour. Even if you want to show "de facto" stuff, this map isn't good. Incidentally, neither Golan Heights Law, nor Jerusalem Law is accepted by anyone outside Israel. I agree that it's not just "Netanyahu's opinion", but changing "Netayahu" to "Israel" doesn't change the essential point. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kingsindian, your sentence, "Golan Heights is not in Israel, so I don't support this map.", is as POV and irrelevant as others have said about Netanyahu's views. The only difference, he is the Prime Minister of Israel, speaking for the country. As far as I understand Wikipedia, it is not about your personal view on the subject. I personally believe that the Golan Heights are a part of Israel. Does that tilt the consensus? KamelTebaast 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that "it's my view that Golan Heights" isn't in Israel: I made a statement of fact. See the rest of my statement. I don't have anything further to add to that. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Your unfettered hubris is appealing. Misguided, but appealing. KamelTebaast 05:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
'China, Sudan, Cyprus and Russia', Crimea etc.analogies. Bolter. There is no cogency in these issues: analogies always break down on examination. Israel's 'annexation' of the Golan Heights snapping off territory gained in war some decades ago from a sovereign state, and always subject nonetheless to an eventual peace agreement revision, is not comparable to Russia's resumption of its 2 centuries+ sovereignty over Crimea, which formed part of Russia, and was conceded briefly to the Ukraine when that country was more or less a puppet state of the USSR. Sovereign democratic modern states, as opposed to these, do not include territory recently conquered in war on their maps. That the Republic of China includes the Spratley Islands in maps is not a 'fact' qua legal reality, it's a cartographical statement, as such the only 'fact' is that China produces such maps. Your proposal puts Israel outside the Western conventions,-which fundamentally assert that boundaries are determined not by war but by internationally recognized agreements - and inside the banana totalitarian republics, which do as they will, and tell everyone else to get fucked. The Golan is not in Israel, neither is the West Bank. Everyone International body recognizes that, even the CIA. There are lots of things to fix here, but it's pointless wasting time on trying to get over the idea one national claim must be represented as a 'fact '.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Annexation and international recognition is one issue, de-facto control is another. There is no doubt that Israel has full control over Golan and partial control over West Bank, these facts should be represented in the map. “WarKosign” 16:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with WarKosign. I'd add that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should be practical, for the benefit of their readers. At the same time, that doesn't mean we can't solve any issues: we could explain that the map reflects de facto control, or we could have two maps, one for de facto control and another for international recognition. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I obviously agree with both WarKosign and Debresser. KamelTebaast 17:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Since this has the semblance of a mechanical voting process, devoid of significant source-based reasoning or argument, I suggest those who wish to include this stuff in a map of Israel get an RfC up. In the meantime, I have asked for advice from the wiki experts hereNishidani (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
As I have explained there, that post comes close to canvassing. Please abide by the consensus here and do not go forumshopping in search of support. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not canvassing. Wikipedia is a project that emphasizes neutrality. It is not appropriate for a delicate issue like this to be decided by an ad hoc majority of people strongly attached to Israel, (but not to Syria). The proposal is a serious statement via Wikipedia's global encyclopedia to the world that an historic part of Syrian territory is not Syria any more. You should get an RfC on this. Outside input from people who have no horse in this silly race. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Just scroll through List of territorial disputes. As far as I checked, any disputed territory large enough to be visible in the map is shown in a lighter shade of green on the locator map along with the main territory of a side claiming the territory. Check Sudan or India for example. “WarKosign” 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do you get the idea it is disputed territory. In 1981 Israel neither annexed the Golan Heights nor asserted sovereignty. In peace talks down to 2009 it has quite consistently offered to 'return' the Heights to Syria, something that signals it is not disputing the legitimacy of Syria's claim. These facts are completely anomalous to notions of territories with disputed sovereignty. All you have in hand is rumours by one government in the last few years that it will never be returned. You don't make maps according to the whims of one particular government, Likud.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
"Area controlled by India shown in dark green; claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green." 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, none of these analogies works unless you can show that these countries have expressed a willingness to renounce their claim or forsake their control, as has Israel. Each situation has to be considered on its merits, otherwise you get analogy implication spillover where no proper analogy pertains.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Israel claims, controls, and (in domestic law) has annexed the Golan Heights. Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967, 50 years ago. Israel effectively annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, 35 years ago. Granted, Israeli Governments have offered this land back to Syria in the past. But that doesn't change the current situation and position of Israel. It has been 10 years since Israel showed any signs of willingness to return the Golan Heights to Syria. As far as Israel is concerned, the Golan Heights are its territory. The Russian annexation of Crimea is also widely considered illegal, but still we show this on the map. Just because there isn't a perfect analogy doesn't mean we shouldn't show the situation as is. Light green is disputed territory, claimed and controlled by Israel. A few minor unique technicalities dont change this fact. Rob984 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is untethered to anything concrete. I, on the other hand, was reacting to this proposed map by Bolter21, which did not show Golan, West Bank, etc. in different color, unlike the Crimea case. I have indicated why I oppose the map. People are free to waste their time though. I note, incidentally, that Crimea is shown in light green both in the Ukraine and the Russian maps. So that could be a model for the Golan. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Currently map of Syria shows Golan identical to territory controlled by Syria, without any indication of the fact that the land de-facto part of Israel in the last 35 years. It's silly and misleading. “WarKosign” 07:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense, for reasons given above. 'Control' has no relevance to internationally recognized borders. Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
'Internationally recognized borders' have no relevance to control. Pretending that Golan is in Syria doesn't make it real. “WarKosign” 11:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I"ll break it down for you:
  • China's map Show territories China claims but don't control (McMahon Line and Taiwan)
  • Sudan's map Show territories Sudan claims but don't control (Abyei and Hala'ib Triangle)
  • Cyprus's map show territories Cyprus claims but don't conttrol (Northern Cyprus)
  • Russia's map show territories Russia claims and control but are not internationally recognized (Crimea)
  • Azerbaijan's map show territories Azerbaijan claims but don't control (Nagorno Karabakh)
  • Moldova's map show territories Moldova claims but don't control (Transnistria)
  • Morocco's map show territories Morocco claims, control and don't control, but are not internationally recognized (Western Sahara)
  • Serbia's map show territories Serbia claims but don't control (Kosovo)
  • India's map show territories India claims but don't control (Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and Aksai Chin)
  • Pakistan's map show territories Pakistan claims but don't control (Jammu and Kashmir)
  • Japan's map show territories Japan claims but don't control (Kuril Islands)
  • Ukraine's map show territories Ukraine claims but don't control (Crimea)
Now what is the problem with adding:
  • Israel's map show territories Israel claim and control but are not internationally recognized (East Jerusalem and Golan Heights)
  • Syria's map show territories Syria claim but don't control (Golan Heights)
It's not a matter of if you agree or not. I don't think Russia has any right to be in Crimea, but it doesn't change the fact Russia officially claims Crimea and also control it. The light green represent the disputed territories of a country. Israel has laws defining that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of Israel, therefore Israel de-jure claim these territories to be part of "Israel". The same happens with China, which claims the McMahon line. Not showing a territory claimed by a country, that also happens to be fully controlled by it, is a violation of NPOV, because it is not your job to delegitimize a country's claim to a territory, just like no one disputes India's claims to the rest of Jammu and Kashmir, or Sudan's claims to the Hala'ib triangle. Israel (The Evil Jewish Nazis Who Murder A Million Christian Children Every Day To Put Their Blood On Matzo) happened to conquer the Golan Heights and make a law saying it is part of it. Don't like it? Not Wikipedia's problem. This is just one, of a hundred territorial claims, which some of them are shown in country maps. When you define "Israel" in a map, you might as well show, only in light green, what Israel define "Israel" and also happens to practice it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Syria does not 'claim' the Golan Heights. In international law, that lies within the borders of Syria. Only Israel 'claims' the Golan Heights, and is backed in that claim by no one. The only outstanding area disputed there, and not yet settled in international law, is the Shebaa farms, contested with Lebanon. Israel can 'claim' all it likes: the land is Syrian sovereign territory, and Israel's laws regarding it are null and void by a Security Council Resolution. Still, this is a numbers game, and Likudization via imaginative maps. By bthe same token we shall soon have a map of the West Bank in 'Israel'. I don't care one way or another, however. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Syria claims the Golan Heights the same way Ukraine claims Crimea.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It might be better if you fixed the map I linked above because it makes no such color distinction. I would support such a map, but not the one, as I indicated above. Also your reference to blood libel was sarcastic, but please don't do it again. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I must add my agreement regarding the frankly absolutely outrageous reference to blood libel. Please do not do that again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ì think the the current map (I modified) is sufficient for the infobox, showing Green Lined Israel in dark green and territories claimed by Israel ìn light green. I don't think an additional map is needed but a map can created on the same concept, showing territories under Israeli civil administration that Israel doesn't claim, a geopolitical sort of map, which has a place in the article. @Nishidani: just to clarify, while saying "Syria claims" it doesn't mean this is is what I plan to write in the caption of such map. Per NPOV I will write "Syrian territory under the occupation of Israel".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem really, but it should colour in Jordan, Lebanon up unto the Litani River and the Sinai. I'm being conservative. We can leave out all land west of the Euphrates until the Orthodox Religious parties win a plebiscite, which won't happy for a decade at least.:)Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Greater Israel? Who are you? Mel Gibson? Jokes aside, the reason why E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be in light green, is because unlike the West Bank or the Promised Land, these two territories are not a matter of Benjamin Netanyahu's opinion, they are legally (by legally I mean in Israeli law) part of Israel. Some countries also pass laws or decrees, saying they practice sovereignty on territories they do not control, but if it is an official decree or a law, it must be shown (unless it is too formal, like South and North Koreas, claiming each other). On the other side, if a country doesn't practice sovereignty over a certain territory, which is claimed as a sovereign territory of another country (recognized or not), it must be shown as well. This is why NKR is shown in Azerbaijan as well as TRNC in Cyprus and as mentioned before, with Ukraine. The day Kosovo will be accepted as a UN member, in the map nothing will change, until Serbia will renounce all claims to Kosovo.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

the reason why E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be in light green, is because unlike the West Bank or the Promised Land, these two territories are not a matter of Benjamin Netanyahu's opinion, they are legally (by legally I mean in Israeli law) part of Israel.

Good grief, young Bolter. Have you been forming your knowledge of history from wiki articles? The GOLAN HEIGHTS LAW of December 14, 1981 extended 'the Law, jurisdiction and administration of the state' to the Golan Heights. This is an administrative law that neither asserts annexation nor sovereignty. Nor has East Jerusalem been formally 'annexed'. Israel has been extremely careful in tailoring its language in order to avoid the harsher fall-out consequent on either a legally-drafted declaration of annexation or sovereignty. Annexations that vioiate sovereign state territory come under an international law of compensation, etc. If that is the basis of your map, your premises are flawed. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
משפט, שיפוט ומנהל - Law, jurisdiction and administration - this means that the Golan Heights have the same status as Safed or Nazareth. There is a reason why it is interprated as an annexation. Have you been to Mas'ade? 0 Jews yet more Israeli than Jaffa. The Golan Heights is the most Israeli-Israeli occupied territory in terms of sovereignty, while Isawiya is a no-mans-land and Shuafat is its own state. If you want the Hebrew source for Golan sovereignty, I"ll bring them to you.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The Golan Heights was annexed in 1981, it would be the fringe of the fringe to not call it an annexation. Someone's bias is showing when Israel out of all other countries has different standards. All countries with disputes have the territories shown in a different color, not sure why Israel is different. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Bolter. I'll ignore Joe's comment (and it's the logic of 'they get away with it, so why can't we? ). Assertions of opinion are just throwoffs from rote learning from bad textbooks. This is all meme replication from school textbooks or middlebrow newspapers.

The law 'extends Israeli civilian law and administration to the residents of the Heights, replacing the military authority ... The new law does not annex or extend Israeli sovereignty over the region. It does not impose Israeli citizenship on the Golan's non-Jewish inhabitants, as would be required by formal annexation. Leonard J. Davis, ‎Eric Rozenman, ‎Jeff Rubin, Myths and Facts Middle East Report 1989 p.80

Since there has been no formal Israeli act of annexation and legal assertion of sovereignty, everything you say is impressionistic. As to Mas'ade, my group wilted under the sun, and took us back to cool off at Banias. I whipped off my clothes and did a backflip off a rock into those luscious waters. People were embarrassed, for a minute, then a young woman had the good sense to strip and dive in as well. Within 30 minutes the whole group was splashing about in the nude.
All I can see here in this mapping venture is a Likud venture to make out Israel is sovereign in territory which it still refuses to annex. It is a political claim by a particular party, not a de jure reality. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, RS calls it annexation, secondly, Israel does indeed give citizenship to those who want it. Consider the Druze in the Golan, some chose citizenship and others didn't. You keep trying to make this political, but it's not. It's practical. Israel controls the Golan and should be reflected of that. That is how it works in Wikipedia. You have one color for the country and a lighter color for territories controlled. And yes, if it's good enough for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY then it's damned good enough for Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thats a bit simplified, reliable sources say multiple things on this. Eg these back to back articles in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law: Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights is not Annexation and Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights is Annexation. nableezy - 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I am getting a little tired of Nishidani calling this point of view "Likud". This is the opinion of certain editors here on Wikipedia. Leave Israeli politics out of it. WP:NPA clearly says to comment on the issue, not on the editors. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You might note that this started as an attempt to assert that the Golan Heights was in Israel as an Israeli position. Since no formal act of annexation or assumption of sovereignty exists, the position is that of the Likud party under Benjamin Netanyahu, and those editors who are asserting the pseudoid happen to repeat a clearly identifiable party line, not the official position of Israeli governments over time, which is what establishes a consistent, supra-party national claim.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not just Likud policy, it's the popular opinion. Regardless of who holds the opinion, Golan Heights Law is often considered annexation. I hope you won't dispute the fact that Israel controls Golan. Either of the three issues (claim, (disputed) annexation, actual control) is reason enough to display the area on the map showing Israeli territory, in a different color and with appropriate label. “WarKosign” 08:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Even worse. Bolter dismissed Netanyahu's opinion because he is a 'populist', you accept the populist opinion. Given that you all admit there is no act of parliament that annexes or establishes Israeli sovereignty, now the ‘claim’ is that Israeli public opinion thinks it is part of Israel. Map making of international lines according to popular delusions. I don’t dispute facts. I try to make sure I’m not sucked into confusion about facts by slipshod usage. When you express the hope that 'I ‘won’t the fact that Israel controls Golan,’ of course I dispute that because thus formulated it is false, for the simple reason that it reflects popular opinion: Israel controls 1,200sq kms of the Golan, Syria the other 600 sq kms. So you are all passing off as an Israeli claim either a popular feeling or what was set out by Netanyahu and Likud in these terms: Likud-led government will stay on the Golan Heights and keep them as a strategic asset".'
This is a political partisan claim of intent to stay, not a declaration of a claim to sovereignty.
Bolter made the claim:'The West Bank is more complicated and not really claimed by Israel as an integral part of the state. With the West Bank, it is an "opinion", but with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, it's a "fact".
He too is wrong, since in its topographical map, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs specifically defines the West Bank, with the Golan, as part of Israel. I guess the next move for the ethnonationalization here will be to map the West Bank as an integral part of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with Nishidani, but I do think in the interest of fairness it should be noted that that linked Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs map does have a note at the bottom left of it saying "This map is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered authoritative". What it's doing on a government website in that case beats me, though. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about what we are arguing here. Currently there is a map in the infobox, showing E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as light green. @Nishidani: Do you oppose this map? @WarKosign: Do you think the map should include the West Bank as well? We had a consensus to remove one additional map and include the Golan and E Jerusalem in light green, now what we are arguing for?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I almost never edit Israeli pages, so rest assured this is not a matter of trying to block what you all decide. Nothing I say will change the consensus. I'm merely registered problems in entering that consensus into Wikipedia's neutral voice.
For me, a precise, neutral map of Israel has nothing to do with disputed, contested, occupied territory. It is the land where there is universal consensus that the legal entity Israel has inexpugnable rights as a regular state among the community of nations.
If a nation 'claims' territory, and it is 'disputed', you usually have some evidence in the legal conventions and negotiations that reflect this claim, whether of land occupied, or lost or whatever. I can see no evidence influencing the editors' reflex assertion Israel claims the Golan Heights which draws on acceptable documentation. All research indicates at the moment is that Israel occupies the Golan Heights (by that token the US occupies/occupied Afghanistan, Iraq: but it hasn't made a 'claim' regarding that.)
Many banana analogies are drawn, but no attention is paid to the details. The China article has a map created in 2008 from google maps including Arunachal Pradesh as claimed territory, for example. Well China historically did conquer this, but then returned it, and withdrew behind the McMahon Line, and the wiki map was drawn on the basis of google maps before google maps corrected it under protest a year or two later. China really makes no fuss that Arunachal Pradesh is in India: it only objects formally to the presence of the Dalai lama there. One could go on through the list and raise similar observations. I think in terms of universal law, not what banana states or dictatorships rant on about. I'd prefer to see Israel within the Western sphere of thinking, not aligned with Sudanese revanchism.
I worry whenever we make encyclopedic calls based on faulty reasoning on 'facts' that are far more complicated. An encyclopedic as potentially subjective as this, edited by anyone, must use stringent evidence analysis to justify key wording and data.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Can you please provide a link to a map of Israel that you suggest? KamelTebaast 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I trust the C.I.A. on this. See hereNishidani (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani Trusting the CIA is about the last thing I'd do in my life. Even if I were an American. :)
I prefer the map with the Golan Heights in some color, to reflect the de facto and de jure annexation, albeit not recognized. Their is no point in using maps that don't reflect the situation on the ground, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Debresser. By all means reaffirm your opinion, but don't contaminate it by citing technicaò language you don't evidently understand ('de jure annexation').Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, you do really need to stop your constant need to put people down, it is getting old. Secondly, will you also trust the CIA map for India? Or like everything, Israel is a special case? The Wikipedia maps don't specify that the territory is part of Israel/India, just that it is controlled by India/Israel and that is why it's in a different color. What exactly do you have against Israel/India/Ukraine, etc.? Or is it just Israel? I will wait for you to make the changes to all the other countries not using CIA maps where they also include territories controlled. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I defend human dignity, I don't 'put people down', an unfortunate idiom that likens people to dogs shot by police or put out of their misery by vets. You keep harping on the hasbara theme that anyone outside the fold critical of Israel, to be coherent, must at the same time criticize identical behavior in every third world country similar to the abuse detected in Israel. I.e. it's basically an obsession with Jews, treating them as exceptional. This is a very boring meme. When I defend human rights in my country, I don't feel the need to immediately add a comprehensive critique of every other country that falls short of universally endorsed principles of justice. So the insinuation is tedious.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And are you going to address my point? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with both Debresser and Nishidani. Showing Israel withing the Green Line is quite stupid, if you look at the other cases of disputed territories (Nish, feel free to phrase "disputed territories" however you want). As for Debresser, I not only want the Golan to be shown in dark green, I also want it not to be a subject of debate, but because it is a subject of debate, it is shown in light green. One might claim that Area C is De-Facto annexed into Israel and other also claim that the Gaza Strip is under Israel occupation while the PA in the West Bank is a puppet of Israel, should we show them as well? We are defining "Israel" here, so Israel in the Green Line plus the territories with a sufficiant amount of sources to show they are annexed and cosidered part of Israel by Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. This has been repeatedly established at Talk:Golan Heights. Its even a question as to whether or not Israel actually claimed to have annexed the Golan, the law on applying civil law over the Golan specifically did not include the term annex, with some sources saying that this was done specifically to claim that Israel had not annexed the Golan. Regardless of that, even if one were to accept that Israel has attempted to annex the Golan, reliable sources come down quite clearly on the side of the Golan remains Syrian territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel and is not Israeli territory. Its all well and good that people have their own views on this, but as an encyclopedia based on reliable sources the fact that the majority of reliable sources state rather clearly that the Golan is not Israeli territory trumps any of the supposed arguments made here to claim the Golan as Israeli. I dont have a problem included the Golan in a map if its marked as Israeli-occupied and not as Israeli, eg the map from the CIA File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg or File:Golan_Heights_Map.PNG. But presenting the Golan as though it were something other than Syrian territory under Israeli occupation violates several Wikipedia policies, most especially WP:NPOV. And Bolter, we emphatically do not define Israel, reliable sources do that and we reflect them. And they define Israeli sovereign territory as being with the Green Line. nableezy - 18:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here is claiming otherwise, it is my understanding that Nishidani doesn't want to display it at all, regardless if it's in a different color and noted, similar to how all other territorial disputes are noted in Wikipedia. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani, nobody is debating your obsession to demonize Israel while promoting a Palestinian nationalist agenda; it's pretty much understood. Also, this is not about "hasbara" or criticism of Israel, or even why you aren't fighting against other countries. This is about Wikipedia. All we seem to be asking is that Israel's map is given the equal parameters that the other countries on Wikipedia are given. KamelTebaast 18:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's remain civil. Both blaiming someone for systematic, non-good faith POV as well as using the retarted word "hasbara" is wrong and will bring this conversation no where.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. When Sir Joe however twice repeats a meme, hasbara, or not, that comes directly from the standard 'how to reply' talking points lists, and implies thereby there's is something 'peculiar' about my editing Palestinian articles, because they deal indirectly with Israel, and Israel is predominantly 'Jewish' (wink wink, nudge nudge) I defend myself. The other fellow's 'nobody is debating your obsession to demonize Israel while promoting a Palestinian nationalist agenda' is a reportable WP:AGF violation apart from being inanely false. The next I'll get attacked for having an obsession with demonizing the Republic of China because on many articles, like the Epic of King Gesar, I found it written from the victor's POV, and went through it like to make it conform to denationalized scholarship. In any case, these jabs are off topic, like my replies. I'd still like to see some evidence that internationally, Israel's official position, apart from its toying with maps for local consumption, clearly and unequivocably sets forth the view that the Golan Heights are part of Israel, and as such, not negotiable. If you can't provide that, then suggesting it is an official 'claim' is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Per negotiation, Israel had also negotiated about East Jerusalem as well as areas withing the Green Line as part of "equal land exchange". Are all areas Israel offered the Palestinians from inside the green line "not Israeli terrotiries"
(1) Yaël Ronen‏, Transition from Illegal Regimes under International Law n.42 reads.’The effect of this legislation is tantamount to a claim of sovereignty, but formally Israel has avoided claiming to have annexed the Golan Heights.
This is by an expert, and it confirms what I suggested. There is no clear, unequivocal official Israeli claim for the Golan being annexed or sovereign Israeli territory.
(2)P R Kumaraswamy‏ Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict ‘the legal status of the Golan Heights and the claims of Israeli sovereignty are contested even within Israel. I.e. there is no unequivocal Israeli claim.
(3) Richard J. Samuels, https://books.google.co.il/books?id=K751AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT501 Encyclopedia of United States National Security, In 1981, Israel annexed the Golan Heights but this annexation has not been recognized internationally and the Golan is generally considered Israeli-occupied Syrian territory by the United Nations. This is meme reproduction since legal scholars say it did not annex the GH
(4) Sharon Korman‏ https://books.google.co.il/books?id=ueDO1dJyjrUC&pg=PA250 The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force
p.255 ‘In the case of Israel’s incorporation of East Jerusalem it is clear that conquest has not given rise to recicogni9zed of rights of sovereignty.
p.263 largely because of the outcry against the Israeli measure in the United States.-which had joined with the other fourteen members of the Security Council in voting in favour of resolution 497-Israeli officials began to suggest that the extension of Israeli law to the Golan Heights should not be read as an act of annexation or permanent incorporation of the territory into the state of Israel, since Israel remained, in principle, prepared to negotiate its return to Syria in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242 (1967).
p.264 a draft resolution put before the Security Council condemning the annexation was rejected by the United States on the ground that while it opposed any unilateral change in the status of Israeli-occupied territories, it did not regard the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights as an annexation.
p.265 Whether or not Israel’s action in extending its law to the Golan Heights is interpreted as amounting to an act of annexation, it is clear that its conquest of the Golan Heights has not given rise to recognized rights of sovereignty. . .The notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds lay down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community- no less by the United States than by any other state.’
This is the second technical discussion. Like the first it disowns the idea of annexation or sovereignty and even documents that Israeli officials denied it must be read as annexation into Israel, a position adopted and confirmed by the United States.
  • (5) Yvonne McDermott‏, David Keane‏ https://books.google.co.il/books?id=tWRvBEY9B1QC&pg=PA148 The Challenge of Human Rights: Past, Present and Future,‘Israel purported to annex the Occupied Golan, basing its claims to sovereignty on its purported annexation pursuant to the 1981 legislative act – the Golan heights Law.
This book shows no familiarity with the legal issues, but does state 'purported'. Look it up. It means 'being intended to seem to', meaning it didn't actually do . .
[(6) Yehoshafat Harkabi Palestinians and Israel, is irrelevant since it was published 7 years before the Golan Law was passed.
(7) [2] This doesn’t work. It just indicates your google parameters.
(8) Paul Francis Diehl (ed.)‏ A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict ‘Israel sees itself as the sovereign entity in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights by virtue of the laws it has passed extending civilian rule to those areas.'
This refers to a generic Israeli perception of sovereignty, but it is not as requested a clear unequivocal statement of the Israeli official position before the world.
(9) Efraim Inbar,‏ [3] writes that the aim of the Madrid conference was to get Syrian recognition of Israel, a peace treaty ensuring Israel’s security that might have involved 'Syrian recognition of at least some of Israel’s claims to the Golan Heights'. p.151
It's was a bargaining chip in 1992, that did not foresee the claim as one staking out the Golan as Israeli.
(10) is a crap snippet from Southwest Radio Church of the Air, 1977 before the Golan Law was passed.
(11) Kathleen A. Cavanaugh, Joshua Castellino‏ (eds) [4] ‘extended Israeli law and administration to the Golan Heights, effectively annexing the territory of the Golan. For this reason, Israel considers this territory as annexed and not occupied;'
This is a general work by specialists in another area, and repeats a meme.
(12) This is as useless as tits on a bull, being from Author House.
Opposing these sources will be WP:FRINGE.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you don't appear to have read the sources, since you fucked up comprehensively on several, from AuthorHouse, to books published before 1981. None of the sources answer what I asked for, a clear official statement of Israeli government policy. The two that are actually written by experts provide ample evidence to the contrary of what you claim. Quick googling is not the way to go, you must read the sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To make the discussion concrete again, here is the map currently in the article. The Golan is shown in light green and the Israeli territory in dark green. If anyone has a problem with it, detail it here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, I am going to warn you for the last time, you need to stop your patronizing and condescending attitude. I can have a thought without it being the "Likud" thought. We are here to follow wiki policies and that is all I mentioned. What's good for the Ukraine, India, etc. is good for Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This map looks fine to me, after Bolter21 added disputed Golan and East Jerusalem. I would consider also showing controlled but not claimed territories (West Bank and Gaza) in yet another color or several different colors depending on degree of control. “WarKosign” 19:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
As said before, I oppose adding the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. To me its like showing Iraq in a map of the US in 2003.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is a region in Syria and not in Israel, so why would a map of Israel have a part of Syria included in it? Doesn't make any sense.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Same reason why India and Russia have Kashmir and Crimea in their map. Why is Israel different? The Golan is controlled by Israel, same as Kashmir and Crimea. The map differentiates in a different color than Israel proper. I reverted you. Please don't make changes while talk page discussions are ongoing, and nobody here that I know of is disagreeing with the Golan inclusion, we are discussing other additions, best I can tell. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well the changes have to be done after consensus, not before. And I dont see any consensus here above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No, you are removing against consensus. Wikipedia consensus is to show the territory in a different color. Note how this is about the Golan not the WB or Gaza. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, why is this: "Area controlled by India shown in dark green;claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green." OK for India, and why is this: "Russia (dark green)Crimea (disputed, Russian-administered) (light green)a" good enough for Russia, AMONG MANY OTHERS, but it's not good enough for Israel? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Different kinds of conflicts have different solutions. I dont know about the background of the conflicts in those other disputes, but in this dispute no one recognizes Israels claim, and its internationally recognized as part of Syria. And WB and Gaza are also occupied, but not in the map. Israels claims are not facts and shouldn't be in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The crucial points are that (a) no one has been able to quote an official Israeli government statement (so far) that unequivocably states that 'the Golan Heights is an integral part of the state of Israel', to form the basis of an explicit claim (b) you can cite all the analogies you like but the issue under examination have been rejected, not by the UN, but by the United Nations Security Council, a ruling confirmed by Israel's sponsor there, and even admitted by Israel's negotiators over the years (see above) which means it is universally rejected (c) and rejected with clear reason in unchallenged international law, relating to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) as specifically clarified in 2001, i.e. that these are territories under belligerent occupation, and cannot for that reason be claimed as sovereign territory by the belligerent. Make all the fancy maps you like, but these are the reasons why Israel is very careful to use creep to establish a facts on the ground sovereignty while abstaining from defying the UN Security Council's unanimous rejection of such a position by a formal declaration of annexation. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani Making a huge effort to assume good faith, but warning you to stay civil in view of the real danger of you being reported on WP:ARBCOM, I shall explain the term "de jure annexation" for you. That is an annexation that was ratified by the annexing state's parliament. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I very much have a problem with that map, as it differentiates between EJ and the WB, both of which have the exact same status, Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. Either show the occupied territories or dont, but dont pick and choose between them. Also, just a lighter shade of green wont do, if you want to add them make them patterned green and grey. I reverted the map on commons, Bolter if you want to change that map upload it with a new name. nableezy - 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser. There is no incivility here on my part. There are many rumours of my incivility, some of them uncivil, which is another matter. Try and focus, as Bolter asked us to, on the issues. 'That is an annexation that was ratified by the annexing state's parliament' is meaningless. Look up the word 'ratify'. It means endorsing formally something that has already taken place. The Golan Law did not ratify a annexation, because no 'annexation' pre-existed it. This is an English distinction of the simplest kind. And, you apparently haven't read the thread. The idea that the Golan or East Jerusalem were annexed is unfounded in the technical literature, as Ian Lustick showed here. He concluded:

There has never been an official act that has declared expanded East Jerusalem as having been annexed by the State of Israel. Though politicians have referred to it as part of the territory over which Israel is sovereign, there has in fact never been an official declaration of Israel's sovereignty over this area. As far as official statements go, the still authoritative proclamation was the government of Israel's reply to the U.N. secretary-general in July 1967, which explicitly denied that Israeli actions in expanded East Jerusalem constituted annexation. In this connection it is also important to note that the law which extended Israeli administration and jurisdiction to the Golan Heights in 1981 used exactly the same language as that contained in the ordinance used to make the same extension of Israeli law to enlarged East Jerusalem. When Prime Minister Begin defended the Golan Heights bill against criticism in the Israeli parliament that it constituted "annexation" and for that reason was a dangerous affront to the world community, the prime minister responded in a manner more or less identical to the language used by Eban in his official response to the U.N.- resolution condemning Israeli measures in east Jerusalem in 1967: 'You,Begin said from the Knesset podium "use the word annexation, but I am not using it."

I am happy to have Bolter as an interlocutor, because though our differences are irreconcilable as often as not, he is studious, he examines what you argue, and sticks to the point. When Lustick wrote: 'In the Israeli debate that rages over the future of the Golan Heights, few argue that the Golan Heights Law actually established Israeli sovereigtnty there,' Stav hadn't yet graced the earth. Perceptions change over time of course, one can see here that, when Lustick wrote few in Israel thought the Golan formed part of Israel (1997) now several editors connected to that state are convinced it is obvious. This is the effect of preferred language imposing itself, cultural contexts one is exposed to, but the legal technicalities don't if the facts remains as they were when Lustick wrote.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summaries claiming a consensus to show the Golan, cmon, really? There pretty clearly is not a consensus in this thread, and the article shouldnt be touched on this point until there is. And adding "disputed" for the Golan when the actual status is "occupied" is a bit of a NPOV-violation.

@Nishidani: I'm confused. You're against Netanyahu's populist opinion; but you quote Begin's populist opinion. In other articles you don't care what the Israeli government proclaims, yet here you're stuck on whether or not the government of Israel used the term annexation. You're all about reliable sources, yet you refute reliable sources stating that Israel annexed the Golan. Here are such reliable sources: The New York Times; BBC; Aljazeera; Encyclopedia of United States National Security; Encyclopedia Britannica. Lastly, I suggest that you clean up "annexation" from Wikipedia pages Golan Heights and Annexation before you battle it here. KamelTebaast 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you are confused it is because I alluded to what someone else described as Netanyahu's populist opinion, and cited what Ian Lustick described as Begin's populist opinion, and you ascribed both citations to me as my personal views. As to cleaning up 'annexation' on wiki pages, I've done that for about a decade, whenever I see it misused, and the usual editors creep back in restoring it where inappropriate. It is the obligation of all editors here to accept that, in the proper sense of the word 'annexation', Israel has annexed neither East Jerusalem nor the Golan Heights. All the technical papers by competent authorities state this, esp.Ian S. Lustick, 'Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?,' Middle East Policy, January 1997 Vol. 5, Issue 1 January 1997 pp 34–45. I suggest to all editors here that they take cognizance of reality and clean up the indiscriminate use of the word 'annexation' regarding East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Rubbish from newspapers has no weight in determining technical issues of some complexity. On principle I generally refrain from meddling with articles on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought Nishidani had agreed to the Golan being depicted in a different color in the map? Currently, it is in light green: we can make it checked or shaded or whatever to stand out more. Correct me if I'm wrong. As I said above, areas like Crimea are shown in a different color in both Ukrainian and Russian maps on Wikipedia. As long as the status of Golan is marked clearly and distinguished from the other territories, I have no problem with it. East Jerusalem is much more tricky: at this point, I do not support the shading of East Jerusalem on the map. My impression was that the initial issue was with the Golan, I don't know why East Jerusalem was dragged into the content dispute here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
My opinion has no weight here. I merely listed the problems with paying lip-service to a meme, namely, ignoring what the technical literature states unambiguously, that the Golan Heights is not in Israel and has not been 'annexed'. Asked my opinion, I stated that I was for the C.I.A. map, which defines Israel as it happens to be, not as it is fantasied to be.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Golan and East Jerusalem are in exactly the same situation: Israel extended its law to both, which is usually (but not always) is considered annexation. This alleged annexation is not recognized internationally and the territory is not considered to be part of Israel by other countries. Both territories are completely controlled by Israel and their occupants have the option of getting Israeli citizenship whenever they choose. Situation at the West Bank is vastly different, this is why EJ is not the same as the rest of WB. “WarKosign” 07:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No. That's wrong. In neither case did Israel, tout court,'extended its law to both'. Had it, all the Arabs of East Jerusalem would have immediately had full Israeli citizenship, and the rights, including land title, that come from them. In annexation you extend the rights current in the laws of the annexing state to all people within the territory of the area annexed. In both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, Israel failed to apply this key measure which would have gone part of the way to legitimizing the ostensible claim that what took place was a formal act of ‘annexation’. In East Jerusalem, the Arab population was not included as Israeli citizens: they were given residency permits as ‘temporary’ immigrants. Israeli laws in East Jerusalem were extended to Israeli settlers only, while the Arab population was and still is treated as under belligerent occupation. In the Golan while some civil right were extended to, or rather imposed on, the Druze, Israel confiscated 80% of the property of those Druze, and was not extended to the few Syrian and Palestinian Arabs remaining of the 120,000 who lived there before the 67 war. The way Israel tried to extort an acceptance of a limited citizenship right is described in a very good essay by R.Scott Kennedy, ‘Non Cooperation in the Golan Heights:A Case of Non-Violent Resistance.’ in M. Stephan (ed.) Civilian Jihad: Nonviolent Struggle, Democratization, and Governance in the Middle East, Springer, 2009 pp.119-130. Of course, this, like so many other sources duly given on talk pages, will not be used, but ignored.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The source you quote contradicts your claim: "since 1967 the Golan has undergone a continual and systematic process of annexation, not least in economic terms, to the state of Israel" "The international community rejected Israel's unilateral annexation of Arab land" "...legislation to formally annex the Golan" "With formal annexation...". BTW, at the moment 94% of the Druze self-identify as "Druze-Israelis" and increasingly more of them are applying for citizenship. “WarKosign” 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Druze as you know often stand on Shouting Hill by Majdal Shams to shout at each other across the border.Attempting to write collegially in Wikipedia is a bit like that, only here we shout past each other, and don't connect up as they do there. I with, with Bolter, mustered over a dozen sources on this. 3 are recognized authorities on the issue of 'annexation' and they all concur no annexation was ever legislated. You ignore that, prefer not to read Lustick, and choose one source that deals with another issue (what occurred among the Druze) and which reflects the popular usage. One just doesn't study history that way, pal. One doesn't angle for the rubber boot in the stream, shouting 'eureka' while ignoring the trout lurking there. Annexation as I explained does not mean ethically cleansing an area and according a few rights to a small selected population remaining. The 1967 Golan population when Israel invaded was from 120-145,000, consisting of a dense interweave of Christian, Palestinian, Circassian, Armenian, Kurdish, Hourani, Mughrabi, Turkmenic microsocieties in 200 villages. All the villages were razed, save one or two with a Jewish memory. Of course the Syrian military infrastructure was left standing to prove that the Golan's vast intricate mnosaic of historic agricultural communities were in fact just a military threat to Israel, nothing more. 20,000 left as the Israeli military bulldozers proceeded to demolish all of their villages, which they were waiting in the fields to return to. According to the standard Zionist historical template, these 'Syrian Arabs' all fled with the army, save for 6,000 Druze in 4 villages, after they were advised to flee (shades of 1948). According to the historical record, the villagers displaced who remained there were hauled before courts and ordered out, those temporarily displaced in the fighting were refused return. Israel issued formal 'expulsion ' orders. Nothing of this is in our articles. So much for 'annexation', i.e. the application of Israeli law to all people in a conquered territory, regardless of their ethnic identity. Read Lustick: he's the authority.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I will read Lustick carefully when I have time. For the moment, however: "the widely held view, both in Israel and outside it, is that the State of Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem-either in 1967 or in 1980, when the Knesset promulgated the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel-and has fully asserted its sovereignty there." He goes on to explain why he considers this view incorrect. I'm not questioning his expertise, yet even he supports the fact that Israel annexing East Jerusalem (and I guess Golan too, pending more reading) is a non-fringe, possibly majority, POV. “WarKosign” 14:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
A widely held view in the US is that the world was created in 6 days; that evolution never took place; that Ufos exist; 57% believe Satan exists; 40% believe the world will end in as the Bible predicted; the Chinese believe that Jews control America; 41% believe in the Bermuda Triangle,77 percent of all Americans "believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth", etc.etc. In short, this is an encyclopedia, based on facts, and to a lesser extent, informed judgments about those facts. It is not a dumping ground for 'widely held beliefs' except in articles covering faith commitments.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nableezy This edit of your removed the caption of the map, claiming it is inaccurate. I fail to see what is inaccurate about it, and most importantly, the text you removed seems to be supported by a clear consensus here. I'd ask you to undo your edit yourself at this stage, until such time as you argue your point and gain consensus. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
A clear consensus here? Are you serious? Youre not gonna do that again are you, claim a clear consensus for edits in which there is anything but on the talk page? And its inaccurate because the map doesnt include the Golan in light green, and if it did include the Golan in light green it should say "occupied by Israel", not "disputed, controlled by Israel". nableezy - 15:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have a problem reviewing the discussion, then you are the only one. Is there anybody else here who thinks that there is no clear consensus on this issue? Debresser (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
By 'consensus', you seem to mean a 'majority'. Reread Wikipedia:Consensus:'Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity ... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns . . .A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.'
The legitimate concern here is that there is no evidence whatsoever (so far) that Israel has formally included the Golan Heights into Israel. All we have is the application of Israeli law to that territory. The Israeli Supreme Court endorsed that. But in terms of international law, underwritten by the authority of the United Nations Security Council, this is null and void.The 'dispute' is an Israeli word, reflecting a unique Israeli position in the world. The rest of the world doesn't dispute that the Golan Heights is Syrian.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani Don't be so condescending: I know what consensus is and how it is and isn't formed and established.
@Nishidani That is indeed one of the two main differences between the Golan Heights and the West Bank. 1. That Israeli law applies in its entirety. 2. That it is de facto governed by Israel. Those differences should be reflected in the map, and were reflected in the most neutral way till Nableezy decided to ignore consensus here and undid it. I have still to see anybody but the two of you, of course, who disputes that there is clear consensus for the text Nableezy removed. It is precisely this highhanded way of editing that will get him topic banned soon. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
One cannot have it both ways. Editors here pressing for the Golan to be Israeli territory cite the fact that 'Israeli law applies in its entirety' (not quite, as you see in the use of Lebanese Druze law). They use the same argument with Jerusalem, as including East Jerusalem, given the Law and Administrative Ordinance Law passed in 1967 to the latter. The problem is, that ordinance did not 'extend Israeli law in its entirety' to East Jerusalem. A large part of that law's technical provisions makes comprehensive exceptions to the application of Israeli law to East Jerusalem: Israel's labour laws were not applied; Israel's health and safety regulations were exempted; the Israeli Absentee Property Law was not extended there, et c,.etc.etc. In other words, the criterion you are all endorsing as proof that the Golan Heights is part of Israel automatically disinvalidates your editorial position re East Jerusalem. If that is the benchmark, then the Golan is Israeli, but East Jerusalem isn't. No one here is to blame for the fact that many disputes arise from the lack of clear unambiguous legal positions, of course (I'm to blame, apparently, because every time I bring documents to bear no one else mentioned, the resort to evidence is dismissed as 'condescending', 'patronizing'). But in editing, we cannot change our criteria from page to page in order to safeguard a nastional POV which is internally incoherent.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's bring E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights back (to the article, not to Jordan and Syria) and write in the caption "light green: unrecognized territories under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government".

This is supposed to solve:

  1. The disagreement on "disputed territories"
  2. The disagreement on wether the territories were annexed or not
  3. The disagreement on wether Israel claim sovereignty over those territories or not

Note - The rest of the West Bank is too complicated and vague to show in the map. Area C is officially under the administration of the Israeli army and Israeli law doesn't apply there in full. Area B and A are also not exactly under the control of Israel. I don't think it needs to be shown. This is an article about "Israel" and am sure many will agree that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are de-facto Israel, more than the rest of the West Bank.

Opinions? feel free to suggest better wording, I am just a stuped idiot who not know inglsh--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean "under international law"? Debresser (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Under the law, jurisdiction and aministration (חוק, שיפוט ומנהל) of the Israeli Government.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No, thats euphemism bordering on dishonesty. Those territories are occupied by Israel, full stop. They are not "de facto Israel", they are Palestinian and Syrian territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel. nableezy - 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
light green: Israeli-occupied territories under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government".?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is "Israel" not "Israel and occupied territories". So the infobox should only have a map of Israel. Other maps further down in the article discussing the occupation can include occupied territories clearly separating them from Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Half of Israel's capital is considered "occupied". A map of Israel shouldn't show half of Israel's capital?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Israel annexed the Golan Heights (RSs:The New York Times; BBC; Aljazeera; Encyclopedia of United States National Security; Encyclopedia Britannica). Moreover, as discussed above, there is a reality on the ground for some 50 years. The map needs to reflect this. KamelTebaast 20:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what Israel claims, or what its Golan Law and Jerusalem Law say, no international institution recognizes its claims. Thank you, Kamel Tebaast, for providing sources in advance to bolster my assertion.

I recommend that the Israeli and Syrian nationalists stop playing their respective games and try to draft a neutral caption for the map. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tell me Malik, in terms of de-facto situation, if you live in a place, under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government and you are also entitled to have Israeli citizenship, where exactly do you live, de-facto? Half of the sources say that unrecognizingly Israel, while some say that Israel didn't really annex the Golan, but only extended the law, jurisdiction and administration to the Golan. Interprate it however you want, the Golan Heights is a territory with the same administrative status as Safed or Haifa where the locals can have Israeli citizenship. For the last 50 years they were not administrated by Syria, they didn't pay taxes to the Syrian government, they didn't have access to the rest of Syria and while they couldn't vote on Syrian elections, they voted in all Israeli general elections since they non-annexation move happend. 'Why can't it be shown in the map?. Virtually the exact same thing happened in Crimea, but in Crimea, Russia officially said they are annexing the territory while here some dispute the fact that the Golan Heights law was an annexation or not (some of those who disagree are those who think the Golan Heights should be returned and they want to avoid an Israeli referandum on it).
As for East Jerusalem, it must be shown, according to the Jerusalem Law, Israel claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Just like Crimea is shown for Russia, East Jerusalem will be shown for Israel. This is also why East Jerusalem is shown for the State of Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think this is a "nationalist-POV", I"ll be honest, while I want the Golan Heights to be a part of Israel, I don't give a damn about East Jerusalem. The only reason why this conversation started was becuase virtually every significant territorial dispute, occupation and sovereignty claim is shown in other maps of other countries, including many occupations or claims with no recognition whatsoever.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And I don't bare the ridiculous nationalist point of view of showing it all in full green becuase Israel claims it. Per NPOV, it must be the same as other countries, in a lighter shade than the basic green.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21, you're arguing about several things, none of which is relevant. I didn't question the map, only the caption. I don't care whose roads you drive on to visit the Golan; in accordance with policy, I think we need to rely on what reliable sources say, nothing else. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the problem: under international law, West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Golan are all occupied. Now, are we going to show all of it in the Israeli map in light green? If we are talking about de facto control, will we show Area C as light green? If we're talking about "de facto annexation", will we put the part behind the West Bank Barrier in light green? Things will go hairy very quickly if we follow this kind of logic. My proposal is the following. (a) We can either keep the map as it is. (b) Or we can try this: show the Golan in light green (checked or shaded or whatever if needed). Leave East Jerusalem and the others alone because it is complicated. (This section was initially started because of the Golan anyway; I don't know why East Jerusalem came into it.) The caption for the light green part should say "occupied and under administrative control by Israel", or something similar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Or short and simple "under Israeli administration". See WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you mean "occupied and under Israeli administration". If so, that is fine. But simply "under Israeli administration" is inadequate for reasons I mentioned above. Actually "occupied" implies "under Israeli administration" (but not the converse obviously), so the latter phrase is redundant. But I am ok with a bit of redundancy if required to get consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Under policy, we are obliged to work towards a consensus. I am inclined to think Kingsindian has provided a reasonable compromise, that satisfies no one, but that all can probably live with.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This is what I offered before: "Israeli-occupied territories under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government" but in short. I don't have a problem with that, just to suggest a tweak: "occupied under Israeli government administration", because "Israeli" might also be interpreted as the Israeli Army, which administers Area C.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. West Bank can also be described as "occupied and under Israeli administration, but the situations in Golan and West Bank are quite different. How about "Occupied and administered by Israeli government" ? “WarKosign” 17:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what I suggested ^w^--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign, can you explain what you see as the difference between "occupied and under Israeli administration" and "occupied and administered by Israel" (or Israeli government)? To me, the second is just a round-about way of saying the first; they don't communicate different ideas. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
My intention was to differentiate between administration by Israeli government same as rest of territory of Israel and administration by Israeli Civil Administration which administers parts of West Bank not as part of Israel. “WarKosign” 06:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bolter21 If you would have added the word "international", as I suggested above, like this: "Israeli-occupied territories under international law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government", I would agree. Without it is completely unacceptable IMHO, since the word "law" alone is ambiguous.
@Kingsindian "under Israeli administration" is not the same as "occupied", because occupied territory can be ruled (and under international law usually should be ruled) by civilians of the occupied population, which is not the case for the Golan Heights. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"occupied and under Israeli jurisdiction and administration" then. Kingsindian wants to add "occupied", and WarKosign's comment is also correct that there is a difference between the West Bank and the Golan Heights, which can be expressed by adding "jurisdiction". Debresser (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Dovid, I meant under the "law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel" (חוק, שיפוט וממשל)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
How about “areas under de facto Israeli control and civilian governance.” Which is object and NPOV.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Per NPOV "occupied" need to stay. "civilian governance" may refer both to the discussed territories and most of the West Bank. We want to avoid that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems we are getting close to a consensus here. So please. "Occupied territories administrated by the Israeli government"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I can support "Occupied territories administrated by the Israeli government". Its factual and neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Missing the jurisdiction, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Damn it Dovid :D
So in order to keep it simple, "Occupied territories under the jurisdiction of the Israeli government" or to include it as "Occupied territories under the jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the second option. Still not completely clear, but less chance of people confusing it with administration in the West Bank. “WarKosign” 14:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Same here. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Occupied territories under the jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government" is not okay because Israel doesn't have any jurisdiction in Golan, its Israeli proclaimed jurisdiction and its not recognized but rejected by the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Israel has jurisdiction over the Golan by law. The residents of the Golan Heights are under the jurisdiction of the government, thus they are automatically permanent residents of the state and are entitled to full citizenship, they live in local councils under the supervision of the ministry of interior which provides them with the funds (from my pocket) and their police forces are regulated by the ministry of interior security, their roads are built by the Israeli ministry of transportation. I would care to bring many sources, but I think that at this stage enough were provided, so I"ll give you one: "...the Golan Heights Law. This law placed the Occupied Golan under Israeli civilian law, effectively extending Israel's laws and jurisdiction to the Occupied Golan, and granting the people residing there status as permanent residents of Israel. The source also gives a quote by the International Labour Organization saying: "It is the position of the Government of Israel that the Golan, to which Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration have been applied, is not now such an area [occupied Arab territory].--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Jurisdiction: "Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power."[5]. Israel has been condemned by the International community for its various actions in the occupied territories. So therefor its not "properly exercising power", its unlawfully exercising power. I already said above that Israel has proclaimed its jurisdiction over Golan, but that this has been rejected by the international community. Its proclaimed jurisdiction does therefore not apply de jure. Maybe in Israeli courts it does, but not in reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You got it backwards. In reality Golan is part of Israel and therefore under Israel's jurisdiction; in international law fiction Golan is part of Syria. “WarKosign” 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness, Israel has been mostly condamned for its actions in the West Bank. Your comment is very general and therefore invalid. You are not explaining how exactly Israeli jurisdiction isn't implemented in the Golan Heights, nor do you explain for what exactly Israel is being condamned for. Israel may be condamned for being present at the Golan, but it doesn't change the fact all the locals are living in municipalities under the supervision of the interior ministry, which provides them with my tax money, protected by police that is regulated by the ministry of interior security and the local Syrian residents are automatically entitled to permanent residency status, with the option of receiving an Israeli citizenship. The Golan Heights are administrated as an integral part of the Northern District of Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, using the definition you sent is a clear WP:SYNTH.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Well you are wrong: United Nations Security Council Resolution 497: "Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;" [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Many people, including me and SD have indicated their support for "Occupied territories administrated [sic] by the Israeli government". Bolter21 also stated above that they supported it. I have no idea why this "jurisdiction" phrasing has inserted its nose into this matter. I am not following the minutiae of the discussion, but I will state that I am opposed to the "jurisdiction" phrasing. It is needlessly POV, while "administered" is factual and NPOV. It should be "administered", by the way, not "administrated". Shorter phrasing is "occupied territories under Israeli administration", as I suggested above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: How does your phrasing distinguish between the state of Golan and West Bank ? They are both administered by Israel, but one is administered as permanent part of Israel, while the other is administered as territory temporarily under Israel control pending future negotiations. “WarKosign” 09:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It does not, directly: this is why the first option I gave above was to leave both of them out of the map. This "administered" phrasing was my compromise proposal because people kept arguing above that the Golan was different from the West Bank. "Temporary" doesn't mean much when the occupation has been going on for almost 50 years, but I can't help it if the world is crazy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with only "administration", the West Bank is only indirectly administered by the government, because not all of the government directly administer the territory, it is mostly the civil administration of the Israeli Army. But there are sources to support "jurisdiction".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see where Crimea is described as "occupied". "Occupied" usually means temporarily and without extending jurisdiction. Here we have the opposite: almost half a century with no end in sight, and under Israeli jurisdiction de facto, in reality, even though its legitimacy is not recognized by the international community. UN SC and GA resolutions may describe their wishes, what they want the reality to be. Wikipedia describes what it is. --Wiking (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia describes what reliable sources say about a topic. And the best sources say that the Golan is occupied territory. Same for East Jerusalem. Same for the rest of the West Bank. Same for the Gaza Strip. Yall can keep trying to pretend that reliable sources dont do that, but they do, and happily Wikipedia doesnt depend on what somebody wishes what they want the reality to be but rather it uses reliable sources to describe things. nableezy - 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I continue to support the simple and accurate formulation proposed most recently by Kingsindian: Occupied territories administered by the Israeli government or Occupied territories administered by Israel or some minor variation. Jurisdiction? No. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. KamelTebaast 21:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You edit summary for this said that the Golan is not occupied territory per reliable sources. You should really check the sources you yourself bring because most of them say the Golan is occupied territory. Excepting the 1970-something NY Times piece. More recent NY Times pieces however make clear that the Golan is in fact occupied territory. nableezy - 00:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
What exactly the problem with jurisdiction and how exactly does it contradicts "occupied"? As I said in the begining, I don't have a serious problem with only "administration", but it does apply to Area C in some way. The "jurisdiction" comes in order to distinguish between the two. There are sufficiant sources to say the law is a de-facto annexation but you oppose the word annexation because it is not written in the law, we offer jurisdiction instead, but you oppose the word jurisdiction becuase the UN doesn't recognize the jurisdiction. So you generally want to say the Golan Heights are occupied and "hide" the other facts of it... Why won't we just show Area C and also put a ligth green stroke line on the Gaza Strip to show it is blockaded and why won't we on the way add the territory controled by ISIS becuase it is operated by the Mossad? (the entire last sentence was cynical and the comment on ISIS was to break the tension)
I am struggling to reach a conensus but it seems everyone, from both sides of the argument, change their opinion depending on their mood this morning. @Nish, we havent heard your opinion for a while.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I think your hard work has produced a compromise per Kingsindian that, at a sleepy-eyed glance, has gained the support of myself, Nableezy, Shabazz at least, though as I said elsewhere, I don't agree with it. Any attempt to go beyond that phrasing will break that consensus, because it is done in the face of an unanimous world opinion, which some editors won't recognize, that the Golan Heights is occupied, whatever its status under Israeli law. You can't remove facts from the description, and impose an interpretation claimed by just a passing national governing coalition. Nishidani (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Jurisdiction means legal power. Israel's rights to make any changes to the status in the Golan is very limited, pretty much to changes required due to military necessity, by the Fourth Geneva Convention. As far as annexation, Im not sure why these two papers were ignored, they appeared back to back in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law: Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights is not Annexation and Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights is Annexation. There's an actual dispute on whether Israel even claimed to annex the Golan by the Golan Heights Law, so we cannot say annexed, and either way there is that pesky bit about UNSC 497 which ruled that illegal and reaffirmed that the Golan's status remained Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Thats the reason our other articles go to sometimes great lengths to describe the status as accurately and neutrally as possible, Syrian territory occupied by Israel that have been brought under Israeli civil law by acts that amount to annexation and that have been condemned internationally. You want to figure out a shorter way of saying please try, but there are going to be things to nitpick at for any word taken out of that description, and that is what you are seeing. Add to that the accounts that reject the term occupied, despite using sources that clearly and emphatically support occupied, under any circumstances. And then you get problems from all sides. nableezy - 00:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to join in, but... if you want to know the international opinion about the Golan Heights it is hard to go past the UNGA, where it has been voted on countless times. There is hardly any political issue with such a near-unanimous consistent result. The most recent vote was on Dec 9 last year, when this resolution passed 165 to 1. Zerotalk 00:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Wording 2.0

Israeli-annexed Golan Heights. Not recognised internationally.

Reliable sources: Daily Mail; The New York Times; BBC; Aljazeera; Encyclopedia of United States National Security; Encyclopedia Britannica KamelTebaast 19:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, its occupied Syrian territory. Full stop. A hundred sources can be brought to demonstrate that, including some of the ones you just posted. nableezy - 20:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope. There is not much to add. This is just going backwards.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Nableezy is moving backward. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Im sorry what? nableezy - 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
This proposal fails on several counts, which is surprising since it's so short. Firstly, it's not the territory that is unrecognized (it's recognized as Syrian territory), but the annexation which is unrecognized. Secondly, this omits the universal international expression used to characterize the area, which is "occupied". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is quite funny how Israel is only country on Wikipedia whose map does not show disputed territory that is both claimed and administered, especially then many country maps even show claims without administration (Argentina-Falklands,Pakistan-Kashmir,Palestine-East Jerusalem). Must be some unique attribute of Jews that requires different treatment. If wording was an issue you could simply copy one from similar cases, either laconic one from Russia or longer one from Morocco, no need to invent special solutions.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are not sources. And we cannot copy text into this article that doesn't come from the best sources that directly discuss the subject-matter of this article. (of course even then we don't copy, to avoid copyright issues, but paraphrase, but that's not really the point here). Each "dispute" is unique in it's way, and using your logic we'd have to colour all of Israel some sort of special colour, as there is no part that isn't the subject of some sort of dispute. --Dailycare (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_58&oldid=1079502899"