Talk:Shebaa farms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
High This article has been rated as High-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.
Lebanon Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Israel Portal
Shebaa farms is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

If I understand this correctly:

  • Lebanon claims that the land is part of Lebanon.
  • Syria claims it's part of Lebanon.
  • Israel claims it's part of Syria.

—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)

Except that Israel hasn't actually used the A-word for its occupation of the Golan. —Ashley Y 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no occupation of the golan. It is a Jewish land which was annexed by the Israeli Parliament. It's been for Syria's rule for only 21 years... "syrian land", pggh. Amoruso 02:06, 19 July 2006 (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.

Except that Syria does not claim that Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon. As the articles says: The Syrian government has yet to officially reverse its long-standing position that the area is part of Syria. For what it's worth, the Farms appear to be in Syria in this Syrian Ministry of Tourism map. Fufthmin 13:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A wonderful situation:

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

IMHO this is basically right. Everybody likes the situation. IIRC, the UN's hands are sort of bound because Syria refuses to formally provide the appropriate documents to the UN that would back up its own, Syria's case that the farms are part of Lebanon, which is probably after all correct, but the Syrians only want to pretend to be saying this, preferring to have the fighting go on like everybody else. Might ask some people who are more knowledgeable about this than me and put it in the article someday.--John Z 20:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the person who wrote this highly cynical 'analysis' is not at all aware of the real situation there. Israel is not "launching small attacks on the farms, pretending to attack Syria". First Shebaa Farms is now effectively inside Israel, since it is part of the annexed Golan Heights. Secondly Israel is not attacking the area (remember it is effectively part of Israel at the moment). Thirdly there are no farms there at the moment. As far as I know it is a military area only. Fourth, it is rather silly to assume Israel would be interested in attacking Syria as suggested above ("...pretending to attack Syria"). If Israel would attack Syria there would be full-scale war. Israel has not attacked Syria since the Yom Kippur war of 1973. S-o-W 25 Oct 2006

[edit] New developments:

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

[edit] Ancient developments:

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

Even better, and a lot more ancient, try using GoogleEarth: start from the famous & northernmost Israeli kibbutz, currently labeled on GoogleEarth as "Qiryat Shemons", tilting the map so that you are standing on the ground at the kibbutz looking up at the hills all around -- easy, then, to see that the "Shebaa Farms" area, now so-called, which is high on the western slopes of Mt. Hermon, overlooks the much lower and richer farming valley in which "Qiryat Shemons" is located, physically & strategically & tactically. By far the highest (4-5000ft) & nearest (10 miles) strategic location to the farming valley... Great place, then, for invaders or even just impoverished local mountain herders to look down, with envy &/or anger -- also to lob rockets, mount invasions, conduct raids, recover lands you believe belong to you & not to "them", etc. -- upon the wealthy folks on the farms down below.
That's what probably has been going in that particular spot for millennia -- since long before "Israel & Syria & Lebanon", or even "Islam & Christianity & Judaism", like most things Middle Eastern -- since the Neolithic, at least. Geography is everything: it's about the olive trees...
--Kessler 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you make a google earth view of the farms a link? That would be interesting ......

--Epeefleche 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added it.
--Kessler 20:41, 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 ....

Glad you like it! :-) I saw the pix of the area available via Google: the only two there which appear relevant both are CNN, and we'd never get GNU license etc. permissions from them... :-( But there must be some mountaineering / hiking / geophysical source no longer in copyright or which might grant permission: Mt. Hermon has been hiked over / fought over for a long time.
Alpine photography, though, is an art -- even moreso "foothills" photograpy, such as this would be at only 6000ft. elev. -- really tough getting the shot not just to show "things too far away" or "things too close-up" -- also to show local conditions well, as highlands agricultural terrain can be very healthy and productive, in fact, altho not when contrasted, in the shot or in the viewer's mind, to lowlands lush farming -- think of farming in Peru, or in Tibet...
So I would guess that unless some agronomist got up there, well before the most recent wars, and photographed the area intensively with an eye on its "farming" rather than on its "missiles, incoming & outgoing" -- there are several of the latter, on the Web, but they're not the point -- then we won't find fotos. Maybe some 1920s-1930s agro-economics book, or mountaineering: it really does look like a beautiful view, down that steep canyon toward Kiryat Shemona, doesn't it -- someone must have visited and photographed it. But they'd have to be ok on permissions. If you come across print references which might contain fotos pls post those here. I'll hunt for some links.
--Kessler 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Trying to mislead readers.

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

Your posting does not make much sense, to me. Your emotive terms, such as "undisputable" and "matter of fact" and "occupied" and "arab land" and "jewish army", indicate not too much room for discussion with others: there are plenty of long-standing controversies involved, in all of this, and if you simply assert your own unsubstantiated opinion, indicating no willingness to discuss, you just are talking to yourself.


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."



Shebaa Farms, to me, is a fascinating example of the general dilemma of the Middle East. I can see arguments favoring not only two sides, involved in its controversy, but several. And, as I just indicated above, I can see a very long history to the controversy in this specific region: one based simply upon its geography, and long antedating the current national and religious actors -- in other words I would bet folks have been fighting over this place for millennia, giving all sorts of "reasons" for doing so.
If you would like to add some detail, then, showing specifically where there is "fraud" in the article, I encourage you to list some. Cite sources, too -- you don't cite any, in what you just said -- and sign your postings, so the rest of us will know who you are. This is an interesting article, and people are dying over it today as we discuss it here: to me it seems worth taking more seriously than you have -- mildly interesting that you have the opinions you've expressed, but now explain and substantiate them!
--Kessler 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

You're still not signing your articles... And you're not convincing anybody, with this sort of close-minded rhetoric: if you truly are interested in persuading others to agree with your point of view, I suggest once again that you provide some reasoning and substantiation -- otherwise, the above posting as well as your previous have a POV problem, contrary to Wikipedia policy and counter-productive to your own position, and I'd suggest that you save your breath.
What is happening right now in Lebanon and Israel -- and Syria and Gaza -- is no "play". People are dying. And yes some US citizens may be gullible, but then a great many are not. Certaintly this situation is more politics than war -- all wars are -- but the point surely must be to stop the war and let politics decide issues instead? So how do we do this, in the present situation? I don't think your "vote" of "a pox on both houses" is realistic or realizable or particularly mature, and neither is your sarcasm about "better than having a real economy". There is more to this than money, I am sure: religion, history, language, sovereignty, pride, at least.
Your reasonable suggestions for specific rewrites, of specific sections of this Shebaa Farms article, would interest me very much. Why don't you post one here? If we could discuss it, perhaps we might come up with a better-balanced POV for the article than it currently has, if it is as biased as you say it is...
I am sure that "the Zionists", if by this you mean the Israelis -- there are Zionists elsewhere, after all, and I am not sure that all Israelis are Zionists nowadays -- are "eager & focused & energetic", as you suggest. But others among the rest of us are, too. The Israelis' opponents in the current mess, for example; also an awful lot of folks, likewise in the "pox on both your houses camp" but who don't exactly say that out loud, in the rest of the world, who would like the various angry folks in this particular tiny region simply to get along with one another and stop causing headaches for the rest of us.
So, a better or at least better-balanced version of some section of the article? You write it and post it here, let's discuss it, perhaps we'll post it in the article itself if it will clarify and offer reasonable solutions.
--Kessler 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, what is "Lebanon's case for sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms area"? You say you have seen "much better presentations" of this: if you have, perhaps you would quote them here in "talk", and provide links & citations? I'd be very interested to see them, myself, and I expect others would be interested as well. The article has been amended extensively, recently, to show what appears to be a plausible rationale for the current legal status of Shebaa Farms: if you can formulate some contradictory rationale, or have seen it elsewhere, that would be very interesting to read.
--Kessler 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Possible Tendentious Interlocutor.

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.

[edit] Watershed

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..

I think the watershed and the plentiful supplies of water in the area are important issues, but I've not tracked down a clear and authorative source on this; I'm not sure the farms are a headwater. [1] seems a good quick summary, and the Model United Nations of the University of Chicago reference says the watershed of the region was used to draw a “natural border” between Syria and Lebanon, and did not take into account the land ownership of the residents, who now owned land on both sides of the border. [2] (page 5). Prof. Judith Palmer Harik says "The Shebaa Farms constitute a major reservoir for the water of Mount Hermon," [3], but that could be POV. Rwendland 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425

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)

I think the difficulty is getting from that principle in 425 to an agreed line. Does the Secretary-General's report [4] on the implementation of 425 clarify this: "There seems to be no official record of an international boundary agreement between Lebanon and Syria ... The United Nations stressed ... it was not seeking to establish an international border, as this was a matter for States to undertake in accordance with international law and practice. Rather, the United Nations was requesting the help of the parties and others in the purely technical exercise of identifying a line for the purpose of confirming compliance with resolution 425 (1978). Whatever line the United Nations uses will be without prejudice to future border agreements between the Member States concerned." Rwendland 18:35, 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.

[edit] Resolution 242

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.

The only qualm I have is that it pre-judges the issue by declaring the Shebaa Farms to be captured from Syria. I would prefer from Syria to be removed - especially if this is put forward as the UN position. Other than that, it is a good statement of the position. Herne nz 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If the Farms were indeed captured from Syria, would that not be consistent with NPOV? I don't see the language as being prejudical in any way. Knave75 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Surrounding Villages

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.

Best map I have found is University of Texas. Closest village in the Golan Heights looks to be Majdal Shams, also here, about seven km away. In Israel, looks to be Qiryat Shemona. Straight distance may not tell the whole story, as this is mountain country. Herne nz 04:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

--Epeefleche 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

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.

If you are going to start down the track of explaining why Israel invaded Lebanon, why not go back a step further and explain why the PLO ended up in Lebanon? Why don't we just give a description of every attack and counter attack since 1948? Herne nz 07:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


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.

[edit] Dubious claims

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)

I was confused about the map, but the text refers to another map showing the area in Lebanon. This is claimed to be a forgery - on what authority? The only reference appears to be an American journalist Nancy Soderberg, who is '"off the record". Are there other opinions on this document? Herne nz 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Inspect the area in Google Earth, and you will see that Shebaa Farms is defined by a section of the Lebanese/Syrian border that departs from the natural marker of a ridgeline to loop into cultivated land. If the border followed the ridgeline, Shebaa Farms would be in Lebanon.

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 it, Israel has decided 'territory' really means 'some territory'. Does not make any sense to me and I can't see the relevance - unless of course you are claiming a unanimous Security Council Resolution backed by a later decision for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict really meant they could vacate as little or as much as they liked and the area really is part of Israel. Herne nz

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.

[edit] S Farms. Or C Farms. Whatever

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)

Seems silly to me -- obviously there are different spellings in English, but to include all nineteen seems like overkill, especially when they are all so similar. I'd delete them all. Fufthmin 19:49, 2 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)

I see what you mean. Better to move them then delete them all, I guess. And you're right that it does streamline the intro. Fufthmin 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth placemark for Shebaa Farms is wrong

<?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 believe one thing you are trying to do here is to add range and tilt, altho that doesn't appear to work in the link. It's a little misleading, anyway, as it depends where you stand and which way you look: if you are down the hill looking up, to a farmer the view would look pretty bleak -- while if you are at the top of the hill and looking down, to a ski lodge developer the view would look unpromising -- no kidding, ski lodge development already has been done by the Israelis just south of here, and is planned by the Syrians for just northeast...
It's more objective, I think, to provide simply a flat latitude and longitude and then let users fiddle with that using their own criteria: the article tells them that this is an area 14km by 2.5km, so once there they'll use the software to "tour around" themselves. The coordinates provided currently in the article's link land them pretty much in the center of the Shebaa Farms 14km x 2.5km strip, per the article's map.
The coordinates you suggest, "35.64990707807397,33.25590376667979", appear to indicate land beyond the Shebaa Farms area, moreover, per the article's map anyway [[5]]: looks like that is valley land more near al Ghajar(?)(33|16|20.52|N,35|37|26.20|E) in Lebanon, and Senir (33|14|32.32|N,35|40|39.93|E) in Israel, now, than anything close to Shebaa. I do see what you mean by "odd loop", tho: not a part of Shebaa Farms, perhaps, but added in to the "Golan Heights" area when that was defined later on? If not, the article's map needs re-drawing... definitely very different topography, your "odd loop" land vs. the rest, which certainly is highlands and apparently more "barren" but is near Shebaa. I'm sure the legal stuff cited here must shed some light, on the inclusion or not of that "odd loop"?
--Kessler 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a BBC description which appears to exclude the "odd loop" land:
The 14 farms are named after the village of Shebaa, on the western slopes of Mount Hermon. They are located to the south of the village, at altitudes ranging from 400 to 2,000 metres (1,300 and 6,500 feet). "In focus: Shebaa farms", BBC (Thursday, 25 May, 2000) [6]
The "odd loop" land all is flat valley land at about 700-foot elevations; so the BBC does appear to be describing, as "Shebaa Farms", only the highlands -- which pretty clearly & even dramatically are visible on GoogleEarth, beginning just beyond the road skirting the northeast border of the "odd loop", lands which go abruptly up to about 1,300 feet and then rise gradually northeastward to about 6,500 feet, just as the BBC says. This is also per the article's map. So, no, I believe the "odd loop" must be some later addition, and is not a part of Shebaa Farms... Too far from Shebaa village for farmers there to have claimed them, anyway, against competing claims from towns more nearby the "odd loop", in both Lebanon and Israel... So the article's current georef coordinates land pretty squarely in the middle of the "Shebaa Farms" area as-described by the BBC and I believe should stay.
--Kessler 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFarms formerly fertile/productive?

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)

One cite found in the article ref.s themselves:
(Describing a trip by UN special Middle East envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, in 2000) Roed-Larsen was told that, in addition to the areas occupied in 1978, Israeli forces seized a piece of Lebanese territory during the 1967 Six Day War called the Shebaa Farms, a 25 square kilometer area consisting of 14 farms located south of Shebaa, a Lebanese village on the western slopes of Mount Hermon. Gary C. Gambill. "Syria and the Shebaa Farms Dispute", in Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, volume 3, number 5 (May 2001) [[7]] The MEIB article provides further citations, including Security Council minutes and Beirut Daily Star articles.
I'll put this cite in the article and remove the "citation needed" tag.
Further & more detailed "agronomics" descriptions still much-appreciated, tho -- "14 farms" doesn't say much -- there must be old "travelers' accounts" floating around, somewhere...
--Kessler 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This article in Haaretz indicates that tobacco was one of the major crops. Fufthmin 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian Identity cards

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)

[edit] Land deeds

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)

[edit] clarify legal status of Shebaa farms

Old text:

It was captured by Israel during the Six Day War with Syria, and was officially annexed, as part of the formerly Syrian Golan Heights, in 1981.[8]

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)

[edit] Syrian position

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):

Many people don’t know the issue of Shebaa Farms. They presented the issue of borders to be demarcated several months ago, and we sent them an official answer in writing that we’re ready to demarcate the borders. Shebaa Farms is smaller than this complex in which we are meeting now. The demarcation needs two things legal when one of the countries on both border proves property of these lands, in this case, it goes to the UN and register it, the second is technical relating to engineering works to define border points definitely and finally. Israel now occupies these lands, namely neither Syria nor Lebanon exist there. What is the point of demarcation now? It’s only an Israeli demand… and the work is only against the resistance. It doesn’t harm or benefit neither Syria nor Lebanon. It harms the resistance and serves Israel... so they refused to start demarcating the borders from the north.

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)

[edit] Hizbullah vs Hezbollah

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)


[edit] Israeli Position

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)

[edit] dubious information removed

I have removed the following passage:

The Lebanese refer to the ridge at the northern end of the Shebaa Farms area as the Kafr Shuba Hills. The Israelis refer to the area as Har Dov (Bear Mountain, in Hebrew, named after Captain Dov Rodberg of the IDF who was killed there in 1970), and the Syrians call it Jabel (or Jebel) Rous (Bear Mountain, in Arabic). The area has been known as Shebaa farms only in the last 6 years, named after the ridge which extends into Lebanon, and is east of the Lebanese village of Kafr Shuba.

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

[edit] Note doesn't support claim

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]."

[edit] Any news from the UN yet?

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?

[edit] Subject to Resolution 242

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)

Security Council resolutions are not treaties or conventions. They are binding on all UN members regardless of whether they like it. Your argument is invalid. --Zerotalk 10:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Background (1923-2000)" provides an incorrect French translation

"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

I'm not able to open the document you've linked, and my French isn't great either, but I would tend to agree with your assessment - I believe "des territoires occupés" means "from occupied territories", while "les territoires occupés" means "the occupied territories." Google's translation tool also tends to agree. — George Saliba [talk] 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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. --Zerotalk 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It seems like a lot of detail not especially relevant to the subject at hand. Maybe cut it down to one sentence, if even that. — George Saliba [talk] 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A short French lesson: the article "des" in French can also mean "de+les", i.e. "from the". "Retrait ... des territoires" - means "Withdrawal from the territories", in order to avoid the definite article in such cases, one must say: "Retrait ... de territoires" (cf. "l'acquisition de territoires par la guerre" in the same resolution). To sum it all up, the English text doesn't match its French counterpart. In such cases, according to the UN rules, the language in which the resolution was originally phrased is the valid one. DrorK 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of lead paragraphs, et al

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)

[edit] Geographic position

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)

If you take another look, you will find that the area in question is SE of the ridge and NW of the wadi (valley); the valley is the area in shadow. International borders are generally arranged in accord with gravity; either they are on the tops of ridges (where water will flow one way or the other) or along water courses, where there is an obvious divide between one side and the other. Please look again, before you make any edits. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)