Talk:Syria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Syria, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.
Portal:Syria
 Syria Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Asia,
a WikiProject related to the countries of Western Asia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.
Do not use this page as a discussion forum.
See talk page guidelines.



Contents

[edit] The Palestine War of 1948

I'm not sure why the long section on "The Palestine War of 1948" is included in Syria's main wikipedia! The history of the Palestinian conflict should be moved to either the Arab-Israeli war section or Palestine section. Instead of this lengthy paragraphs there should be brief summary of the conflict and its outcome.

There are also facts not correct in regard to the conflict, for example:

"We now know that early military assessments by the Arab League and individual states of their ability to defeat Zionist forces in the impending conflict were unanimous in warning of the superiority of the Zionist military, which outnumbered the Arab forces at every stage of the war. "

I'm not sure based on what credible evidence the Jewish forces outnumbered the Arab forces during the conflict !

While we all agree the 1948 war had profound impact on Syria's future, nevertheless, the type of details included in that section are more related to the Arab-Israeli conflict than the Syrian-Israeli conflict.

It is quite pitiful that a decent Wikipedia article has this unfortunate reference in the history section: "..and Israelis would have lived in a much smaller country" If this is a personal wish of the individual who edited the article I think it should be deleted or rephrased. There is not objectiveness in that paragraph. As I said, a pity for those who endeavour for a neutral, truly informal Free encyclopaedia!

Actually not only does that section look like POV, it looks like it was plagiarized. Dionyseus 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Replaced "Syria tasted the first of many bitter fruits of defeat " with "Syria experienced defeat, the first of many, ". Colourful language in a nationalistic context is often hurtful - as this is the sort of thing that leads to revanchism, without providing any more information.

[edit] Religion

Can someone add a religion section in the article? I'd do it myself if I knew enough about religion in Syria. Dionyseus 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

How do we establish a link between this article and the (rather undeveloped) article, education in Syria? --And I mean, link within the text, not as a 'See also'? Dogru144 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed: The Israeli War of Independence, 1948

I removed the following section, because of its innumerable biased judgements. I have little knowledge and no opinions on this topic, but it's long-winded original research and contained many heavily biased statements such as "Syria should never have pushed for war", "the Arab people considered the partition plan to be highway robbery", and so on. Let's keep it here until someone can clean it up. Deco 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Israeli War of Independence, 1948

Shukri al-Quwwatli’s war policy during the conflict in Palestine was a disaster both for his presidency and for democracy in Syria. Indeed, the two had become intimately intertwined. In retrospect, one could argue that Syria should never have pushed for war in newly declared state of Israel. Had Syria not acted as the whip in the Arab League driving the others toward war, the United Nation’s partition plan might well have been carried out; and Israelis would have lived in a much smaller country.

Most popular accounts of the conflict give two principle reasons for why the Arabs went to war. First, the Arab people considered the partition plan to be highway robbery; it gave over 50 percent of Palestine to the Jews, although they constituted but a third of the population and owned a mere seven percent of the land. No Arab leader, the argument goes, could have accepted such a deal without being lynched. Second, Arab governments believed they were stronger than the Jews and calculated that they could overwhelm the inconsequential Zionist forces and “push them into the sea.” The Arab leaders all hoped to avoid war, which promised few benefits and many dangers. We now know that early military assessments by the Arab League and individual states of their ability to defeat Zionist forces in the impending conflict were unanimous in warning of the superiority of the Zionist military, which outnumbered the Arab forces at every stage of the war. Certainly, the Syrian leadership was painfully aware of the weakness of the Syrian army and had little or no faith in the ability of the “Arab leaders” to cooperate effectively against the Jews or win the war in Palestine.

This begs the question then of why President Quwwatli and Prime Minister Jamil Mardam were so adamant about opposing partition and pushing for war. Indeed, Syria’s role in shepherding the reluctant Egypt and Saudi Arabia toward war is little appreciated. Of all the Arab states, Syria was the most adamant about the need to go to war. Indeed, it was the first in and the last out of the war. So why would Syria encourage the Arab world to go to war in Palestine even as it prepared for defeat?

In short, President Shukri al-Quwwatli went to war not for pan-Arab notions of unity or brotherhood, but to prevent that very same spirit from undermining Syria’s independence. He hoped to block King Abdullah from carrying out his Greater Syria unity scheme. During the first years of independence, Quwwatli lived in constant fear that King Abdullah would invade Syria to unify the central Syrian lands which had been divided by the European powers at the end of World War One. The instability and general border rearrangements brought about by the UN’s decision to partition Palestine, Quwwatli understood, presented the Jordanian monarch with his best opportunity to realize his dream of Greater Syria, first by expanding his kingdom over the Arab portions of Palestine and then by striking north at Damascus itself. Throughout the conflict, President Quwwatli’s main concern was to halt Hashemite plans to rule the Levant. First and foremost, he had to stop the Jordanian monarch from acquiring the eastern half of Palestine, only then could he concern himself with the emergence of a Jewish state in the western half.

From the outset of the war, the primary concern of the Arab states was the inter-Arab conflict and the balance of power in the region. In this respect it is useful to view the 1948 war primarily as an inter-Arab struggle or an Arab civil war, and only secondarily as a war against Zionism and the Jews. The widespread public desire for Arab unity threatened weaker governments and rulers, such as Syria’s, by de-legitimizing them and pitting them against other Arab rulers in the desperate scramble for leadership of the nationalist movement that all hoped to master.

Arab historians have argued that Syria pushed so adamantly for war because of its special heritage as the birthplace and heart of Arab nationalism and because Arab nationalist sentiment among the Syria public and legislators could not be stifled. This is no doubt true. Parties on both the left and right in Syria organized frequent demonstrations demanding war; a number, such as the Ba`th and Akram al-Hawrani’s Arab Socialist Party, organized squads of young men to go to war in Palestine as volunteers. Public pressure on Quwwatli and his government to commit Syria to the fight in Palestine was strong and Quwwatli could not ignore public opinion; It is easy to forget that Syria was the only working democracy among the principal Arab combatants. Parliament took up the call for war as vociferously as did the people it represented. As Muhsin al-Barazi told an American diplomat in April 1948, the “public's desire for war is irresistible."

On the eve of the parliamentary vote that would commit Syria to war, only one parliamentary deputy, Farzat Mamlouk, spoke out against it. He would later spend years in prison for his pro-Iraqi and British sympathies. In his unpublished memoirs he describes the mood in the parliament on April 27, 1948, when the proposal to go to war was first debated. Outside the parliament crowds of demonstrators had gathered to “chant in favor of war.” Mamlouk writes:

"Their cries and chants had a profound effect on the deliberations of the chamber, particularly as the deputies were divided into three groups. The first group was composed of those deputies whose nationalist feelings were inflamed just as were the voices of the demonstrators we could hear outside. The second group was composed of “the followers,” those who automatically followed whatever the others did in all matters -- and how were they going to vote...? The last group included the experienced and judicious deputies who were unable to oppose the government on such a weighty matter for fear of the voices they could hear resounding outside. Because of this, debate was restricted to the first group. They proclaimed their views in passionate and fiery speeches without any regard for the evil toward which they were driving the country."

"I did not belong to any of these three groups, thank the Lord, because of my conviction that we were completely unprepared to save Palestine. I wanted to save Palestine in deed, not in word — not with slogans, speeches, and demonstrations. This conviction of mine was based on a careful study of the facts which I had collected from my brothers, the volunteers in the Liberation Army and from my friends among the army officers."

Farzat, educated at the American University of Beirut and a friend to many of Syria’s top officers, knew what he was talking about. He reminded the assembly that Syria had no more than 10,000 soldiers, who were, moreover, untried in battle, badly equipped, and without adequate supplies, ammunition, or armor. He argued that Syria must delay the war and accept partition, if only for a few years. Furthermore, Syria’s relations with fellow Arab governments and Great Britain were in shambles. How could the Arabs fight the Jews without unity, he asked. In conclusion he stated:

"We and the other Arab countries should wait for another round and another occasion when we will be prepared to save beloved Palestine. Otherwise our true condition will be exposed; the consequences will be terrible."

"If we must go to war in compliance with the decision of the Arab Political Committee, then I propose that we must come to an understanding with Britain about entering into the war because the most powerful Arab armies on which we must rely in this war — and they are Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan — are subject to British orders and views. In addition we must settle our affairs with our neighbor Turkey in order to exploit its Islamism and benefit from its well known international influence and power. If we fail to do this, the war will bring only disaster and great evil to the Arab people of Palestine and to all the Arab countries."

No sooner had Mamlouk delivered these words than the voices of the tribal shaykhs rang out in unison: "We agree with the words of Farzat." Then a deathly silence descended on the room, broken only when the Vice-President of the chamber, on a sign from the Prime Minister, announced that the meeting was adjourned until the next day. As Mamlouk was exiting the building, Prime Minister Mardam summoned him into an antechamber. He insisted on a unanimous pro-war vote the next day. “My brother,” Mardam said, “If you only knew the incredible lengths to which Shukri Bayk and I have had to go in order to convince the Arab countries to enter this war, you wouldn't oppose my request; the public good demands it.”

The unanimous vote to send Syria’s army into Palestine that was delivered by the Syrian deputies the following day leaves no doubt that public opinion played an important part in convincing Quwwatli to go to war. But Quwwatli, far from trying to moderate or educate the public to the realities of Syria’s weakness and lack of preparation, acted as the principal advocate of war in the League and in Syria’s parliament. As Mardam made clear to Farzat Mamlouk on the eve of the Syrian vote, President Quwwatli needed unanimity in Syria on the question of war in order to ensure that neither Egypt nor Arabia would baulk in the final days. Syria had to lead, instructing the others in the precepts of Arabism and providing the necessary surge in nationalist fervor to carry the Arabs to war and throw caution to the wind.


Begiining of this article - obvious mistake? - Golan once occupied by Israel. Without the Golan ( there are really no "heights" - easy to lie to Americans who don't travel much ) Israel would be in worse water circumstances than they are - Golan equals 30%+- of Israel's water supply. They will never give it back, they want to steal even more - southern Lebanon, Litani River etc not to mention the water in Gaza and the West Bank - did you really think that one piece of desert is that much more desirable than the next ( of course unless it has water on/under it ).

What is the source of the statement, "The name Syria comes from the ancient Greek name for the land of Aram..."? The Bible refers to "Syrion" in Hebrew.

[edit] News Flash

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23898146.htm

MADRID, July 23 (Reuters) -

Syria will enter the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict if Israeli ground troops enter Lebanon and approach Syria, Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said in an interview published on Sunday.

"If Israel invades Lebanon over ground and comes near to us, Syria will not sit tight. She will join the conflict," he told newspaper ABC.

Black Mamba 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Can anyone confirm that the Greek name is or is not related to the Assyrians? -- Beland 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article source?

the history section of this article is word for word identical to U.S. State Dept. at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm just thought it was interesting.

[edit] international relationships

Hi. I am doing research on syria and i was not able to find any information on the international relationships that syria has with other countries. I was able to find out that they have "friends in Iran and Russia but what I was trying to figure out was what do Syria get out of the deal or how they could be influenced. is there any information you can help me out with....Thanks,Worried

What is worrying you? I don't think you need fear anybody invading anytime soon!
If you want more information about Syrian affairs a good starting point would be American professor Joshua Landis' blog [1]. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone took this recommendation of mine a bit too much to heart... Palmiro | Talk 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signs of war against Iran and Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

[edit] total cleanup necessarily

lead doesn't represent anything in the article. Mention of its regime etc should be made. Amoruso 04:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting. relevant material from lead was deleted after I inserted it. Amoruso 22:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] war of Summers 2006

It states in the Warming of relations with the West 2006 section that Israel lost the war of Summers 2006, I take this is a reference as the war Israel just waged against Hezbollah and is it right to say they lost? I think we cant name a victor in this conflict.

I'd say it ended in a stalemate - Alex De Angelis 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning of the syrian regime should be mention.

[edit] NPOV problems

I've just deleted the section titled "Warming of relations with the West 2006" mainly because of NPOV problems. The title itself may amount to Original Research, because it concludes the warming, which is not obvious (it's not like Condi has just visited Damascus). It's been only two months since the end of the conflict in Lebanon, and the world was busy with Iran and N. Korea, and this jumping to conclusions is irrelevant here. Moreover, it was added by an anonymous editor who put the same section in the article about the president of Syria along with more biased info. I'm going to re-write the recent events in a neutral way. Orionist 14:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the (few) other contributions of that anon, you'll see they're also unsourced and POV, if not downright lies and meanness (e.g., deleting the Arabs and antisemitism article). It's pretty much Syria apologia, trying to get readers to blame Israelis or Lebanese (rather than Syrians) for the wars and assassinations in the region and paint Syria as "good." Very POV in light of the evidence that's surfaced so far. Calbaer 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Kurds

Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

Under Culture, one can read this: "Syrians are a very social people, very friendly and with very family-oriented values". Does this really belong in a encyclopedia. It seems subjective. Jacobmal 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole Culture section is rife with Unverifiable claims which need to be supported by cites or removed. Ashmoo 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would difently delete this article.

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Western Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Western Asia whose scope would include Syria. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syria Governorate Infobox

I have created an Infobox. Could anyone help expanding it to all Governorates? Here is the usage:

{{Infobox Syria Governorate
|governorate_name =
|muhafazat_name = 
|loc_map = 
|capital = 
|latd = 
|longd =
|area = 
|pop = 
|pop_year = 
|pop_density = 
|num_districts = 
|languages= [[Arabic language|Arabic]]<br/> 
}}

Note:

  1. muhafazat_name is the governorate_name in arabic.
  2. Longtude and Lattitude are Decimal. °N/°E are appended automatically.
  3. Area is in km².
  4. Density is in /km².


--Asfandyar 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it should also include the number of sub-districits. and maybe writing the Arabic transliteration and link to their respective articles. (districts = manatiq, sing. mintaqah. and sub-districts = nawahi, sing. nahiya).

-- Orionist 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A useful source

I 've just deleted a section titled "First Democracy in the Arab World" as it drew conclusions that weren't mentioned in its source. Moreover, the info in the source contradicts with another source in this article (the source of the section about the influence and presidency of Shishakli) which is more specialised (as he's a historian, not a journalist).

However, the source of the deleted section is a very interesting article and maybe considered as a source for the recent events in Syrian history. you can find it here. --Orionist 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV needed in this article

This article is plagued with POV claims and allegations, mostly accusations against the government of being a dictatorship, authoritarian, bad human rights ... etc. Unless you have credible sources, please don't add anything you find on the Internet. There are a lot of websites made by individuals and organizations with the sole aim of upsetting the relative stability in Syria and overthrowing the regime without just cause. There is a lot of propoganda online against Syria, I would like to ask Wikipedia authors to use common sense when distinguishing credible sources from those otherwise. Also, since this page is a frequent target of vandalism, I suggest semi-protecting it. Thanks. Asabbagh 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section too long

The history section is 38K; that's about as long as the whole article should be. Most of the details should be moved to History of Syria. -- Beland 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directed at geography

Israel and the Palestinian territories are recognised to be at the south west of syria . Therefore it would be correct if we include both —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.34.63 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Asabbagh 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Israel occupies the Golan Heights, which was formerly Syrian territory. There is presently no recognized Palestinian state, hence it has no borders. I'm open to debate on this topic, however please cite some reliable sources to backup your claims and assertions. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually according to the CIA WORLD FACT BOOK The golan heights is syrian territory so get lost. And there is a recognised palestinian territory. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

"West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel continues construction of a "seam line" separation barrier along parts of the Green Line and within the West Bank; Israel withdrew its settlers and military from the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the West Bank in August 2005; Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied (Lebanon claims the Shab'a Farms area of Golan Heights); since 1948, about 350 peacekeepers from the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) headquartered in Jerusalem monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, prevent isolated incidents from escalating, and assist other UN personnel in the region" Palestinian territories are close enough to syria where it should be mentioned

I reverted your edit because you created a nonsense redlink and spelt 'Palestinian' with a lowercase 'p'. Now, there may be political considerations, but edits must still make sense and be in good English. — Gareth Hughes 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited the word "Israel" and used instead of it "Historical Palestine" as a solution for the debate. Syrians do not recognize Israel so it bothers me to read Israel as a neighbour to Syria. So to solve this confusion we can state Historical Palestine and people can decide whatever they want Historical Palestine to be. By stating "Israel" wikipedia is biasing against Syrians. It's like stating Turkish Cyprus as a neighbour to Cyprus or Chichania as a neighbour to Russia. قومي time 2:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golan

Recently (in the past weeks), there have been a few edits regarding this sentence:

Israel administers/occupies the Golan Heights...

Specifically, the debate has been about which of these two words (in bold) would be NPOV. Now, for those saying that 'Israel occupies the Golan' is a POV statement, remember that the UN and every country in the world (except Israel of course) regards it as an occupation, and asserts the fact that the Golan is Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. Israel indeed administers the Golan, but saying that without mentioning that it administers it through an occupation would constitute a POV statement. In other words, it is not POV at all to say that Israel occupies the Golan, but on the contrary it is totally inline with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Asabbagh 08:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the dispute is between Israel and Syria (whether or not what others call it), by saying "occupies" we are taking sides which violates WP:NPOV. The sentence already says that it is disputed and it includes a link for the general article of the Golan for more information. The other problem with that word is that Israel has revoked its military rule of the Golan Heights, and it is now ruled like Tel Aviv. The term "occupies" typically refers to military administration, which the Golan Heights is not under. It is incorrect when said that it is under military occupation; as I said, the military rule was revoked to civilian rule in 1981. Furthermore, citizenship is available to all residents, and it is de facto no different than any other part of Israel. Certainly there is a dispute, yes indeed, however in the interest of maintaining accuracy (as per the manner it is ruled) and NPOV (as per saying it one's and not the other's), and fact (noting that it is disputed) it would be the most neutral and non-partisan way to word it. --Shamir1 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take note, that to say "occupies" is not taking sides. It is the opinion that the whole world (except Israel) agrees upon. By saying "administers", and not clarifying the fact that the Golan is occupied Syrian land, you are the one taking sides, and thus violating WP:NPOV. To say that it is administered by Israel and that it is disputed territory, is not a lie. But, it is POV. You are expressing the Israeli POV by writing that, since that is exactly what Israel declares. Please stop defending this POV statement. Regarding how this dispute is between Israel and Syria, also note that the points of view expressed in an encyclopedia have to also include a world view, and the international NPOV agrees that it is occupied Syrian land. Asabbagh 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You have just stated it yourself. It is not agreed upon, whether by 1 country, 2 countries or 100 countries, it is not agreed upon as you have just stated. Israel does administer it, and administration is a general term that simply means it is under their authority (whether military or civilian or other). You say "the Golan is occupied Syrian land". That is, as it is already said, disputed. You have no basis to accuse me of violation WP:NPOV and I urge you to use that wisely. No "Israeli POV" is expressed, it is entirely neutral. It says that Israel administers it and that it is disputed, that is entirely agreed upon including by Syria. I dont know what you mean by it is what Israel "declares", nor do I see why it is relevant. Also, please do not make up Wikipedia rules. I will repeat that the term occupy typically means it is militarily ruled, which the Golan Heights are not. Since it is not agreed upon with Israel, it is stated with neutral and factual terminology. Regarding what should be included, it is already included in this encyclopedia the view of the Golan Heights. Since this about Syria, not the golan, it is shortened (that it is disputed), and a link is provided for further information. --Shamir1 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The term occupy does not necessarily mean to "rule militarily", instead, occupation occurs "...when one nation's military occupies all or part of the territory of another nation...", taken from the article on military occupation. Indeed, Israeli troops are present on the Golan, making it an occupation, even if it is a civilian rule. Now, when did I "make up" wikipedia rules? Furthermore, just because 1 country (Israel) does not agree on what the rest of the world does, does not mean we have to truncate the world consensus and portray a clipped view of things just in order to satisfy the NPOV policy, but it would be in a neutral tone to mention that the world believes this and Israel, on the other hand, believes that. I will agree with you on one thing, however, that the bulk of this discussion is related to the article on Golan Heights, rather than here. Asabbagh 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Israeli troops are present in Tel Aviv as well, in fact Israeli troops are present in Turkey. It does not merely mean that the Israeli troops are present, it means that the Israeli troops rule it. When you say "even if it is a civilian rule", that does not make sense in context. It cannot be both military and civilian rule, in the case of the Golan it is civilian rule. Administration is not what Israel believes, it is what it is. It is a general term, that is not clipped or tilted. And if so-and-so believes it belongs to Syria, Israel, France, China,... that is for the general article of the Golan Heights. For here, we keep it at "disputed", and there we can go on to the history. --Shamir1 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually shamir, you are being very biased. The golan heights are not disputed territories according to the united nations and the united states, the golan heights belong to syria and are under occupation by israel. That being said, and you cannot dispute the facts, Palestinian territories do belong in the south west of syria, and there is already high consensus about this everywhere except in Israel. so for you Shamir the biased,, to try and debate facts would be illogical on your part.. Should I go to the israel webpage and write that there is an apartheid wall, I too would be biased even though many people are in complete agreement with me, even former president Jimmy Carter to name one.

[edit] French Mandate

Somebody claims that "Prince Zayed became prime minister in January [1919]", and links to the page of Sheikh Zayed Al Nhiyan of UAE, that's terrible ( the guy was one year old ). I don't know who was the prime minister back then, I even doubt that his name was "Zayed", But I'm definitively removing the link. Shadyzay 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Pelosi's Visit

I think some mention should be made of Nancy Pelosi's historic visit as the first woman political leader from any country ever to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad, its pretty important. Nancy is spreading the message of peace and telling people in Iran and Syria that we love them and we won't discriminate against Muslims and not everyone thinks they are bad, but they are always welcomed with open arms in the US.

Here's a great article on it that talks all about Nancy's great work, and just a brief note of thanks to Wikipedia for all the great things they mention about her in her biography, thank you: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070404/D8O9NNK82.html

[edit] Golan Heights and the Six Day War

Golan heights are part of Syria and were occupied by Israel in 1967. The UNO recognizes Golan Heights as part of Syria. Then why is the area of Syria shown without that of Golan Heights??I invite discussion on this subject--83.156.243.238 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the article and was surprised to find that except for the introduction, the Six Day War isn’t even mentioned. Nor is there a discussion about the Golan Heights history (apart from a few out of context references). Whether unintentional or disingenuous, this omission needs to be corrected. Amirig 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/y/r/Talk%7ESyria_5be1.html"