This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
If I understand this correctly:
— Ashley Y 12:37, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Not exactly. Israel claims that it used to be part of Syria but that it was annexed to Israel as part of the Golan Heights. -- Zero 13:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Golan Heights is a part of israel (not conquered area like the west bank) almost 40 years, and if insist to paint it in other color on the map it is your problem. About the Shbea farms - it is not more than a small hill with abandoned farms. Nobody really intresting in it, it's only an excuse that Hizballa used to justify his terror, not more than thet.
Globally spoken:
- Israel says the farms are in Syria (belonging to the Golan territory)
- Syria says the farms are in Lebanon (not belonging to the Golan)
- Lebanon agrees with whatever Syria says
Since year 2000, Lebanon has no other conflict with Israel. Therefore:
- Israel can launch small attacks on the farms, pretending to attack Syria
- Syria claims that the Israeli are attacking Lebanon, and justifies its presence as a protector
- Lebanon agrees with whatever Syria pretends
This is a highly practical situation for a lot of people:
- It keeps an open scene as a “war theatre” consisting in regular rockets attacks and replies, heavily reported through the media.
- It avoids any peace process between Israel and Lebanon, and therefore maintains Lebanon in the centre of any potential new conflict.
It has the immense advantage to keep the war to a very small territory, somewhat a training camp. It allows young Hezbollah extremists to train on their new rockets, Syrians to protect Lebanon and stay in open war against Israel, Israelis to test their new equipment, and the media to have something to show.
Why should a peace process disturb such a wonderful situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris65 ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 May 2005
Why doesn't someone have the French maps which were used to divide Syria and Lebanon into two bits, to more effectively control them by carving off a Christian majority country? Wouldn't that make more sense than maps produced in more recent times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 June 2006
Can you make a google earth view of the farms a link? That would be interesting ......
-- Epeefleche 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It is really cool! Really gives a good perspective. I was thinking that a picture of the area now might be a good add, but could not find an appropriate one. The area is pretty desolate, and the phrase farms gives a connotation than is different from the sense one gets from a photograph. If you can, and can add it, that would be helpful ....
Interesting again: the Mount Hermon article right here on Wikipedia offers a foto of Israel's Mt. Hermon ski resort in action in winter: "near Neve Ativ" it says, which must be pretty close to Sheba'a Farms. GoogleEarth says the Neve Ativ / Sheba'a Farms / Mt. Hermon "false" summit (where the snow is) triangle is only a matter of 4-6 crowflies miles in each distance: this is a tiny area, we're talking about -- so maybe fotos of anything in the area might be indicative, too, of how agricultural or non- Sheba'a Farms really is. I'll bet not very.. Altho still that's not the point, when it comes to mountain agriculture: and politically it's like I said originally here, it's not so much what you have to farm it's what the other guy down the valley has, which counts.
But at least someone has "thought skiing", about this region: the Israelis -- the Syrians, too, per a link in that article to the following from 2005 -- although the latter may be more near the "real" Mt. Hermon summit, higher and further north -- the linked article isn't clear.
So, Sheba'a Farms regional development might go in a "ski resort" direction: wealthy Israelis, Syrians up from Damascus, one day Beirut jetsetters driving over the hills from Saida... city folks and their money... Like the ancient water-fights, "not the first time" -- in this case recently, anyway -- goatherders and sheepherders traded in their milking stools for McJobs in ski resorts. I suppose I'd personally prefer a "modern dairy" development, and some schools, but I'll bet the Sheba'a locals wouldn't: the kids there would jump at the "ski resort" option, probably -- like kids in Bali wanting to leave paradise for Jakarta's hellhole money.
Not my choice, tho: the sort of thing which will bail out the "Sheba'a Farms issue" to me does seem economic -- get those ski resorts built, maybe in addition to that modern dairy and those schools, and the herders up there won't have to look down that long canyon toward wealthy Kiryat Shemona and envy them, any more. It's not about "holy writ" it's about the money...
-- Kessler 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is a big media fraud. It is undisputable matter of fact that Sheeba Farms currently is a piece of occupied arab land held by jewish army. That is the only important matter. Therefore Israel should retreat from there, because no country on earth recognizes israeli grab of arab lands. When israel left Sheeba Farms, Lebanon and Syria will decide themselves which arab state it belongs toand jews have no say in that, because they are not arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.242 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 July 2006
It doesn't make much sense to you because you are apparently totally unbiased - the simple thrust of the message is - "It aint yours so leave."
This looks like part of a play - the US citizens are the gullible audience. More politics than war. Whenever the foreign funds are drying up Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah , etc can stir up a little whirlwind and get some cash/attention flowing their way. This is better than having a real economy. Great way to turn a buck for all sides. I vote for leaving these guys - from the Mediterrean to India - alone till they immigrate to some place with jobs and water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 July 2006
I've seen much better presentations of Lebanon's case for sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms area. It's my impression the article is slick propaganda, like so much writing about Zionism, especially the more accessible, publicly visible aspects like Wikip, vulnerable to Zionist activism. The Zionists are passionately eager and highly focused and furiously energetic, their opponents only beginning to approach that level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.54.105 ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 15 July 2006
Just to note, the first external link, which is by, apparently, a Lebanese Christian emigré who really really hates the Syrians, and basically thinks the whole Shebaa Farms issue is a bogus one created by Syria to continue to enmesh Lebanon in the Arab-Israeli conflict and prevent Lebanon from becoming truly independent, also seems to believe that the Farms are properly part of Lebanon, although they were taken over by the Syrians in the 50s. The guy is basically speaking against interest, since his point is that the whole issue is basically bogus, so presumably a more sympathetic case could be found. john k 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Mr. Kessler might be playing a "debate game". You know the sort, the one where you are asked to explain everything, with bibliographical references, etc, while Mr. Kessler steers the debate. His preference for the Israeli position is all too apparent. These days, people who voice opinions against Israel get their names taken, so careful people do not get into such debates. This Shebaa farms article is rubbish, the land is Lebanese because the Mandate era maps lodged in Paris say so. But as everyone with half a brain knows, Israel writes its own borders with the gun and the bomb, so maps and international law count for nothing, and debate about maps is meaningless. 203.110.29.3 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm.. Must be missing something. First I've heard about such Mandate era maps lodged in Paris. -- Epeefleche 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. And as to the emotive & ad hominem previous posting, well, no I am not playing a "debate game", or any sort of game, and I resent the implication. I just am asking questions, here: qua US citizen I have to vote, about these things -- and Israel and Lebanon and apparently all of their neighbors, and perhaps we in the US ourselves, once again have dragged all of us into a nasty regional and potentially global conflict -- so I'd like to know what I'm talking about, before I vote.
I have no preference for "the Israeli position", as you put it, nor any for the positions of Hezbollah or Lebanon or Iran or any of the other current actors in this ancient mess. It does appear to me, as I indicated above and as you yourself suggest, 203.110.29.3, that the issues involved go far back, to very ancient history and even further to simple geographic reality, all from way before any of the above entities even were invented; so that yes the Shebaa farms "issue" may be rubbish -- if not the article here, which I find very useful -- but then so are "Mandate era maps" now somewhat irrelevant, whether or not "lodged in Paris" as you say, also Lebanese and Syrian and Israeli territorial claims, and the rest. We do appear to be in an arena of naked power claims and assertions, then: you and I do not disagree about this, perhaps.
That said, though, what do we do now? I don't agree with your "maps and international law count for nothing": some people find historical maps persuasive, so their use in the current debates at least plays some role even if those do not persuade you and me -- negotiation being all about persuasion -- and international law in fact is in operation as we discuss this, unless you can offer some better umbrella concept for the political processes which inevitably, once again, are going to resolve all of this? No it's not just "power relations" -- your "Israel writes its own borders with the gun and the bomb" -- you may believe this if you are on some other side than Israel's, but then the Israelis justifiably will believe that of you and your position, too -- "power relations" is an unhelpful term.
There is more to international law than just statutes and police -- "soft power", the negotiating and pressure-politics and back-alley horse-trading -- all under way frantically now, as the world readjusts to the new political reality that region just has dumped on the rest of us once again. I'd much rather we were paying attention to Darfur instead right now, personally, and to "Iraq" and "Iran" and "North Korea" and "global warming" and "AIDS" and "Africa" and other more important priorities, but it seems once again "the Middle East" has grabbed the headlines....
As long as we're stuck with settling this latest "Middle East" blowup, though, how about some constructive suggestions? If you think the Sheba'a Farms issue is "rubbish", as you say, what might be your own suggestions, then, for resolving some of the deep passions which that issue nevertheless appears to engender, in Israelis and Lebanese and Syrians and Hezbollah and the rest? If not historical or cartographic, do you agree with my own thought that "Sheba'a Farms" may be nothing more than basic geography?
I've never been there, but it seems to me just judging from GoogleEarth that any herder -- i.e. regardless of religion, race, history, etc. -- trying to scratch a few garden vegetables from "Sheba'a Farms" soil high on Mt. Hermon might understandably envy the well-irrigated and wealthy farms he apparently can view with his own eye, 'way down at the end of that long canyon, in the fertile plain where Qiryat Shemona now stands... So maybe something more must be done, by someone, to equalize the wealth and opportunity differences which currently exist between the lives of those mountain herders and those of the fertile plain farmers... build a ski lodge? put in a modern dairy farm for the goats? start-up a school in Sheba'a village?... Maybe it would be a very good long-term strategy for the Israelis, in fact, to do this -- at first indirectly, maybe -- one far better, for them as for others, than just periodic warfare. So, what do you think?
-- Kessler 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
ps. And of course understood about the need-for-anonymity point you make above -- nobody wants anyone's "names taken" in a wartime situation, on either or any "side" -- my only real objection comes when anonymity is used as a cover for simple vilification, so if the latter can be avoided I guess I have no objection to anonymity, here.
Are the Sheeba Farms the headwaters of some watershed? If so the owners of such obtain a considerable clout in any court. Water is a frequent unspoken issue in Middle East to dos - ie the Golan is mostly ( entirely ) about who has the Sea of Galilee and about 50% of the water Israel uses, etc. PS Kesseller should read the Torah - sections on coverting and stealing - maybe that would be "undisputed" enough for the wiki crowd..
The Torah wouldn't convince me, on this point, any more than the Koran or the Bible or the Vedas would: the "water" does, though -- wouldn't be the first time a fight over water made it into "holy writ"... Mt. Hermon is the water source for all of the region, isn't it -- 9230 feet, one online source says, and the view from the summit via GoogleEarth (GeoRef for the summit looks like it's: 33|20|01.45|N,35|47|36.73|E(GoogleEarth), and GoogleEarth says it's only 7723 ft. elev.) makes the point dramatically -- certainly the water source for both the Beka'a Valley and the entire Jordan Valley, anyway?
If so and as such well then, yeah, I can see people fighting over that, for millennia, in such an arid region. My point above being that more practical suggestions for the resolution of regional problems have to do with "water" than they do with "holy writ": solve the "water" problem -- the way they're beginning to, and cooperatively even, down south in Wadi al Arabah -- and then maybe some new "holy writ" can get written. But while folks in the region simply are wedded rigidly to their old texts they're just living in the past, and in their ancient animosities... It's about desalinization and sharing: then there won't be so much "coveting and stealing", maybe.
Yup - water's involved. Check out http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-litani10aug10,1,3878441.story and http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/717FD283-592E-44BA-8A22-9D46B441C304.htm. Funny how the wikipedia article on Shebaa Farms calls it a worthless barren area...au contraire...Search on google for Shebaa Farms and Water and you'll see what it's all about.
-- Kessler 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Further investigation of Mt. Hermon reveals "false" and "true" summits -- like Everest -- the one pointed out in the link above is "false" but looks like it houses the actual headwaters for both Sheba'a Farms and that canyon leading down to Kiryat Shemona & Israel, also for the Jordan valley, also to some extent maybe for the Beka'a Valley on the other side. But the ridge then descends a bit, toward the northeast, and then re-ascends to the "true" summit, at 33|24|46.50|N,35|51|18.21|E(GoogleEarth), which clearly waters the Beka'a: it's this latter summit that's 9000+ feet high. Someone who knows more about watersheds pls comment?
-- Kessler 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Fromt the text: Israel's view is that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425 that governs its withdrawal from southern Lebanon. That resolution asks for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon according to the line its forces were positioned at before the May 14, 1978 invasion. (See: Blue Line)
The resolution does not refer to the line but it:
1-Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
2-Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
So this Wikipedia statement appears to be misleading. Am I missing something?
Herne nz 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
After all is said and done the Israeli army decides where the line is - the UN acts dumb. With some more missiles - antiaircraft included please - Hezbollah would be able to draw a line that would satisfy Israel.
Changes as follows
the ownership of which is disputed by Lebanon, though the UN and Israel consider the matter closed.
No - the matter is still subject to Resolution 242
The controversy is whether the land belongs to Israel, which conquered it from Syria with the rest of the Golan Heights in the Six Day War of 1967, or rather to Lebanon.
No - the question is whether the land is part of Syria occupied by Israel or part of Lebanon occupied by Israel
It consists of a dozen or so abandoned farms
No - abandoned implies the owners voluntarily left. These farmers were dispossesed.
Herne nz 09:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I see your points. On 1, I meant to say that the UN and Israel view the matter (the matter being Lebanon's claim) as closed. Perhaps you can fix, saying that in a way that you prefer.
On 2, How about, "The controversy is as follows. Lebanon since 2000 has claimed that the land belongs to Lebanon, and Israel should vacate it in accordance with the UN resolution on withdrawal from Lebanon. The UN and Israel do not view Lebanon as having any legitimate claim to the land, which Israel has occupied since it conquered it from Syria in the Six Day War of 1967.
Makes sense to me. -- Epeefleche 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On 3, am OK with getting rid of the word abandoned. BTW, it appears that the # of farms is 14. -- Epeefleche 20:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a sense for what the 3 closest villages/town are to the area, from each of the 3 countries that border it? Sheba, however one spells it, is I imagine the answer for Lebanon. Though I don't know how far away it is. And I couldn't easily find an answer for Syria and Israel.
Thanks.
-- Epeefleche 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This third paragraph does not make sense to me, what has it to do with the Shebaa Farms area? On March 11, 1978 members of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) infiltrating from Lebanon massacred of civilians riding in an Israeli bus in the Tel Aviv area. 37 Israelis were killed, 76 injured, and an American nature photographer whom the Fedayeen came across as they landed on an Israeli beach was murdered --See Coastal Road Massacre. This attack was, however, just the latest and most deadly in a string of attacks launched from Lebanese territory. Still, it served as the immediate trigger for the Israeli Operation Litani against PLO bases in Lebanon three days later.
Also the subsequent paragraphs are distinctly unencyclopedic and need cleanup. I tried some cleanup, but it needs someone familiar with the subject and the UN resolutions. See html comments. - 213.219.151.76 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the connection. As I see it. The article had a string of events, as follows. Israeli invasion of Lebanon. UN Resolution. Israeli response to resolution. Lebanese statement that Israeli response is not sufficient.
What was lacking, it seemed to me, was any mention of what triggered the first above event.
Thoughts?
--
Epeefleche 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to improve it by streamlining it. -- Epeefleche 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-----
I agree with comments by User:213.219.151.76 (30 July 2006 ). Encyclopedically the PLO attacks on Israel have nothing to do with an entry that is specific to Shebaa Farms or the Shebaa territorial dispute.
On a separate note, the entire Shebaa Farms article is in need of some serious editing, especially with regard to defective syntax in refs. and notes.
Bardwell 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it led directly to the fighting that led to the occupation of Lebanon that is the Hezbollah's issue here.
First the debate over "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" means all territories. Where is it? Which country has raised it with the Security Council?
Then "That resolution asked Israel to withdraw from Lebanon according to the line its forces were positioned at before the May 14, 1978 invasion." The direct quote from the Resolution a couple of paragraghs above , UN Security Council Resolution 425 called upon Israel to: "withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." shows the Resolution does not refer to a date. Where is this date coming from?
How can " their evidence was contradicted by all published maps, which showed the area to be within Syria" when a published map on this page shows the area in Lebanon? Herne nz 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Am rushing out to work right now, but thought i might address the last question as it is quickest. no published map on this page shows the area in lebanon.-- Epeefleche 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As to your first query, see the wikipedia entry under "United Nations Security Council Resolution 242" -- Epeefleche 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand the Resolution 242 issue history, it goes something like this. (And this is a debated issue, but this is the side that you indicated you don't get). Arthur J. Goldberg, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, said: "The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'… the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal." - "The Meaning of 242" - June 10, 1977. And Lord Caradon, another author of the resolution, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time said: "We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately… We all knew – that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." -- MacNeil/Lehrer Report – March 30, 1978 And Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs at the time indicated that his view was that: "Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." "The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990 -- Epeefleche 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please help me understand the following : israel does not consider shebaa farms israeli land, so if it considered ( by israel)lebanese land that justifies Hezbolla's attacks on israel, & if it is considered syrian land that justifies syrian back up for Hezbolla. So how come Israel condemns both, i mean if a country is occupying another countries' land that implies a state of war, or is it that Israel have the right to occupy others land & then ask for peace.
Well ... I think the short answer is that Israel views it as formerly Syrian land. And I believe that Syria is in a state of war with Israel ... let me know if I am wrong. And the resolution requires, among other things, Syria to recognize Israel and territorial border to be determined and all that. But not for either thing to precede the other. I think that Syria hasnt shown any interest in sitting down with Israel to work out that next step in the process.-- Epeefleche 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that in the mid 90's, during Clinton's precidency a peace conferrence was held between the Syrian & Israeli officials, Syria agreed to recognize Israel..etc in return for the Golan heights occupied in 1967, Israel was the one refusing the offer & withdrawing from the summit.
There are so many English version names for these farms ... do people think that showing them at the top makes sense, or does it detract from readability to that extent that we should stick the alternatives in the bottom of the article? Thoughts? -- Epeefleche 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I think that they are important is for anyone who wants to research them by word search on the internet or otherwise. But perhaps they can simply be moved to the end if no-one disagrees. -- Epeefleche 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Have done so. I think that it streamlines the intro a bit. -- Epeefleche 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Tx.-- Epeefleche 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <kml xmlns=" http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0"> <Placemark>
<name>Google Earth - Shebaa Farms</name> <LookAt id="khLookAt628"> <longitude>35.64990707807397</longitude> <latitude>33.25590376667979</latitude> <range>2006.772744281386</range> <tilt>78.61955657574976</tilt> <heading>73.5119087892147</heading> </LookAt> <styleUrl>root://styleMaps#default+nicon=0x307+hicon=0x317</styleUrl> <Point id="khPoint629"> <coordinates>35.64990707807397,33.25590376667979,0</coordinates> </Point>
</Placemark> </kml>
If you look at Google Earth, you'll see that the placemark is high on a barren ridge, while below, to the west, there is an odd loop in the border that surrounds some very green and cultivated land.
I don't know how to put in a placemark, so I've pasted what I got from copying mine above.
I've just added a "citation needed" to the article as follows --
Its fertile, well-watered farmland formerly produced barley, fruits, and vegetables for 14 farms "citation needed", but is now desolate.
-- because it really would interest me very much to locate old detailed descriptions of the pastoral / agricultural etc. condition and use of the pre-conflict Shebaa Farms area.
A citation certainly is needed in the article, at that point, because of the emotive nature of the subject now: under current political circumstances a bald claim that the area "was productive / now isn't" is too POV without more detail and substantiation. In addition, tho, I'd like a better picture of the Shebaa Farms condition and lifestyle, compared to that of the valley farms down below, to substantiate or refute my own hunch (above) that simple geographic reality has an awful lot to do with these current circumstances... That label "Farms" is either deliberately-accurate or deliberately-misleading, I would think, judging from the area's altitude and climate and the GoogleEarth view of it, anyway. So some dispassionate & detailed agronomic description would help.
-- Kessler 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Farms are a bit of a generalization. These "farms" included pastures, for example.-- Epeefleche 06:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Syrian government imposed itself on the region, at one point forcibly replacing villagers' Lebanese identity cards with Syrian ones.
When did this happen? Source required. Herne nz 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't find any source for this. OK w me if you delete. -- Epeefleche 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A Lebanese newspaper, however, described the land deed of one Shebaa resident as "handwritten and signed on a yellowing piece of paper in pencil and ink." Moreover, it is quite common for Lebanese to own land in Syria, and vice versa
The nature of the deeds - handwritten or not - is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the deeds match land deeds for Lebanon, issued by the same authority. Why has this not been raised?
Common for Lebanese to own land in Syria is just a red herring. The issue is not the nationality of the land owner - it is the Government who had the authority to issue the land deed. Herne nz 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The point I believe is that the deeds (contracts saying Seller sells Buyer Land X) were simply that. Not governmentally issued documents that suggest which government might be sovereign.
And yes, the issue is not the nationality of the landowner. But that is what I understand those who are militating for the land to be considered Lebanese suggest. The point of the Lebanese news article is your point. That the fact that the landowner might be from Lebanon does not make the land Lebanese.-- Epeefleche 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Old text:
That link is crap. It links to an extremist partisan site, and the relevant information is burried somewhere among other propaganda.
I've replaced it with links to the Israeli government sites describing the Israeli position on the legal status of Sheba farms. AdamRetchless 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Syria still has not taken any official steps necessary to demarcate the border. When the UN asked Damascus for a formal document stating that the area had indeed been legally transferred to Lebanon, Syria balked - and it has still not supplied such a document. No reference to United Nations asking for such a document. Please quote date of request and link to UN page.
This may be due to the fact that Syria does not recognize Lebanon. Not only does it not have diplomatic relations with Lebanon,
No reference is provided showing lack of recognition.Please quote source.Clearly Syria recognises the international borders of its neighbour.
but in Syrian textbooks Lebanon appears as part of "Greater Syria." These 'textbooks' are not identified by name, publication date, or usage or referenced by any reputable source. Please quote reputable sources before reinstating. Herne nz 07:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to fix up the part taken from al-Assad's comments taken from
[9], but i'm not so sure that i did a good job of summarizing the text as the original is not especially clear/well translated. Here's the important part (with the especially confusing part in italics):
If someone can find the original Arabic speech and check it against what we have, well, that would be great. -- Fufthmin 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hizbullah redirects to Hezbollah, so Hizbullah should be changed to Hezbollah to Wikify it (I think).
Van der Hoorn 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK w me. --
Epeefleche 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This article does not include an "Israeli side" and is therefore only telling one, albeit multifaceted, side of the story. Israel's position needs to be included in this article.
I think that, to the contrary, Israel's position, as well as those of the UN, Lebanon, and Syria, are included throughout the article.-- Epeefleche 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi ... on rereading, see your point as to how it was more difficult than it should have been to divine israel's position, so i have given it its own sub-heading. thanks.-- Epeefleche 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage:
None of it is sourced, and I am made particularly doubtful of its accuracy by the claim that "the Syrians call it Jabel (or Jebel) Rous (Bear Mountain, in Arabic)." For one thing, it seems most unlikely that Syrian and Lebanese citizens would have different names for parts of their shared landscape. Placenames of natural features often survive language changes, it is particularly likely that they would survive the very recent political division of Lebanon from Syria. Secondly, Jabel Rous doesn't mean Bear Mountain in Arabic. Palmiro | Talk 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Madrîkh Yisrael, vol. 1 Hermon ve-Golan, p.33 (Tel Aviv 1978, edited by the Israeli MOD): in Hebrew the region we are talking about is called ketef Si'on 'Si'on ridge'. The Arabic name quoted is djebel ra'ûs. This would correspond to the above mentioned Syrian names. One of these hills bears the Israeli name of har Dov (Dov hill). Ru'ûs is the plural of Arabic ra's, 'head'. According to the Madrîkh Yisrael, loc.cit., Arabs used the area in 1969 to launch attacks on Israeli settlements. Therefore, on the 3.12.1969, the Israeli army dispatched the Golani troops in order to clear the area, which resulted in heavy fighting. During the War of Attrition (1969-1970), renewed use of the area by Arabs (unclear whether PLO or Lebanese, but my guess would be the PLO) to launch attacks prompted the IDF to build permanent strongholds an a border road (called Ma'aleh Gid'on, 'Gideon Pass').
Harun al-Murshid, Saarbrücken University
Our article says "In any event, the UN regards Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory occupied by Israel, not Lebanese territory subject to Resolution 242." This is a bit misleading. The Shebaa farms are still subject to resolution 242, albeit they are Syrian territory subject to Resolution 242, right? Vints 12:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This is going back a bit, but the question seems to have been unanswered. Resolution 242 does not apply to the Golan Heights because Syria refused to have any part in it (they felt that if they agreed to the resolution, it would imply recognition of Israel). TravellingJew 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"des territoires occupés" means "occupied territories," whereas "les territoires occupés" means "the occupied territories." "Des" is the indefinite plural article, whereas "les" is the definite plural article. The Sheeba Farms article indicates that the French text uses the definite article, whereas, in fact, it uses the indefinite. My French is not excellent, but I do know that much for sure. Someone who's French is better than mine, please back me up on this.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf
I m dude2002 20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002
Resolution 242 and the alleged "the", or lack of, are already discussed in more relevant articles. Why do we need it here as well? I don't think we need the 242 section at all except for a one-sentence reference to Resolution 242. -- Zero talk 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have re-written the lead paragraphs, using the existing data (and ref'd maps); also added a better geographic description of the limits of the area and their significance. There are still major things that the article is lacking, which hopefully might answer a reader's simple question, like: 'So why are people fighting and dying over this small piece of land?' The fact remains that delaying resolution of the ownership/sovereignty issue, allows Israel to continue to use 'occupied' water resources.
I noted that the ref'd coordinates (for Google Earth) locate this large area too specifically (to the second) and high in the mountains; unless there is some specific reason why (the initial attack?), I will relocate the coords to a less precise location in the middle of the area. I also noted that the second referenced (Lebanese Army topographic) map only covers a portion of the whole area, near the southern corner of the area; if coverage of a larger area can be provided, the article would be far more comprehensible. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently the article states that The Shebaa Farms area is situated on the southeastern side of a long, broad ridge descending to the southwest from Mount Hermon. But looking at Google Earth and turning the Terrain Layer on it seems that the Farms are at the northwest of this ridge. Gugganij ( talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The current introduction sentence states: "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of land with disputed ownership located on the border between Lebanon and the Israeli controlled, disputed Golan Heights." I find the repeated use of "disputed" accurate, but confusing. What is the advantage of including the "Israeli controlled, disputed" label in front of "Golan Heights"? We have a full article on the Golan Heights for those interested in its current status, so I don't see the need to go into such detail about who claims or controls it here. This wording will open up the door to other editors to change the wording to things like "formerly Syrian, Israeli-annexed Golan Heights", or to inject that the international community doesn't recognize Israeli's claims to the Golan Heights, or edit wars over "Israeli-occupied" versus "Israeli-controlled". So my question is why not just say that the area is between Lebanon and the Golan Heights, without putting either side's POV with regards to the status of the Golan Heights? ← George [ talk 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the syrian withdrawal from lebanon in 2005, the statement "Lebanon agrees with whatever Syria pretends" is not true anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.2 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The article states: "On 28 August 2006, Hezbollah fighters withdrew from positions facing Israeli lines in the Shebaa Farms area.[19]"
However citaion [19] states: "Wright, Jonathan. "News analysis: Hezbollah seen surviving UN troop expansion", The Gazette, 2006-08-29. Retrieved on 2006-09-29."
It seems to me that the article statement is NOT supported by the citaion. I would edit that line to: "Despite the addition of UN troops to the area, Hezbollah has claimed that they "will survive the arrival in south Lebanon of an expanded U.N. force"[19]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyashi ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
One part of the August 2006 ceasefire was that the UN would study the claims that Shebaa Farms area belongs to Lebanon, and the UN would report its conclusions within a month. Since then, I have not heard anything about it any more. Does anyone know what the outcome of the UN study is/was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-o-W ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article correctly and truthfully records that the Golan Heights were claimed by Syria, and that the U.N. found no evidence of Lebanese claims. The folloing and subsequent text provide a faithful picture: The United Nations agreed with Israel that the area is not covered by Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.[3] At the same time the UN noted that its decision was "without prejudice to future border agreements between the Member States concerned," referring to Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. The UN stated:
"On May 15, 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."[34]...
But the article now contradicts itself, because the following was put in the introduction as a "summary" of the above "In 2007 a UN cartographer came to the conclusion that the Sheeba farms is Lebanese territory."
The intro also states: "Both Syria and Lebanon agree that the Shebaa Farms are within Lebanese territory"
There is no reference for this statement and it seems to be untrue. The truth is reflected further down in the introduction
"Syria, since its eviction from Lebanon in 2005 and ending its 30-year long occupation of its small neighbor, has continuously refused to provide the United Nations with the legal documentation officially ceding sovereignty to Lebanon over the Shebaa Farms, [4], despite public statements by Syrian officials. "
It is only part of the truth. Before 2005 Syira also claimed not only all of Sheba farms but all of Lebanon as well. Syria never admitted that any part of Sheba farms is Lebanese, did they?? What public statements were made by which Syrian officials before or after 2005?? when did any Syrian official admit to any Lebanese claim on the Golan?? Can you show such a statement?? Please show us a Syrian map with the international border between Syria and Lebanon. [[ Mewnews ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)]]
Does anyone know the source or the current map showing where the village of Shebaa is in relation to the Shebaa farms? I'm unable to track down where it came from, beyond some user on the German Wikipedia, or what the location of the village is based on. The map used by the BBC, citing the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel, shows the village of Shebaa west and slightly north of Mount Dov. ← George [ talk 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The term Shab’a Farms generally refers to former hamlets, grazing areas and some cultivated land south-west of Shab’a village, on the western slopes of Wadi al-Aasal and on the southern slopes of Jebel Rous and Jebel Soummaq. Based on the
information available, the senior cartographer has provisionally concluded that the Shab’a Farms area extends north-east from Moughr Shab’a village and north-west from Wadi al-Aasal. Thus, it is now possible to state that a review and analysis of recent evidence can provide the basis for a provisional definition of the geographical extent of the Shab’a Farms area as follows: starting from the turning point of the 1920 French line located just south of the village of El Majidiye; from there continuing south-east along the 1946 Moughr Shab’a-Shab’a boundary until reaching the thalweg of the Wadi al-Aasal; thence following the thalweg of the wadi north-east until reaching the crest of the mountain north of the former hamlet
Mazraat Barakhta and reconnecting with the 1920 line.
I really do not see what is so hard to understand about this. We need to establish a few baseline facts here.
All of this is very basic stuff and I honestly don't understand how anybody can edit in Mideast related articles and not get this. I would also note that this article has a very heavy preponderance of sources on the right-wing of the US/Israeli political spectrum, some of which are pretty sketchy. The likes of DEBKAfile, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Cybercast News Service, and Daniel Pipes et al are not very helpful as sources. They are useful maybe for finding out what the hardliners on one side think, in the same way that al-Manar would be useful on the other side. They aren't good for facts. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the BlueLine image it says: "UN Demarcation", The UN would have written that the area is Syria and occupied by Israel. So if the text isn't corrected, the claim of "UN Demarcation" should at least be removed. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed the "1923 border" and "pre-1967 de facto" to international. Thats what it is and that is what its called. Moved the Arab sections of etymology to the top since the area belongs to an Arab nation, therefor the Arab stuff should be first.
I removed "murdered" from the Hezbollah attacks, we can ad back "murdered" when all Israeli killings of Arabs are refereed in other wikipedia articles as "murdering Arabs". "Elsewere" - that would be Syria. I removed the "French Mandate (1923–1967)" there was no french mandate between those years. I removed the Hezbollah cross-border raid (2000) and PLO attack section, has nothing to do with article, saved a smaller part of the PLO part. The Israeli annexation was written twice, removed one of them. Created separate UNSCR245 section. Removed category Israel–Lebanon border since no "Israeli border" is connected to this area. --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
what is the population of this piece of land? what is their nationality? 81.102.15.200 ( talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources on this? 81.102.15.200 ( talk) 16:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Elias Bejjani source ( http://www.lgic.org/en/faq_shebaa01.php) begins "Under the puppet regime and the hegemony of the Syrian Baathist occupier..." and continues in a similar vein. It does not seem a reliable source. In any case, it does not say what it is used as a reference for (that Syrians attacked a post in 1956, killing 2 gendarmes, and then intimidated Lebanon into inaction). I will therefore remove that part. 81.102.15.200 ( talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is rubbish. The cited article doesn't even say that the Sheba Farms was ever called Fatahland, it is referring to the nearby area of southern Lebanon. Read it carefully. Zero talk 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) It is also wrong to remove from the lead the only reason this region is notable, namely the sovereignty question of Lebanon versus Syria. Zero talk 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Also [ this NYT article] does not mention Sheba Farms at all, nor does Res 1559. None of this makes any sense unless "Sheba Farms" extends north of the international border, but that is not the case according to the UN definition, the map in the article, or any source in the article (I think). The name in almost all uses refers to the region south of the 1920 Syria-Lebanon border which Lebanon claims. Zero talk 11:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"After the departure of Syrian troops in 2005" — this is a nonexistent event based on a source that doesn't mention the Sheba Farms. The Sheba farms have been occupied by Israel from 1967 until now. Zero talk 12:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Israel seized the Shaaba Farms, along with neighboring Har Dov, from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War along with the neighboring Golan Heights. "The bottom line for Lebanon was that in the June 1967 war, despite the fact that Lebanon did not participate in the war, Israel occupied this Lebanese area" (Kaufman, cited in article). And so on, kindly remove the text based on your misunderstanding. Zero talk 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The article by Chararah is either written/translated carelessly, or Chararah is using the phrase "Shebaa Farms" for a much wider area than is usual. This is easy to demonstrate. Note that Chararah equates Shebaa Farms with "Fatahland" and "al-Urqub". The meaning of the latter names appears in countless sources more authoritative than Chararah, and there really isn't any doubt since al-Urqub (more commonly written as 'Arqub or Arkub) is a subdistrict in southern Lebanon. See it on this map. Restricting myself to easily visible sources, these clearly indicate that "Fatahland" and "Arqub" are in Lebanon, not in the Shebah Farms which is south of the border: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. That ought to be plenty. Zero talk 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that US official position on the matter has not been recently consistent? Silvio1973 ( talk) 10:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The US recognized this territory as part of Israel on March 25 2019 When it recognized the Golan Heights as Part of Israel
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shebaa farms. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about the UN position. Firstly, it is by no means a correct correct summary of the UN position, as the section Shebaa_farms#UN_position states. Firstly, as the BBC report quoted states that the UN is not a "boundary marking authority" and Annan stated that "There seems to be no official record of an international boundary agreement between Lebanon and Syria that could easily establish the line for purposes of confirming the withdrawal" and "Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon". The issue is quite complex and ongoing. The statement is seriously misleading. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shebaa farms. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shebaa farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Shebaa Farms has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To write also the Quranic land of Israel Nippon 725 ( talk) 17:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Where it is written "In the Biblical land of Israel" I want to write their Quranic land of Israel Nippon 725 ( talk) 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Mt Dov really the same as Shebaa Farms? Isn't it rather correct to say that Mt Dov is a small mountain or hill whose western slopes, or part of them, are known as the Sh. Farms? Is the peak with the IDF base part of Sh. F.? What about the eastern slopes, or saddle? The "Terminology" section can be understood in several different ways: "Kafr Shuba Hills" suggests a multitude of hills (plural), "the wide mountainous ridge" - well, that's a wide ridge, while satellite images and topographic maps of "Har Dov (Mount Dov)" show a clearly-defined single cone-shaped hill, with a road leading to its isolated peak, where the IDF base most likely stands (see "Har Dov" on MapCarta). NOT the same by any stretch. Arminden ( talk) 05:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
If I understand this correctly:
— Ashley Y 12:37, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Not exactly. Israel claims that it used to be part of Syria but that it was annexed to Israel as part of the Golan Heights. -- Zero 13:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Golan Heights is a part of israel (not conquered area like the west bank) almost 40 years, and if insist to paint it in other color on the map it is your problem. About the Shbea farms - it is not more than a small hill with abandoned farms. Nobody really intresting in it, it's only an excuse that Hizballa used to justify his terror, not more than thet.
Globally spoken:
- Israel says the farms are in Syria (belonging to the Golan territory)
- Syria says the farms are in Lebanon (not belonging to the Golan)
- Lebanon agrees with whatever Syria says
Since year 2000, Lebanon has no other conflict with Israel. Therefore:
- Israel can launch small attacks on the farms, pretending to attack Syria
- Syria claims that the Israeli are attacking Lebanon, and justifies its presence as a protector
- Lebanon agrees with whatever Syria pretends
This is a highly practical situation for a lot of people:
- It keeps an open scene as a “war theatre” consisting in regular rockets attacks and replies, heavily reported through the media.
- It avoids any peace process between Israel and Lebanon, and therefore maintains Lebanon in the centre of any potential new conflict.
It has the immense advantage to keep the war to a very small territory, somewhat a training camp. It allows young Hezbollah extremists to train on their new rockets, Syrians to protect Lebanon and stay in open war against Israel, Israelis to test their new equipment, and the media to have something to show.
Why should a peace process disturb such a wonderful situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris65 ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 May 2005
Why doesn't someone have the French maps which were used to divide Syria and Lebanon into two bits, to more effectively control them by carving off a Christian majority country? Wouldn't that make more sense than maps produced in more recent times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 June 2006
Can you make a google earth view of the farms a link? That would be interesting ......
-- Epeefleche 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It is really cool! Really gives a good perspective. I was thinking that a picture of the area now might be a good add, but could not find an appropriate one. The area is pretty desolate, and the phrase farms gives a connotation than is different from the sense one gets from a photograph. If you can, and can add it, that would be helpful ....
Interesting again: the Mount Hermon article right here on Wikipedia offers a foto of Israel's Mt. Hermon ski resort in action in winter: "near Neve Ativ" it says, which must be pretty close to Sheba'a Farms. GoogleEarth says the Neve Ativ / Sheba'a Farms / Mt. Hermon "false" summit (where the snow is) triangle is only a matter of 4-6 crowflies miles in each distance: this is a tiny area, we're talking about -- so maybe fotos of anything in the area might be indicative, too, of how agricultural or non- Sheba'a Farms really is. I'll bet not very.. Altho still that's not the point, when it comes to mountain agriculture: and politically it's like I said originally here, it's not so much what you have to farm it's what the other guy down the valley has, which counts.
But at least someone has "thought skiing", about this region: the Israelis -- the Syrians, too, per a link in that article to the following from 2005 -- although the latter may be more near the "real" Mt. Hermon summit, higher and further north -- the linked article isn't clear.
So, Sheba'a Farms regional development might go in a "ski resort" direction: wealthy Israelis, Syrians up from Damascus, one day Beirut jetsetters driving over the hills from Saida... city folks and their money... Like the ancient water-fights, "not the first time" -- in this case recently, anyway -- goatherders and sheepherders traded in their milking stools for McJobs in ski resorts. I suppose I'd personally prefer a "modern dairy" development, and some schools, but I'll bet the Sheba'a locals wouldn't: the kids there would jump at the "ski resort" option, probably -- like kids in Bali wanting to leave paradise for Jakarta's hellhole money.
Not my choice, tho: the sort of thing which will bail out the "Sheba'a Farms issue" to me does seem economic -- get those ski resorts built, maybe in addition to that modern dairy and those schools, and the herders up there won't have to look down that long canyon toward wealthy Kiryat Shemona and envy them, any more. It's not about "holy writ" it's about the money...
-- Kessler 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is a big media fraud. It is undisputable matter of fact that Sheeba Farms currently is a piece of occupied arab land held by jewish army. That is the only important matter. Therefore Israel should retreat from there, because no country on earth recognizes israeli grab of arab lands. When israel left Sheeba Farms, Lebanon and Syria will decide themselves which arab state it belongs toand jews have no say in that, because they are not arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.242 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 July 2006
It doesn't make much sense to you because you are apparently totally unbiased - the simple thrust of the message is - "It aint yours so leave."
This looks like part of a play - the US citizens are the gullible audience. More politics than war. Whenever the foreign funds are drying up Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah , etc can stir up a little whirlwind and get some cash/attention flowing their way. This is better than having a real economy. Great way to turn a buck for all sides. I vote for leaving these guys - from the Mediterrean to India - alone till they immigrate to some place with jobs and water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 July 2006
I've seen much better presentations of Lebanon's case for sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms area. It's my impression the article is slick propaganda, like so much writing about Zionism, especially the more accessible, publicly visible aspects like Wikip, vulnerable to Zionist activism. The Zionists are passionately eager and highly focused and furiously energetic, their opponents only beginning to approach that level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.54.105 ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 15 July 2006
Just to note, the first external link, which is by, apparently, a Lebanese Christian emigré who really really hates the Syrians, and basically thinks the whole Shebaa Farms issue is a bogus one created by Syria to continue to enmesh Lebanon in the Arab-Israeli conflict and prevent Lebanon from becoming truly independent, also seems to believe that the Farms are properly part of Lebanon, although they were taken over by the Syrians in the 50s. The guy is basically speaking against interest, since his point is that the whole issue is basically bogus, so presumably a more sympathetic case could be found. john k 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Mr. Kessler might be playing a "debate game". You know the sort, the one where you are asked to explain everything, with bibliographical references, etc, while Mr. Kessler steers the debate. His preference for the Israeli position is all too apparent. These days, people who voice opinions against Israel get their names taken, so careful people do not get into such debates. This Shebaa farms article is rubbish, the land is Lebanese because the Mandate era maps lodged in Paris say so. But as everyone with half a brain knows, Israel writes its own borders with the gun and the bomb, so maps and international law count for nothing, and debate about maps is meaningless. 203.110.29.3 04:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm.. Must be missing something. First I've heard about such Mandate era maps lodged in Paris. -- Epeefleche 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. And as to the emotive & ad hominem previous posting, well, no I am not playing a "debate game", or any sort of game, and I resent the implication. I just am asking questions, here: qua US citizen I have to vote, about these things -- and Israel and Lebanon and apparently all of their neighbors, and perhaps we in the US ourselves, once again have dragged all of us into a nasty regional and potentially global conflict -- so I'd like to know what I'm talking about, before I vote.
I have no preference for "the Israeli position", as you put it, nor any for the positions of Hezbollah or Lebanon or Iran or any of the other current actors in this ancient mess. It does appear to me, as I indicated above and as you yourself suggest, 203.110.29.3, that the issues involved go far back, to very ancient history and even further to simple geographic reality, all from way before any of the above entities even were invented; so that yes the Shebaa farms "issue" may be rubbish -- if not the article here, which I find very useful -- but then so are "Mandate era maps" now somewhat irrelevant, whether or not "lodged in Paris" as you say, also Lebanese and Syrian and Israeli territorial claims, and the rest. We do appear to be in an arena of naked power claims and assertions, then: you and I do not disagree about this, perhaps.
That said, though, what do we do now? I don't agree with your "maps and international law count for nothing": some people find historical maps persuasive, so their use in the current debates at least plays some role even if those do not persuade you and me -- negotiation being all about persuasion -- and international law in fact is in operation as we discuss this, unless you can offer some better umbrella concept for the political processes which inevitably, once again, are going to resolve all of this? No it's not just "power relations" -- your "Israel writes its own borders with the gun and the bomb" -- you may believe this if you are on some other side than Israel's, but then the Israelis justifiably will believe that of you and your position, too -- "power relations" is an unhelpful term.
There is more to international law than just statutes and police -- "soft power", the negotiating and pressure-politics and back-alley horse-trading -- all under way frantically now, as the world readjusts to the new political reality that region just has dumped on the rest of us once again. I'd much rather we were paying attention to Darfur instead right now, personally, and to "Iraq" and "Iran" and "North Korea" and "global warming" and "AIDS" and "Africa" and other more important priorities, but it seems once again "the Middle East" has grabbed the headlines....
As long as we're stuck with settling this latest "Middle East" blowup, though, how about some constructive suggestions? If you think the Sheba'a Farms issue is "rubbish", as you say, what might be your own suggestions, then, for resolving some of the deep passions which that issue nevertheless appears to engender, in Israelis and Lebanese and Syrians and Hezbollah and the rest? If not historical or cartographic, do you agree with my own thought that "Sheba'a Farms" may be nothing more than basic geography?
I've never been there, but it seems to me just judging from GoogleEarth that any herder -- i.e. regardless of religion, race, history, etc. -- trying to scratch a few garden vegetables from "Sheba'a Farms" soil high on Mt. Hermon might understandably envy the well-irrigated and wealthy farms he apparently can view with his own eye, 'way down at the end of that long canyon, in the fertile plain where Qiryat Shemona now stands... So maybe something more must be done, by someone, to equalize the wealth and opportunity differences which currently exist between the lives of those mountain herders and those of the fertile plain farmers... build a ski lodge? put in a modern dairy farm for the goats? start-up a school in Sheba'a village?... Maybe it would be a very good long-term strategy for the Israelis, in fact, to do this -- at first indirectly, maybe -- one far better, for them as for others, than just periodic warfare. So, what do you think?
-- Kessler 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
ps. And of course understood about the need-for-anonymity point you make above -- nobody wants anyone's "names taken" in a wartime situation, on either or any "side" -- my only real objection comes when anonymity is used as a cover for simple vilification, so if the latter can be avoided I guess I have no objection to anonymity, here.
Are the Sheeba Farms the headwaters of some watershed? If so the owners of such obtain a considerable clout in any court. Water is a frequent unspoken issue in Middle East to dos - ie the Golan is mostly ( entirely ) about who has the Sea of Galilee and about 50% of the water Israel uses, etc. PS Kesseller should read the Torah - sections on coverting and stealing - maybe that would be "undisputed" enough for the wiki crowd..
The Torah wouldn't convince me, on this point, any more than the Koran or the Bible or the Vedas would: the "water" does, though -- wouldn't be the first time a fight over water made it into "holy writ"... Mt. Hermon is the water source for all of the region, isn't it -- 9230 feet, one online source says, and the view from the summit via GoogleEarth (GeoRef for the summit looks like it's: 33|20|01.45|N,35|47|36.73|E(GoogleEarth), and GoogleEarth says it's only 7723 ft. elev.) makes the point dramatically -- certainly the water source for both the Beka'a Valley and the entire Jordan Valley, anyway?
If so and as such well then, yeah, I can see people fighting over that, for millennia, in such an arid region. My point above being that more practical suggestions for the resolution of regional problems have to do with "water" than they do with "holy writ": solve the "water" problem -- the way they're beginning to, and cooperatively even, down south in Wadi al Arabah -- and then maybe some new "holy writ" can get written. But while folks in the region simply are wedded rigidly to their old texts they're just living in the past, and in their ancient animosities... It's about desalinization and sharing: then there won't be so much "coveting and stealing", maybe.
Yup - water's involved. Check out http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-litani10aug10,1,3878441.story and http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/717FD283-592E-44BA-8A22-9D46B441C304.htm. Funny how the wikipedia article on Shebaa Farms calls it a worthless barren area...au contraire...Search on google for Shebaa Farms and Water and you'll see what it's all about.
-- Kessler 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Further investigation of Mt. Hermon reveals "false" and "true" summits -- like Everest -- the one pointed out in the link above is "false" but looks like it houses the actual headwaters for both Sheba'a Farms and that canyon leading down to Kiryat Shemona & Israel, also for the Jordan valley, also to some extent maybe for the Beka'a Valley on the other side. But the ridge then descends a bit, toward the northeast, and then re-ascends to the "true" summit, at 33|24|46.50|N,35|51|18.21|E(GoogleEarth), which clearly waters the Beka'a: it's this latter summit that's 9000+ feet high. Someone who knows more about watersheds pls comment?
-- Kessler 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Fromt the text: Israel's view is that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425 that governs its withdrawal from southern Lebanon. That resolution asks for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon according to the line its forces were positioned at before the May 14, 1978 invasion. (See: Blue Line)
The resolution does not refer to the line but it:
1-Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
2-Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
So this Wikipedia statement appears to be misleading. Am I missing something?
Herne nz 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
After all is said and done the Israeli army decides where the line is - the UN acts dumb. With some more missiles - antiaircraft included please - Hezbollah would be able to draw a line that would satisfy Israel.
Changes as follows
the ownership of which is disputed by Lebanon, though the UN and Israel consider the matter closed.
No - the matter is still subject to Resolution 242
The controversy is whether the land belongs to Israel, which conquered it from Syria with the rest of the Golan Heights in the Six Day War of 1967, or rather to Lebanon.
No - the question is whether the land is part of Syria occupied by Israel or part of Lebanon occupied by Israel
It consists of a dozen or so abandoned farms
No - abandoned implies the owners voluntarily left. These farmers were dispossesed.
Herne nz 09:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I see your points. On 1, I meant to say that the UN and Israel view the matter (the matter being Lebanon's claim) as closed. Perhaps you can fix, saying that in a way that you prefer.
On 2, How about, "The controversy is as follows. Lebanon since 2000 has claimed that the land belongs to Lebanon, and Israel should vacate it in accordance with the UN resolution on withdrawal from Lebanon. The UN and Israel do not view Lebanon as having any legitimate claim to the land, which Israel has occupied since it conquered it from Syria in the Six Day War of 1967.
Makes sense to me. -- Epeefleche 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On 3, am OK with getting rid of the word abandoned. BTW, it appears that the # of farms is 14. -- Epeefleche 20:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a sense for what the 3 closest villages/town are to the area, from each of the 3 countries that border it? Sheba, however one spells it, is I imagine the answer for Lebanon. Though I don't know how far away it is. And I couldn't easily find an answer for Syria and Israel.
Thanks.
-- Epeefleche 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This third paragraph does not make sense to me, what has it to do with the Shebaa Farms area? On March 11, 1978 members of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) infiltrating from Lebanon massacred of civilians riding in an Israeli bus in the Tel Aviv area. 37 Israelis were killed, 76 injured, and an American nature photographer whom the Fedayeen came across as they landed on an Israeli beach was murdered --See Coastal Road Massacre. This attack was, however, just the latest and most deadly in a string of attacks launched from Lebanese territory. Still, it served as the immediate trigger for the Israeli Operation Litani against PLO bases in Lebanon three days later.
Also the subsequent paragraphs are distinctly unencyclopedic and need cleanup. I tried some cleanup, but it needs someone familiar with the subject and the UN resolutions. See html comments. - 213.219.151.76 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the connection. As I see it. The article had a string of events, as follows. Israeli invasion of Lebanon. UN Resolution. Israeli response to resolution. Lebanese statement that Israeli response is not sufficient.
What was lacking, it seemed to me, was any mention of what triggered the first above event.
Thoughts?
--
Epeefleche 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to improve it by streamlining it. -- Epeefleche 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-----
I agree with comments by User:213.219.151.76 (30 July 2006 ). Encyclopedically the PLO attacks on Israel have nothing to do with an entry that is specific to Shebaa Farms or the Shebaa territorial dispute.
On a separate note, the entire Shebaa Farms article is in need of some serious editing, especially with regard to defective syntax in refs. and notes.
Bardwell 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it led directly to the fighting that led to the occupation of Lebanon that is the Hezbollah's issue here.
First the debate over "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" means all territories. Where is it? Which country has raised it with the Security Council?
Then "That resolution asked Israel to withdraw from Lebanon according to the line its forces were positioned at before the May 14, 1978 invasion." The direct quote from the Resolution a couple of paragraghs above , UN Security Council Resolution 425 called upon Israel to: "withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory." shows the Resolution does not refer to a date. Where is this date coming from?
How can " their evidence was contradicted by all published maps, which showed the area to be within Syria" when a published map on this page shows the area in Lebanon? Herne nz 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Am rushing out to work right now, but thought i might address the last question as it is quickest. no published map on this page shows the area in lebanon.-- Epeefleche 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As to your first query, see the wikipedia entry under "United Nations Security Council Resolution 242" -- Epeefleche 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand the Resolution 242 issue history, it goes something like this. (And this is a debated issue, but this is the side that you indicated you don't get). Arthur J. Goldberg, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, said: "The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'… the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal." - "The Meaning of 242" - June 10, 1977. And Lord Caradon, another author of the resolution, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time said: "We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately… We all knew – that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." -- MacNeil/Lehrer Report – March 30, 1978 And Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs at the time indicated that his view was that: "Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." "The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990 -- Epeefleche 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please help me understand the following : israel does not consider shebaa farms israeli land, so if it considered ( by israel)lebanese land that justifies Hezbolla's attacks on israel, & if it is considered syrian land that justifies syrian back up for Hezbolla. So how come Israel condemns both, i mean if a country is occupying another countries' land that implies a state of war, or is it that Israel have the right to occupy others land & then ask for peace.
Well ... I think the short answer is that Israel views it as formerly Syrian land. And I believe that Syria is in a state of war with Israel ... let me know if I am wrong. And the resolution requires, among other things, Syria to recognize Israel and territorial border to be determined and all that. But not for either thing to precede the other. I think that Syria hasnt shown any interest in sitting down with Israel to work out that next step in the process.-- Epeefleche 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that in the mid 90's, during Clinton's precidency a peace conferrence was held between the Syrian & Israeli officials, Syria agreed to recognize Israel..etc in return for the Golan heights occupied in 1967, Israel was the one refusing the offer & withdrawing from the summit.
There are so many English version names for these farms ... do people think that showing them at the top makes sense, or does it detract from readability to that extent that we should stick the alternatives in the bottom of the article? Thoughts? -- Epeefleche 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I think that they are important is for anyone who wants to research them by word search on the internet or otherwise. But perhaps they can simply be moved to the end if no-one disagrees. -- Epeefleche 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Have done so. I think that it streamlines the intro a bit. -- Epeefleche 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Tx.-- Epeefleche 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <kml xmlns=" http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0"> <Placemark>
<name>Google Earth - Shebaa Farms</name> <LookAt id="khLookAt628"> <longitude>35.64990707807397</longitude> <latitude>33.25590376667979</latitude> <range>2006.772744281386</range> <tilt>78.61955657574976</tilt> <heading>73.5119087892147</heading> </LookAt> <styleUrl>root://styleMaps#default+nicon=0x307+hicon=0x317</styleUrl> <Point id="khPoint629"> <coordinates>35.64990707807397,33.25590376667979,0</coordinates> </Point>
</Placemark> </kml>
If you look at Google Earth, you'll see that the placemark is high on a barren ridge, while below, to the west, there is an odd loop in the border that surrounds some very green and cultivated land.
I don't know how to put in a placemark, so I've pasted what I got from copying mine above.
I've just added a "citation needed" to the article as follows --
Its fertile, well-watered farmland formerly produced barley, fruits, and vegetables for 14 farms "citation needed", but is now desolate.
-- because it really would interest me very much to locate old detailed descriptions of the pastoral / agricultural etc. condition and use of the pre-conflict Shebaa Farms area.
A citation certainly is needed in the article, at that point, because of the emotive nature of the subject now: under current political circumstances a bald claim that the area "was productive / now isn't" is too POV without more detail and substantiation. In addition, tho, I'd like a better picture of the Shebaa Farms condition and lifestyle, compared to that of the valley farms down below, to substantiate or refute my own hunch (above) that simple geographic reality has an awful lot to do with these current circumstances... That label "Farms" is either deliberately-accurate or deliberately-misleading, I would think, judging from the area's altitude and climate and the GoogleEarth view of it, anyway. So some dispassionate & detailed agronomic description would help.
-- Kessler 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Farms are a bit of a generalization. These "farms" included pastures, for example.-- Epeefleche 06:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Syrian government imposed itself on the region, at one point forcibly replacing villagers' Lebanese identity cards with Syrian ones.
When did this happen? Source required. Herne nz 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't find any source for this. OK w me if you delete. -- Epeefleche 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A Lebanese newspaper, however, described the land deed of one Shebaa resident as "handwritten and signed on a yellowing piece of paper in pencil and ink." Moreover, it is quite common for Lebanese to own land in Syria, and vice versa
The nature of the deeds - handwritten or not - is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the deeds match land deeds for Lebanon, issued by the same authority. Why has this not been raised?
Common for Lebanese to own land in Syria is just a red herring. The issue is not the nationality of the land owner - it is the Government who had the authority to issue the land deed. Herne nz 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The point I believe is that the deeds (contracts saying Seller sells Buyer Land X) were simply that. Not governmentally issued documents that suggest which government might be sovereign.
And yes, the issue is not the nationality of the landowner. But that is what I understand those who are militating for the land to be considered Lebanese suggest. The point of the Lebanese news article is your point. That the fact that the landowner might be from Lebanon does not make the land Lebanese.-- Epeefleche 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Old text:
That link is crap. It links to an extremist partisan site, and the relevant information is burried somewhere among other propaganda.
I've replaced it with links to the Israeli government sites describing the Israeli position on the legal status of Sheba farms. AdamRetchless 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Syria still has not taken any official steps necessary to demarcate the border. When the UN asked Damascus for a formal document stating that the area had indeed been legally transferred to Lebanon, Syria balked - and it has still not supplied such a document. No reference to United Nations asking for such a document. Please quote date of request and link to UN page.
This may be due to the fact that Syria does not recognize Lebanon. Not only does it not have diplomatic relations with Lebanon,
No reference is provided showing lack of recognition.Please quote source.Clearly Syria recognises the international borders of its neighbour.
but in Syrian textbooks Lebanon appears as part of "Greater Syria." These 'textbooks' are not identified by name, publication date, or usage or referenced by any reputable source. Please quote reputable sources before reinstating. Herne nz 07:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to fix up the part taken from al-Assad's comments taken from
[9], but i'm not so sure that i did a good job of summarizing the text as the original is not especially clear/well translated. Here's the important part (with the especially confusing part in italics):
If someone can find the original Arabic speech and check it against what we have, well, that would be great. -- Fufthmin 17:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hizbullah redirects to Hezbollah, so Hizbullah should be changed to Hezbollah to Wikify it (I think).
Van der Hoorn 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK w me. --
Epeefleche 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This article does not include an "Israeli side" and is therefore only telling one, albeit multifaceted, side of the story. Israel's position needs to be included in this article.
I think that, to the contrary, Israel's position, as well as those of the UN, Lebanon, and Syria, are included throughout the article.-- Epeefleche 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi ... on rereading, see your point as to how it was more difficult than it should have been to divine israel's position, so i have given it its own sub-heading. thanks.-- Epeefleche 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage:
None of it is sourced, and I am made particularly doubtful of its accuracy by the claim that "the Syrians call it Jabel (or Jebel) Rous (Bear Mountain, in Arabic)." For one thing, it seems most unlikely that Syrian and Lebanese citizens would have different names for parts of their shared landscape. Placenames of natural features often survive language changes, it is particularly likely that they would survive the very recent political division of Lebanon from Syria. Secondly, Jabel Rous doesn't mean Bear Mountain in Arabic. Palmiro | Talk 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Madrîkh Yisrael, vol. 1 Hermon ve-Golan, p.33 (Tel Aviv 1978, edited by the Israeli MOD): in Hebrew the region we are talking about is called ketef Si'on 'Si'on ridge'. The Arabic name quoted is djebel ra'ûs. This would correspond to the above mentioned Syrian names. One of these hills bears the Israeli name of har Dov (Dov hill). Ru'ûs is the plural of Arabic ra's, 'head'. According to the Madrîkh Yisrael, loc.cit., Arabs used the area in 1969 to launch attacks on Israeli settlements. Therefore, on the 3.12.1969, the Israeli army dispatched the Golani troops in order to clear the area, which resulted in heavy fighting. During the War of Attrition (1969-1970), renewed use of the area by Arabs (unclear whether PLO or Lebanese, but my guess would be the PLO) to launch attacks prompted the IDF to build permanent strongholds an a border road (called Ma'aleh Gid'on, 'Gideon Pass').
Harun al-Murshid, Saarbrücken University
Our article says "In any event, the UN regards Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory occupied by Israel, not Lebanese territory subject to Resolution 242." This is a bit misleading. The Shebaa farms are still subject to resolution 242, albeit they are Syrian territory subject to Resolution 242, right? Vints 12:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This is going back a bit, but the question seems to have been unanswered. Resolution 242 does not apply to the Golan Heights because Syria refused to have any part in it (they felt that if they agreed to the resolution, it would imply recognition of Israel). TravellingJew 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"des territoires occupés" means "occupied territories," whereas "les territoires occupés" means "the occupied territories." "Des" is the indefinite plural article, whereas "les" is the definite plural article. The Sheeba Farms article indicates that the French text uses the definite article, whereas, in fact, it uses the indefinite. My French is not excellent, but I do know that much for sure. Someone who's French is better than mine, please back me up on this.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf
I m dude2002 20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002
Resolution 242 and the alleged "the", or lack of, are already discussed in more relevant articles. Why do we need it here as well? I don't think we need the 242 section at all except for a one-sentence reference to Resolution 242. -- Zero talk 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have re-written the lead paragraphs, using the existing data (and ref'd maps); also added a better geographic description of the limits of the area and their significance. There are still major things that the article is lacking, which hopefully might answer a reader's simple question, like: 'So why are people fighting and dying over this small piece of land?' The fact remains that delaying resolution of the ownership/sovereignty issue, allows Israel to continue to use 'occupied' water resources.
I noted that the ref'd coordinates (for Google Earth) locate this large area too specifically (to the second) and high in the mountains; unless there is some specific reason why (the initial attack?), I will relocate the coords to a less precise location in the middle of the area. I also noted that the second referenced (Lebanese Army topographic) map only covers a portion of the whole area, near the southern corner of the area; if coverage of a larger area can be provided, the article would be far more comprehensible. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently the article states that The Shebaa Farms area is situated on the southeastern side of a long, broad ridge descending to the southwest from Mount Hermon. But looking at Google Earth and turning the Terrain Layer on it seems that the Farms are at the northwest of this ridge. Gugganij ( talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The current introduction sentence states: "The Shebaa Farms is a small area of land with disputed ownership located on the border between Lebanon and the Israeli controlled, disputed Golan Heights." I find the repeated use of "disputed" accurate, but confusing. What is the advantage of including the "Israeli controlled, disputed" label in front of "Golan Heights"? We have a full article on the Golan Heights for those interested in its current status, so I don't see the need to go into such detail about who claims or controls it here. This wording will open up the door to other editors to change the wording to things like "formerly Syrian, Israeli-annexed Golan Heights", or to inject that the international community doesn't recognize Israeli's claims to the Golan Heights, or edit wars over "Israeli-occupied" versus "Israeli-controlled". So my question is why not just say that the area is between Lebanon and the Golan Heights, without putting either side's POV with regards to the status of the Golan Heights? ← George [ talk 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the syrian withdrawal from lebanon in 2005, the statement "Lebanon agrees with whatever Syria pretends" is not true anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.2 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The article states: "On 28 August 2006, Hezbollah fighters withdrew from positions facing Israeli lines in the Shebaa Farms area.[19]"
However citaion [19] states: "Wright, Jonathan. "News analysis: Hezbollah seen surviving UN troop expansion", The Gazette, 2006-08-29. Retrieved on 2006-09-29."
It seems to me that the article statement is NOT supported by the citaion. I would edit that line to: "Despite the addition of UN troops to the area, Hezbollah has claimed that they "will survive the arrival in south Lebanon of an expanded U.N. force"[19]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyashi ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
One part of the August 2006 ceasefire was that the UN would study the claims that Shebaa Farms area belongs to Lebanon, and the UN would report its conclusions within a month. Since then, I have not heard anything about it any more. Does anyone know what the outcome of the UN study is/was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-o-W ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article correctly and truthfully records that the Golan Heights were claimed by Syria, and that the U.N. found no evidence of Lebanese claims. The folloing and subsequent text provide a faithful picture: The United Nations agreed with Israel that the area is not covered by Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.[3] At the same time the UN noted that its decision was "without prejudice to future border agreements between the Member States concerned," referring to Israel, Syria, and Lebanon. The UN stated:
"On May 15, 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."[34]...
But the article now contradicts itself, because the following was put in the introduction as a "summary" of the above "In 2007 a UN cartographer came to the conclusion that the Sheeba farms is Lebanese territory."
The intro also states: "Both Syria and Lebanon agree that the Shebaa Farms are within Lebanese territory"
There is no reference for this statement and it seems to be untrue. The truth is reflected further down in the introduction
"Syria, since its eviction from Lebanon in 2005 and ending its 30-year long occupation of its small neighbor, has continuously refused to provide the United Nations with the legal documentation officially ceding sovereignty to Lebanon over the Shebaa Farms, [4], despite public statements by Syrian officials. "
It is only part of the truth. Before 2005 Syira also claimed not only all of Sheba farms but all of Lebanon as well. Syria never admitted that any part of Sheba farms is Lebanese, did they?? What public statements were made by which Syrian officials before or after 2005?? when did any Syrian official admit to any Lebanese claim on the Golan?? Can you show such a statement?? Please show us a Syrian map with the international border between Syria and Lebanon. [[ Mewnews ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)]]
Does anyone know the source or the current map showing where the village of Shebaa is in relation to the Shebaa farms? I'm unable to track down where it came from, beyond some user on the German Wikipedia, or what the location of the village is based on. The map used by the BBC, citing the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel, shows the village of Shebaa west and slightly north of Mount Dov. ← George [ talk 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The term Shab’a Farms generally refers to former hamlets, grazing areas and some cultivated land south-west of Shab’a village, on the western slopes of Wadi al-Aasal and on the southern slopes of Jebel Rous and Jebel Soummaq. Based on the
information available, the senior cartographer has provisionally concluded that the Shab’a Farms area extends north-east from Moughr Shab’a village and north-west from Wadi al-Aasal. Thus, it is now possible to state that a review and analysis of recent evidence can provide the basis for a provisional definition of the geographical extent of the Shab’a Farms area as follows: starting from the turning point of the 1920 French line located just south of the village of El Majidiye; from there continuing south-east along the 1946 Moughr Shab’a-Shab’a boundary until reaching the thalweg of the Wadi al-Aasal; thence following the thalweg of the wadi north-east until reaching the crest of the mountain north of the former hamlet
Mazraat Barakhta and reconnecting with the 1920 line.
I really do not see what is so hard to understand about this. We need to establish a few baseline facts here.
All of this is very basic stuff and I honestly don't understand how anybody can edit in Mideast related articles and not get this. I would also note that this article has a very heavy preponderance of sources on the right-wing of the US/Israeli political spectrum, some of which are pretty sketchy. The likes of DEBKAfile, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Cybercast News Service, and Daniel Pipes et al are not very helpful as sources. They are useful maybe for finding out what the hardliners on one side think, in the same way that al-Manar would be useful on the other side. They aren't good for facts. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the BlueLine image it says: "UN Demarcation", The UN would have written that the area is Syria and occupied by Israel. So if the text isn't corrected, the claim of "UN Demarcation" should at least be removed. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed the "1923 border" and "pre-1967 de facto" to international. Thats what it is and that is what its called. Moved the Arab sections of etymology to the top since the area belongs to an Arab nation, therefor the Arab stuff should be first.
I removed "murdered" from the Hezbollah attacks, we can ad back "murdered" when all Israeli killings of Arabs are refereed in other wikipedia articles as "murdering Arabs". "Elsewere" - that would be Syria. I removed the "French Mandate (1923–1967)" there was no french mandate between those years. I removed the Hezbollah cross-border raid (2000) and PLO attack section, has nothing to do with article, saved a smaller part of the PLO part. The Israeli annexation was written twice, removed one of them. Created separate UNSCR245 section. Removed category Israel–Lebanon border since no "Israeli border" is connected to this area. --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
what is the population of this piece of land? what is their nationality? 81.102.15.200 ( talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources on this? 81.102.15.200 ( talk) 16:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Elias Bejjani source ( http://www.lgic.org/en/faq_shebaa01.php) begins "Under the puppet regime and the hegemony of the Syrian Baathist occupier..." and continues in a similar vein. It does not seem a reliable source. In any case, it does not say what it is used as a reference for (that Syrians attacked a post in 1956, killing 2 gendarmes, and then intimidated Lebanon into inaction). I will therefore remove that part. 81.102.15.200 ( talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This is rubbish. The cited article doesn't even say that the Sheba Farms was ever called Fatahland, it is referring to the nearby area of southern Lebanon. Read it carefully. Zero talk 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) It is also wrong to remove from the lead the only reason this region is notable, namely the sovereignty question of Lebanon versus Syria. Zero talk 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Also [ this NYT article] does not mention Sheba Farms at all, nor does Res 1559. None of this makes any sense unless "Sheba Farms" extends north of the international border, but that is not the case according to the UN definition, the map in the article, or any source in the article (I think). The name in almost all uses refers to the region south of the 1920 Syria-Lebanon border which Lebanon claims. Zero talk 11:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"After the departure of Syrian troops in 2005" — this is a nonexistent event based on a source that doesn't mention the Sheba Farms. The Sheba farms have been occupied by Israel from 1967 until now. Zero talk 12:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Israel seized the Shaaba Farms, along with neighboring Har Dov, from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War along with the neighboring Golan Heights. "The bottom line for Lebanon was that in the June 1967 war, despite the fact that Lebanon did not participate in the war, Israel occupied this Lebanese area" (Kaufman, cited in article). And so on, kindly remove the text based on your misunderstanding. Zero talk 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The article by Chararah is either written/translated carelessly, or Chararah is using the phrase "Shebaa Farms" for a much wider area than is usual. This is easy to demonstrate. Note that Chararah equates Shebaa Farms with "Fatahland" and "al-Urqub". The meaning of the latter names appears in countless sources more authoritative than Chararah, and there really isn't any doubt since al-Urqub (more commonly written as 'Arqub or Arkub) is a subdistrict in southern Lebanon. See it on this map. Restricting myself to easily visible sources, these clearly indicate that "Fatahland" and "Arqub" are in Lebanon, not in the Shebah Farms which is south of the border: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. That ought to be plenty. Zero talk 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that US official position on the matter has not been recently consistent? Silvio1973 ( talk) 10:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The US recognized this territory as part of Israel on March 25 2019 When it recognized the Golan Heights as Part of Israel
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shebaa farms. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about the UN position. Firstly, it is by no means a correct correct summary of the UN position, as the section Shebaa_farms#UN_position states. Firstly, as the BBC report quoted states that the UN is not a "boundary marking authority" and Annan stated that "There seems to be no official record of an international boundary agreement between Lebanon and Syria that could easily establish the line for purposes of confirming the withdrawal" and "Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon". The issue is quite complex and ongoing. The statement is seriously misleading. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shebaa farms. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shebaa farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Shebaa Farms has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To write also the Quranic land of Israel Nippon 725 ( talk) 17:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Where it is written "In the Biblical land of Israel" I want to write their Quranic land of Israel Nippon 725 ( talk) 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Mt Dov really the same as Shebaa Farms? Isn't it rather correct to say that Mt Dov is a small mountain or hill whose western slopes, or part of them, are known as the Sh. Farms? Is the peak with the IDF base part of Sh. F.? What about the eastern slopes, or saddle? The "Terminology" section can be understood in several different ways: "Kafr Shuba Hills" suggests a multitude of hills (plural), "the wide mountainous ridge" - well, that's a wide ridge, while satellite images and topographic maps of "Har Dov (Mount Dov)" show a clearly-defined single cone-shaped hill, with a road leading to its isolated peak, where the IDF base most likely stands (see "Har Dov" on MapCarta). NOT the same by any stretch. Arminden ( talk) 05:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)