The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
I have reverted the recent edits by @GreekParadise. The changes were striking, and in the lede, and were not backed up by the sources in the article. I have left a note on the user's talk page, but thought I'd clarify here for others who saw the reversion.
For example, the BBC article used as a ref contradicts the new text and supports the old: "Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon." It does include a comment by someone at the UN that the farms should be considered in Syria, but that should be attributed, and not said in Wikivoice.
The Palestine-Israel Journal is quoted multiple times for the same argument, making it WP:UNDUE. The UN link is broken. The PDF linked backs up much the same account as the text that was altered with the subsequent edits.
Right, claims like "the Syrian government has never agreed the land is Lebanese" are simply false. Although Syria has not shown any urgency for a formal border demarcation with Lebanon, the public position of the government since 2000 has been that the SF are Lebanese. Look at Syrian state media for the current position. This article is one I have been meaning to completely revise with better sources. But I'm a slow editor... Zerotalk02:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Zero is incorrect when he says the Syrian government agrees the land is Lebanese. There is NO evidence from ANY Syrian source that Syria has EVER declared the Shebaa Farms to not be Syrian. If there is such evidence, please show it! All I've seen is a BBC claim that the UN claims than an unnamed Syrian official anonymously said so even though all the maps and official statements show it to be Syrian or refuse to say.
Zero says, for example, that the Syrian News Agency claims Shebaa Farms is in Lebanon. In fact that source makes clear Shebaa TOWN is in Lebanon, but not the Shebaa Farms. (Shebaa Town is in Lebanon as Syria, Israel, Lebanon, and the UN agree.) We know it's Shebaa Town that SANA is referring to, not just because it says so, but because Israel has never shelled its own territory in the Golan. It has shelled Lebanese territory.
========
The main problem I have with the lede is it's untrue.
"Lebanon claims the Shebaa farms as its own territory" is untrue because it suggests this was always the Lebanese position, when in fact, it's a recent Hezbollah position.
"Syria agrees with this position" is also untrue in that the Syrian government and its president have never stated this. That the BBC 24 years ago claimed this without citing a single Syrian official -- while admitting that the UN and Syria have it on Syrian maps -- is simply not a reputable source.
In fact, the Syrian President has made clear it is Syrian territory in private and publicly refuses to take a position.
You can find this information in the article, but the lede does not reflect the article.
What is undisputed is that ever since Lebanese independence, both Syria and Lebanon consistently said it was Syrian -- and even after Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights said so -- until the Lebanese-Israel conflict of 2000.
I'm happy to rework the article and add sources.
I would add the following information admidst any other sourced material. and then correct the lede to reflect it:
Since at least 2000, Lebanon has claimed a small portion of the Syrian territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and administered as part of the Golan Heights. The territory, known as the Shebaa Farms, measures 22 km2 (8.5 sq mi) and lies on the border between Lebanon and the Golan Heights. The United Nations and Israel consider the land to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel.[1] Syria has taken contradictory positions, but, with the exception of some statements in 2000,[2][3] has generally agreed that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reiterated in 2011.[4]
From the founding of the Syrian Republic in 1946 until at least 1978, all affected parties (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the United Nations) considered Shebaa Farms to be Syrian territory, as opposed to Lebanese.[5][6][3] Shebaa Farms was considered part of Syria from 1946-67 and represented as such on maps of the time, including both 1949 Armistice Agreement maps and Syrian and Lebanese military maps.[7]
When Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967, Shebaa Farms was still considered by Lebanon, Syria, and Israel to be Syrian territory. After 1967 and throughout the 1970's, the governments of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel all considered the territory to be Syrian and under Israeli occupation.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
In 1983, Hezbollah was created and over time, began to insist that Shebaa Farms were under Lebanese (as opposed to Syrian) sovereignty, eventually citing the occupation of Shebaa Farms as one reason for its continued attacks on Israel.[8]
On 7 June 2000, the demarcationBlue Line was established by the United Nations in order to ensure full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, according to UN Security Council Resolution 425. After Israeli troops left Lebanese soil, the United Nations affirmed on 18 June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn its forces entirely from Lebanon, in accordance with Resolution 425.[9] But by this time, the government of Lebanon had changed its prior view and disputed the United Nations certification that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was complete.[10]
In 2000, some officials at the United Nations claimed some (unnamed) Syrian officials reportedly supported Lebanon's claim that the Shebaa Farms were part of Lebanon and not Syrian territory.[11][3][12] But its Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confirmed in 2011 that both Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shuba Hills were Syrian territory and not Lebanese.[13] Syria has never officially declared in writing that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon or any country other than Syria.[14]
For decades the United Nations and the international diplomatic community have requested that Syria and Lebanon take steps to determine the exact boundary between them with regard to Shebaa Farms and officially register the demarcated border with the United Nations. Both Lebanon and Syria refuse to do so.[15]
=====
In sum, this is a complex issue. It deserves an accurate portrayal.
If you will allow me to weave in the properly sourced material I have above, I will do so.
I am also asking wikipedia to undelete the 1966 Lebanese military map that has been on this entry for many years which explicitly showed Lebanon claiming the land was Syrian. That map was quickly deleted when I posted it on the Golan Heights on the grounds it was "redundant." Zero agrees the map is relevant and should be on wikipedia, and I have asked Zero to work with me to undelete the map. If you believe that the map should be allowed, you can join in the request.
If we all act in good faith, we can tell the truth with proper sources and not make unprovable false claims. I am happy to work with Zero on this. But inadvertent inaccurate sourcing of material (such as claiming the SANA link says anything about Shebaa FARMS, as opposed to TOWN) should be avoided.GreekParadise (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC) GreekParadise (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GreekParadise. Thanks for taking the time to engage.
In the spirit of being helpful, I first wanted to comment on a couple of things in your reply above:
"If we all act in good faith, we can tell the truth with proper sources and not make unprovable false claims."
Wikipedia has guidance on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POV, both fairly summarised in the essay WP:TRUTH. We are not here to "prove" any "truth", but to detail verifiable consensus from reliable sources. In contentious topics, this is especially important. Wording like this can make your edits look like WP:TE, which can result in banning or blocking. Tendentious editing doesn't have to be intentional (and usually isn't), but is associated with strong opinions. We also try to avoid accusing each other of bad faith—most policy violations are unintentional or arise from good intentions. It's generally best to stick to policy to argue your points (I appreciate that's easier said than done on some topics—we all get it wrong sometimes).
That said, I'm not sure where your suggested edits would go and what they would replace. It seems to remove a lot of the existing content which currently provides a lot of useful context, and results in an article which is more one-sided as a result. A better suggestion would be to add details you think are missing rather than replacing the whole thing. We can discuss those here, and then you can conceivably build consensus for them so they won't get reverted.
I did note some areas for improvement in your suggested text, regardless. This is an essay, so bear with me:
"Since at least 2000, Lebanon has claimed a small portion of the Syrian territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and administered as part of the Golan Heights."
This is non-neutral, since it declares the territory definitely is Syrian (while the thrust of the article is that it's explicitly disputed), and possibly also suggests it's only a trivial concern that shouldn't matter. A better framing would be:
"Since at least 2000, Lebanon has claimed the Shebaa Farms as part of its territory. The land was used by Lebanese farmers in the village of Shebaa until 1967.[1] The territory was occupied by Israel in 1967 and has since been administered as part of the Golan Heights."
[1]: Krista Eileen Wiegand (2011). Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, and Settlement (illustrated ed.). University of Georgia Press. pp. 157–8. ISBN 9780820337388.
This section is entirely unsourced:
“When Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967, Shebaa Farms was still considered by Lebanon, Syria, and Israel to be Syrian territory. After 1967 and throughout the 1970's, the governments of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel all considered the territory to be Syrian and under Israeli occupation.”
This a major claim to make without sources. The map doesn't count as a source there, since it's a primary source and relying on it would be WP:OR. You'd need a secondary source (ideally multiple) to indicate how we should interpret the map and how relevant it is.
“In 1983, Hezbollah was created and over time, began to insist that Shebaa Farms were under Lebanese (as opposed to Syrian) sovereignty, eventually citing the occupation of Shebaa Farms as one reason for its continued attacks on Israel.”
Firstly, this needs more than the PIJ source (which you've used rather a lot in this rewrite). Anything likely to be contested should have multiple high quality RSes attached to it.
It also leaves out significant context: as per the 1930s maps that Zero added, the area was placed in Lebanon in at least some estimations. So this wasn't a claim that Hezbollah just invented in the 80s. Collectively, the various maps show there isn't actually a clear answer as much as we might want one. Either way, our opinions here aren't relevant—what’s relevant is what RSes make of these maps.
We also can't just throw in “attacks on Israel” without context either. That will come across as POV pushing. And as a general sidenote, “insisted” probably fails [[WP:NPOV]]. We should always try to use “said” as the default, unless there's a convincing reason not to.
"In 2000, some officials at the United Nations claimed some (unnamed) Syrian officials reportedly supported Lebanon's claim that the Shebaa Farms were part of Lebanon and not Syrian territory. But its Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confirmed in 2011 that both Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shuba Hills were Syrian territory and not Lebanese."
The language of "some (unnamed) Syrian officials reportedly supported" reads as minimising this viewpoint, which wouldn't be neutral. Better framing would be along the lines of "two Syrian officials, said…" or "Person X, a Syrian official, said…" We can use "reportedly" when a newspaper is referring to unnamed sources, or when a source is in doubt, such as "Two unnamed Syrian officials reportedly told The Times that…" or "The Times reported that two Syrian officials said…" But it seems from Zero's comments that we can identify who made these statements so we should attribute them. If this viewpoint is of minor importance, then please provide evidence that that's the consensus among experts.
The onus is on you to properly research this stuff, otherwise it will look like changes made to construct a POV rather than changes made to better reflect a consensus. At the moment, you haven't convinced me that—however well intentioned or well researched—your edits reflect the consensus rather than your own personal views. We need to read people who disagree with us as well as those who agree with us, and should always be mindful that we're reflecting the view of most experts. I hope that makes sense. Lewisguile (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN press release that you referred to 3 times with a dead link says "Concerning the Shab'a farmlands, both Lebanon and Syria state that this land belongs to Lebanon." Countless other sources say that the Syrian position since 2000 has been that the SF are Lebanese, and the only exception I know of is the unsupported claim about a private remark of Assad in the article of Hof. Zerotalk06:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"'Lebanon claims the Shebaa farms as its own territory' is untrue because it suggests this was always the Lebanese position" — Actually "claims" is present tense so this sentence refers to the present and not the past. The past is more complicated. Zerotalk06:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"some officials at the United Nations claimed some (unnamed) Syrian officials reportedly" Hmm, "some officials" refers here to the UN Secretary General and the "unnamed Syrian official" is the Syrian Foreign Minister, Mr. Al-Shara', who spoke to the SG personally. (Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), [S/2000/460 https://documents.un.org/symbol-explorer?s=S/2000/460]).
Other named Syrian officials are the UN representatives of Syria, Wehbe and Mekdad, who told the General Assembly in Nov-Dec, 2000, that the Sheba Farms are Lebanese (A/55/PV.77 and A/55/PV.78). The UN Sec-Gen said on 18 April 2006, "Representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic have repeatedly made public statements to the effect that the Syrian Arab Republic agrees in principle with the notion that the Shebaa farms are Lebanese territory." (S/2006/248) Zerotalk06:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Both Lebanon and Syria refuse to do so.[16] — An exiled former vice-president doesn't strike me as a reliable source against his former boss, but anyway this source does not support "both" at all. It isn't even clear without external information what Khaddam is referring to. The facts are that Lebanon never refused to demarcate the border with Syria and expressed satisfaction when the UN defined the extent of the SF. Khaddam is directly criticising the official position of Syria, which is that border demarcation is impossible before Israeli withdrawal. Zerotalk11:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Zero, none of your citations give the position of the Syrian Government. All of them are SANA quoting Lebanese Hezbollah (or, in one case, the Arab League Council). This is not an official Syrian position. Israeli newspapers (and US ones) also quote Lebanese Hezbollah's position on Shebaa Farms. That does not make it an Israeli or American position.
I did very much appreciate the correct link to the 2000 report, which is fascinating. You're right that the UN attributes the position to a single phone call of a member of the Syrian Government in 2000. It then follows it up by clearly stating that both Lebanon and Syria have repeatedly shown on maps that the land was Syria from 1946-2000. That detailed account (they cite some 81 maps) should definitely be included as the UN makes clear this "new position" of the Syrian Foreign Minister in 2000 was a change in position of both countries in 2000..and of course, they found that it was Lebanese territory officially when they certified Israel's compliance with Resolution 1701 in 2006. The UN even calls it Syria's "new position." That should be directly quoted.
I also read your second citation. Again, very interesting. I will quote it in full (weird links in original)
31. In this context, I note that the status of the Shebaa farmlands has remained under discussion among the Lebanese and in the region. In particular, it is important to note that participants in the Lebanese national dialogue affirmed their support on 14 March 2006 for all contacts undertaken by the Government of Lebanon to &/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/8220;establish the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa farmlands,&/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/8221; and to &/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/8220;determine the area&/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/8217;s borders in accordance with procedures and principles approved and accepted by the United Nations&/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/8221;.
32. As outlined in greater detail in my previous reports, the Security Council has repeatedly reiterated its confirmation that Israel withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory in fulfilment of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) in 2000, and that it consider the Shebaa farms area to be Israeli-occupied Syrian territory, on the basis of the information regarding the international boundary available to the United Nations in delineating the Blue Line of withdrawal.
33. The United Nations determination of the status of the Shebaa farms is, as I wrote in my reports to the Security Council of 22 May 2000 (S/2000/460) and of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590 and Corr.1), without prejudice to any internationally recognized border agreement that Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic may wish to conclude in the future. Its current status as Israeli-occupied Syrian territory does, however, remain valid unless and until the Governments of Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic take steps under international law to alter that status.
34. Lebanon has repeatedly committed, in writing and through public statements such as the one made by Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh after a meeting with my Special Envoy for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) in Beirut on 24 March 2006, to respect the Blue Line. In this context, I particularly recall President &/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/201;mile Lahoud&/unispal/document/auto-insert-178789/8217;s letter to me of 12 June 2000 (A/54/914-S/2000/564), in which the Lebanese authorities committed to accept and respect the Blue Line until a border delineation agreement is reached by Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic.
35. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the exchange of letters between the Governments of Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, and the agreements reached at the national dialogue in Lebanon, it appears that there exists a consensus on the general need to delineate the Lebanese-Syrian border. There also appears to be agreement among the Lebanese that the Shebaa farmlands area is to be considered Lebanese territory. Representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic have repeatedly made public statements to the effect that the Syrian Arab Republic agrees in principle with the notion that the Shebaa farms are Lebanese territory.
In sum, the UN has concluded, based on international boundaries and the Blue Line that the Shebaa Farms' current status is Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. That is a legal designation and should be at the top of the article. It should state "under international law, the Shebaa Farms are Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. That was the position of both the Lebanese and Syrian governments until 2000 when Lebanon changed its position. Syria's position on the issue is less clear. Although the UN claimed in 2004 that "Representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic have repeatedly made public statements to the effect that the Syrian Arab Republic agrees in principle with the notion that the Shebaa farms are Lebanese territory," those statement have not been located.
Note the weasel words: public statements "to the effect" that Syria "agrees in principle" "with the notion"
Those weasel words are important, especially since thus far, neither of us have ever been able to unearth a direct public statement from the Syrian government as to their position on Shebaa Farms.
Can you find a single statement from a member of the Syrian Government at any time in history saying the Shebaa Farms are Lebanese -- as opposed to Syrian -- territory?
If so, please point it out to me. If not, then I think all we can say is that the UN said in 2000 that Syrian officials told them that Syria "agrees in principle with the notion that that the Shebaa Farms are Lebanese territory" but the Syrian government has not issued a direct public statement on the matter, they have refused a demarcation, and as we know, Assad is reported to have said privately in 2011 that it is Syrian territory.
This is convoluted. But expressly saying that Syria says it's Lebanese territory would be pushing a particular point of view. Let's give the complex data and let the reader decide what to make of it.
In sum, we should say:
Both Lebanon and Syria considered it Syrian from the time the countries were founded until 2000 and all their maps show it (and show a map or two) as well as their conduct (what the UN says about the Blue Line)
Lebanon in 2000 first put forward a new position (that came from Hezbollah) that it was Syrian territory.
Syria has been inconsistent in its position since 2000. While a government official reportedly privately conveyed to the UN in 2000 that Syria "in effect" "agrees in principle" with "the notion" that it is Lebanese territory, their President Assad reportedly privately told a diplomat it was Syrian territory in 2011. There has been no Syrian statement publicly stating it is Lebanese territory or agreeing to the UN's entreaties to allow a demarcation of the land. (unless you, Zero, can find one!)
Hezbollah's clear position since 2000 that it is Lebanese territory (you can cite SANA for this)
The United Nations and the international community all agree Shebaa Farms is Israeli-occupied Syrian territory.
And since that's true, that should be in the lede followed by accounts in detail of the UN position, Hezbollah's position, Lebanon's changed position, and Syria's confusing and conflicted point of view.
@GreekParadise We don't need to cite Syria making such claims, as they'd be primary sources. We need secondary sources saying Syria said it, of which there are several, including the UN as quoted by you above.
So it still falls on you to prove that Syria doesn't think the Shebaa Farms are Lebanese today, as that's the part you're challenging (in the lede where it says "Syria agrees with this position").
On the subject of the Blue Line, yes, the UN says it's Syrian territory occupied by Israel. But the Blue Line also designates the north of Ghajar as Lebanese territory, and Israel still occupied the whole of Ghajar, despite agreeing to the same terms as Lebanon. In other words, both countries dispute various parts of the Blue Line; Lebanon has raised at least 13 objections to the Blue Line.
However, in the interests of drawing things to a close, I suggest the following:
"Lebanon claims the Shebaa farms as its own territory, and Syria agrees with this position. Israel claims the territory belongs to Syria based on 1967 boundaries. The UN maintains the 1967 boundaries, pending a formal border agreement between Lebanon and Syria."
This at least includes the UN position in the first paragraph and feels like the most balanced summary of the situation I can manage without massively increasing rhe word count. However, I suspect this will be reverted or opposed, as all of that information is already in the lede (it's just not in the first paragraph). Lewisguile (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreekParadise:"You're right that the UN attributes the position to a single phone call of a member of the Syrian Government in 2000." Please state your opinion and don't try to state mine. I never wrote such a thing and it isn't true. Moreover, I suggest you read what I wrote and see that I already disproved "There has been no Syrian statement publicly stating it is Lebanese territory". There are many reports in SANA which call the SF Lebanese in the voice of the newspaper:, [1], [2], [3], etc etc. In addition, Syria is on the council of the League of Arab States and the Syrian representative spoke in support of the resolution (I'm looking for the full text). All of this is related to Syrian support for Hezbollah and vice-versa.But we don't need primary sources for this. Secondary sources overwhelmingly report that Syria supports Lebanon on the Shebaa Farms. Here is a partial list: Congressional Research Service, Washington Post, Dawn, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, US State Department, Kaufman Contested Frontiers p72: "Until 1967 it was important for Syria to control the region for military reasons, but since 2000 it has been important for Syria to argue that the region is Lebanese and that Hizbullah’s struggle to liberate it is justified." (And other works by Kaufman.) UN SecGen report S/2007/147: "the Secretary-General has noted the repeated statements of representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic made over the past year that the Shab’a Farms area is Lebanese"; UN SecGen report S/2010/352: "Syrian officials have continued to affirm their recognition that the Shab’a farms area is Lebanese" (note the years, in fact statements like this are scattered in UN documentation from 2000 until now). Gal-Or (ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law v535 (2007-2008): "Lebanon and Syria claim that Lebanon has title". Jorum Beyond Syria's Borders, p83. Eiran Between land and sea: spaces and conflict intensity: "by the 1990s, both Syria and Lebanon claimed that the region was in fact Lebanese". Rabil Embattled Neighbors p273. Stephan The case for peacekeeping in the occupied Palestinian territories (International Peacekeeping, vol 11, p248). Zerotalk06:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed someone edited the page to say: "However, Israel claims that it conquered the territory from Syria during the Six-Day War."
I have removed this as unreflective of the RSes and WP:NPOV, and have reworded as: "Israel claims it is part of the Syrian Golan Heights, which it has occupied since 1967."
@Zero0000, I would appreciate your thoughts on this? I would be happy to go back to the original wording, if necessary, but this feels like it covers that editor's position without changing the meaning or POV pushing. Lewisguile (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile: I have seen both versions and I don't think they are incompatible. You can see this for example. My version (which would needed sourcing) is that the Israeli position has two parts (1) the UN's decision on the Blue Line shows that SF is not Lebanese, (2) even if Lebanon and Syria make a formal agreement that the SF are Lebanese, it doesn't matter since they were under Syrian control when they were occupied by Israel in 1967. Zerotalk10:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that viewpoint is probably covered by the wording I gave. I don't think all of that detail is required in the first paragraph of the lede, but if it's missing from the body, it makes sense to add any nuance that isn't clear. Lewisguile (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We agree the land was under Syrian control from the founding of the Syrian state until 1967 and that neither Lebanon nor Syria expressed a contrary position until 2000. We agree Lebanon asserted its claim over the land (following Hezbollah) in 2000.
I have never seen a direct statement from the Syrian government on its position. (Zero, if you can find a direct statement from the Syrian government on Sheba'a Farms, I would change my view. You say one exists.) For now, the only sources I think we have are indirect: the contradictory hearsay from the UN on one side and the American diplomat on the other.
My problem with the lede is as follows:
When you say " Lebanon claims the Shebaa farms as its own territory, and Syria agrees with this position" that implies this was always Syrian view. So I think it's misleading. In fact, even if Syria agrees with the view (which we have contradictory accounts of), it should be clear this is a recent view.
How about:
The Shebaa Farms, also spelled Sheba'a Farms (Arabic: مزارع شبعا, Mazāri' Šib‘ā; Hebrew: חוות שבעא Havot Sheba‘a), also known as Mount Dov (Hebrew: הר דב, romanized: Har Dov), is a strip of land on the Lebanese–Syrian border that is currently occupied by Israel. Under international law, the land is Syrian territory, which was controlled by Syria from the birth of the modern Syrian state in 1946 until 1967 when Israel occupied the Golan Heights. Since 2000, Lebanon, and by many accounts, Syria have claimed the territory to be Lebanese.
The Shebaa Farms, also spelled Sheba'a Farms (Arabic: مزارع شبعا, Mazāri' Šib‘ā; Hebrew: חוות שבעא Havot Sheba‘a), also known as Mount Dov (Hebrew: הר דב, romanized: Har Dov), is a strip of land on the Lebanese–Syrian border that is currently occupied by Israel. Under international law, the land is Syrian territory, which was controlled by Syria from the birth of the modern Syrian state in 1946 until 1967 when Israel occupied the Golan Heights.
The international community, the United Nations, and the governments of Lebanon and Syria agreed the land was Syrian until 2000. All maps of both governments prior to 2000 reflect this consensus. In 2000, Lebanon first officially claimed that Sheba'a Farms was Lebanese territory. Since that time, many sources, including the United Nations, state that Syria accepts Lebanese claim. However, the Syria Government has refused to give a direct official statement about Sheba'a Farms while the area is under Israeli occupation and in private, the Syrian President is reported to have claimed the territory as Syrian. Syria has refused repeated offers from the United Nations to demarcate the territory.
Israel claims the Sheba'a Farms is part of the Golan Heights, Syrian territory that it has occupied since 1967 and effectively annexed by applying Israeli civil law to it in 1981.
I don't agree that the use of present tense implies an historic meaning, in this case. Although, it's a moot point now anyway, since the lede was specifically edited to add in the 1967 occupation and 1981 annexation in the first paragraph. The rest of the lede already explains that Hezbollah claimed the land was Lebanese in 2000 as well.
I could see a change to "Lebanon claims the Shebaa farms as its own territory, which Syria currently agrees with." Or: "Currently, Lebanon claims the Shebaa farms as its own territory, which Syria agrees with." But I suspect that in either case, "currently" would get edited out on the basis that the present tense means "currently" anyway.
The statement that Lebanon has only claimed this since 2000 is also misleading, as Zero has pointed out. It's also largely irrelevant. If the land was Syrian in 1967, then the UN and the whole world (minus two countries) still considered it Syrian in 2000, at which point it is/was free to relinquish that land if it wants to. Lewisguile (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor GreekParadise: I'm not interested in going around the same circle with you again. Your proposal is terrible and unacceptable. I already gave you citations where Syrian reps said in the UNGA that the SF is Lebanese. Moreover, if the UN Sec-Gen reported that public statements were made by Syrian officials then they were made and it makes no difference whether you heard them. This is false: "under international law, the land is Syrian territory"; actually the current status according to the UNSC is that the sovereignty is uncertain and up to Lebanon and Syria to decide. This is also false: "All maps of both governments prior to 2000"; I put an exception in the article already. I have about 6 examples altogether, but one is enough to illustrate what reliable sources like Kaufman say. And please learn the difference between present tense and past tense verbs; it is not good to repeat a claim without addressing the explanation already given to you. Zerotalk01:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer, we can say "according to the international community, the land is Syrian territory" since that's what the UN has said about the Golan and it has been accepted, even though the US and Israel disagree. Let's be consistent here. You'll have to show me a source that says the UNSC has found that sovereignty is uncertain. I haven't seen that. I've seen all UN rulings and all maps say it's Syrian.
If you have a government map since Syria and Lebanon became countries in the 1940's that shows it to be Lebanese, please show it to me. Maps pre-dating their statehood may be interesting as may be Ottoman maps, but lots of lines have changed since then.
The President of Syria is a dictator. His views matter more than Syrian reps. Assad said it was Syrian territory more recently than Syrian reps have told the UN. All of your primary sources are prior to 2011. The few that are more recent give no source other than their say so.
I think the more recent report of a statement by the leader of Syria is more important than earlier reports of Syrian diplomats.
I ask Lewisguile to read this article which gives the facts of the situation (as of 2021) in some detail.
<inset>Seized by Israel in June 1967 as part of the Syrian Golan Heights, this small, very lightly populated strip of elevated land was (and still is) treated by United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon and on the Golan Heights as part of Syria occupied by Israel. Neither Lebanon nor Syria, in 1967 or for more than 30 years thereafter, claimed the land in question was anything other than the northernmost part of the Golan Heights; the political status of this acreage bordering Lebanon was never questioned. There was no objective reason for doing so.
All this changed in early 2000, as Hezbollah — the “Lebanese Resistance” fighting Israeli occupation for nearly two decades — anxiously confronted the implications of possible catastrophic victory: complete, unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. If the occupation were to end, what would there be to “resist”? With nothing to resist, how could Iran’s Lebanese proxy justify maintaining a militia independent of the Lebanese Armed Forces?</inset>
In sum, it is undisputed that:
Lebanon and Syria both consistently said it was Syrian territory (and all maps show this) from the time of their founding until 2000 when Hezbollah pressured the Lebanese government to change its mind.
Syria has given contradictory private accounts to the UN and the US since 2000 and no public accounts. Syria has also said Syria refuses to take steps to determine the exact boundary and officially register the demarcated border with the United Nations. To not mention this and to imply there is a singular Syrian view on this is simply inaccurate.
The history section accurately says "When Israel captured the Golan Heights in 1967, Shebaa Farms was considered Syrian territory". What it doesn't say is that it was considered the Golan Heights until 2000.
That the article does not mention the consistent position of the UN, Lebanon, Syria, and every country on planet that the land was Syrian until Hezbollah pressured Lebanon in 2000 to change its mind until deep and incompletely in the history section is misleading at best and POV at worst.
So what's wrong with:
The Shebaa Farms, also spelled Sheba'a Farms (Arabic: مزارع شبعا, Mazāri' Šib‘ā; Hebrew: חוות שבעא Havot Sheba‘a), also known as Mount Dov (Hebrew: הר דב, romanized: Har Dov), is a strip of land on the Lebanese–Syrian border that is currently occupied by Israel. The land was considered by Lebanon, Syria, and the international community to be Syrian territory from the birth of the modern Lebanese and Syrian States until 2000. Israel occupied Sheba'a Farms as part of the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967. Since 2000, at the urging of Hezbollah, Lebanon has claimed the territory to be Lebanese. Syrian sources have been contradictory on this point [with earlier citations to UN on the one side and the more recent Assad claims to the US Special Envoy to Syria on the other], and Syria refuses to take steps to determine the exact boundary and officially register the demarcated border with the United Nations.
Lewisguile, please read the article and tell me if you agree that this is a fair rendition.
I don't even mind saying that "several news sources claim Syria claims the land is Lebanese, but this has not been confirmed by the Syrian Government since 2011, when the Syrian President told the United States the land was Syrian." or something to that effect.GreekParadise (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN's position is that it will default to the 1967 borders until Syria and Lebanon decide otherwise. If Syria and Lebanon agree official borders tomorrow, then the UN position will align with that. That isn't a very strong basis for the statement you want to make. We would need a clear consensus from secondary sources that the UN actually thinks the Shebaa Farms are Syrian, rather than us interpreting that based on what they've said.
I should also add that the New Lines article is an opinion piece, not a news article. It is the opinion of Frederic C. Hof, and no one else's. At best, it would warrant a "Frederic C. Hof says..." elsewhere in the article. However, if his opinion reflects the consensus, then there should be numerous reliable sources elsewhere who back that up, including secondary sources from historians and scholars. I would start with non-op-eds and go from there.
However, I think your suggested text would fail the smell test, as it again includes non-neutral language (from the birth of the modern Lebanese and Syrian States until 2000, at the urging of Hezbollah, Syria refuses to take steps to determine the exact boundary). It also overstates the sources (The land was considered by Lebanon, Syria, and the international community to be Syrian territory, Since 2000...). And it's also far too detailed for the opening of the lede, and covers information already given in the next three paragraphs.
Please re-read the entire lede (not just the first paragraph). It already states most of what you're saying here, but does so in a way that is more neutral, doesn't front-load the information, and doesn't overstate what the sources say. Lewisguile (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Hof's report should be mentioned, but it does not deserve more than a passing mention against the overwhelming evidence in the other direction. Also, as a US emissary Hof had an obvious COI. (2) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006):
Requests the Secretary-General to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals ... for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area [my emphasis].
This is the UN position and the Sec-Gen still reports regularly on (lack of) progress towards its implementation. It is on the basis of this resolution that the UN sent a cartographer to define the boundaries of the Shebaa Farms. (3) Syria is indeed a brutal dictatorship, so we should marvel at the bravery of writers for the state media who repeatedly assign parts of the Syrian homeland to another state against the dictator's wishes. Or maybe there is something wrong with this story. Zerotalk01:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Timur Goksel, a spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) stated: "The UN is saying that on all maps the UN has been able to find, the farms are seen on the Syrian side.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I believe that to make the introduction more balanced it should be mentioned the farms were under Syrian sovereignty from 1946 till 1967.
The way it is written now, especially with the debatable fact about Lebanese uncontested sovereignty, is highly biased and an uneducated reader could even think Israel took it from Lebanon which is false.
is a strip of land on the Lebanese–Syrian border that is currently occupied by Israel. Lebanon claims the Shebaa Farms as its own territory, and Syria agrees with this position. Israel claims it is part of the Golan Heights, Syrian territory that it has occupied since 1967 and effectively annexed in 1981. This dispute plays a significant role in contemporary Israel–Lebanon relations.
to
is a strip of land under a territorial dispute between Syria, Lebanon and Israel. It was under Syrian sovereignty since the French mandate ended in 1946. In 1967, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms, and annexed them in 1981. Since 2000, Lebanon claims sovereignty over the farms. This dispute plays a significant role in contemporary Israel–Lebanon relations.Huji stud (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done This is neither an unbiased nor uncontroversial change. It would not consensus to change. Note that the chronological order of events is outlined below, but the opening paragraph should give an overview of the current situation and current positions of the parties involved. Lewisguile (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me where you see bias or controversially. I stick strictly to the facts. The page is about the farms, not the conflict and while it is obviously important, a quick view of history cannot be less important from the claims. Huji stud (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong bias in the position chapter about Syria position.
Syria has supported Lebanon's claim that the Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon and not Syrian territory, at the UN and in official government press releases. But at other times it has made contrary statements.
to
Syria position on Shebaa Farms has been mixed. While Syria supported Lebanon's claim at the UN and in official government press releases, at other times it has made contrary statements.Huji stud (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done. Requests must be in the format of "change x to y".Lewisguile (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done This is neither an unbiased nor uncontroversial change. It would not consensus to change. Note that the chronological order of events is outlined below, but the opening paragraph should give an overview of the current situation and current positions of the parties involved. Lewisguile (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)