Talk:Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights/Archive 1

Archive 1

"juxtaposition that borders on editorializing"

Uh this is what the source says, in one sentence:

The U.S. is the first country to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan, which the rest of the international community regards as occupied territory.

It is absurd that somebody thinks that only the US stance should be included, when the entirety of the rest of the international community continues to view it as occupied territory. That is not "editorializing", and removing that statement is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. nableezy - 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly no uniform international position following the US reversal. We should avoid older sources, state that the status is disputed, and specify the US and Israeli position vs. Russia, the EU, the Arab league, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you always make false claims about situations to suit the pro-occupation agenda? Trump says one thing but the rest of the world still knows the Syrian territory is occupied by Israel. Drop the stick and edit neutrally. Of 19 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh, Icewhiz, that source postdates the US announcement. It is about the US announcement. It says the rest of the international community. Here is another source, guess what it says? The US is the first country to recognise Israel's sovereignty over the Golan, which the rest of the international community regards as Israeli-occupied. It is well sourced that the rest of the international community regards it as occupied. The nonsense about older sources is wholly unsupported by policy, in fact it flies in the face of it. nableezy - 21:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGE MATTERS. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read that. Particularly Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate). The idea that because of news that occured last week that academic sources about this topic from last month are no longer reliable is laughable. And, by the way, the content in question here is sourced to RS that post-date that event. nableezy - 21:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz edits

In your latest edits:[1] you changed the position both in the lead and in the "international views" section so that the tiny minority view is before the international view, why? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not so tiny. I removed repititions. I am not married to any particular order here (note that in terms of rhetoric the "final but form" is often stronger) - but we should not be saying the same thing twice in the same paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

but you open the international views part with the US and Israel consider it Israeli, and then repeat that with in 2019 ... shortly after? nableezy - 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

unsc

Icewhiz, why did you remove that the UNSC said that the Geneva Conventions continue to apply as an occupied territory? I plan on restoring your removals here, of this and Roberts, as Roberts is very much not out of date. One country now says the Golan is Israeli territory, that does not render moot every academic source older than a week. nableezy - 14:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that was needed in the lede. Perhaps move to the body? The pertinent point of information was that the UNSC, in 1981, declared the Israeli move null and void - seeing the territory as continuing to be occupied. The applicability of the 4th Geneva convention (governing military occupation) is obvious once one sees the territory as under military occupation. I don't have particularly strong feelings here if you want to restore - I thought it did not add anything to the UNSC's statement in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Except you removed that they considered it to be continued to be occupied. nableezy - 14:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, particularly given the following sentence. However as you say not - does diff help here? Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thats fine, Im still going to return Roberts. That is among the preeminent voices on this topic, removing him is just silly. As for evidence on being a preeminent voice and not "outdated", that paper is cited by 345 articles, among them 14 since 2018. Scholars certainly dont think it outdated. nableezy - 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

And also, Ill be returning the majority view on the status prior to anything else. nableezy - 20:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Also Icewhiz, the phrase the US and Israel recognize ... does not make any sense. See diplomatic recognition, it is something a state says about other states, not itself. Israel can proclaim something about itself, it cannot recognize it. nableezy - 21:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

However you frame it (recognition, annexation, whatever) - the Israeli position is relevant. @Nableezy: - you've restored several repetitions. Furthermore, based on out of date sources (1990) - you've introduced "The international community widely considers" - this is clearly incorrect given recent developments as seen in coverage by the AP and others - the AP uses "The U.S. is the first country to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan, which the rest of the international community regards as occupied territory.". If you have a source written after the US change of policy stating this in this manner - introduce this - otherwise this can only be said about some past point in time (e.g. 1981). Can you craft a version (whether first, last, middle, whatever) - where the position of states (either individually named, or "rest of the international community") other than the US&Israel is stated once per section? Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifically - the lede repeats "international community" twice (once in an out of date "widely considered"). The "International views" repeats this twice again (again - once with an out of date "widely considered"). You want the rest of the international community prior to the US? Fine. It doesn't mean you repeat this twice in a sandwich. Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Roberts is not out of date. I showed how that paper continues to be cited. Im not sure how you think the AP using "the rest of" and "widely" conflict. Yes, the Israeli position is relevant. The Golan law is in the lead. But Israel cannot "recognize" an Israeli action. And it is not repeated. The opening says the view of the international community. The part on the US is about recent developments, and the rest of the international community's view of those recent developments. Do you have a source that says the US position invalidates the near unanimous consensus among the international community? Im sorry, but you seem to be making demands not grounded in policy. I have sources that say something. You claim that some new information invalidates those sources, but have no sources saying that. Then you demand that I source a response to your unsourced argument. nableezy - 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That this is a "reversal" is easily sourced - AP. As ABC news makes clear - "The international community, including the United States, largely shared that position until Trump upended decades of U.S. policy by moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem last year and recognizing Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan earlier this month." - the United states is included in the international community. Sources prior to 25 March 2019 in regards to the current view of the international community are clear out of date. Roberts can be used for the view of the international community in 1990 - when written - not in 2019. Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the US reversed its position. But I dont think I asked for a source about a US reversal. I asked for a source saying that the US reversal reverses the international community position. It would help immensely if you responded to my actual arguments, and not the one you wish I had made. Yes, the US is a part of that community. And the sentence does not say the international community, without exception, considers the territory occupied. It says widely. nableezy - 16:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As ABC makes clear - the US reversal affects the international community's position. How about you actually provide a contemporary source for the language you are proposing? Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No it does not, it says the international community including the US had the same position as the Arab League. Obviously if you explicitly say "including the United States" then that is no longer true. The article however does not say "including the United States". If you want to replace widely with with the exception of the United States and Israel Im fine with that. Widely does not mean unanimous. nableezy - 16:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Status of the Golan_Heights nableezy - 16:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And, US News: Israel captured the Golan from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war but its sovereignty over the territory is not recognized by the international community. Post announcement. Financial Times: Mr Trump’s comments run counter to the overwhelming international view that the Golan is occupied territory. Would you like to replace widely considered with "the overwhelming view"? nableezy - 16:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Times of Israel: Israel captured the strategic plateau from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and in 1981 effectively annexed the area, in a move never recognized by the international community, which considers the Golan Heights to be occupied Syrian territory. Post announcement. nableezy - 16:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

TOI is in past tense. USnews is a copy of a rolling minute by minute blog - breaking news reporting. FT.com is even less relevant - as it is from 21 March (referring to Trump's tweet - which carries little weight) - at the time of its publication it was correct, but it is out of date following 25 March. The Associated Press - from 26 March - [2] - is using the "U.S. the first country to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan, which was captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and regarded by the rest of the international community as occupied territory" - which we could follow (US A, rest of the international community B). Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My dear fellow editor, "considers" is the present tense of "consider". nableezy - 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Quneitra

Why there is no word on Quneitra in the article? It looks like it deals with the Golan Heights, but Quneitra is also on the Golan - captured by the Syrian Ba'athist regime from Islamists back in 2018. The article is missing the whole issue of the status of Quneitra as formerly disputed area between Ba'athist Syria, Syrian Opposition and HTS, who still claim the area. So what is the status of Quneitra? Occupied (by whom)? Liberated? Disputed?GreyShark (dibra) 10:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Quneitra's role in the civil war has nothing to do with its status under international law, that being sovereign Syrian territory. Since Israel withdrew from it, and destroyed it, in 1974 its status has not changed. nableezy - 20:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)