Talk:Sea of Galilee

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

WikiProject Oceans

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of oceans, seas, and bays. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating 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 the following WikiProjects:
Version 0.5 (Rated Start-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Theres barely any mention of Palestinians in the opening. "Israelites love them". This makes me sick. Palestinian blood fertilizes that land, and it's not a cute tourist spot for white western thill seekers to get a tan. Its a stolen land, with foreign settlers living on it. It's a warzone.

After the Jewish revolt, the area was continuously settled, primarily by Palestinian Arabs.

  1. What Jewish revolt? We need context.
  2. Why is the area primarily settled by Palestinian Arabs? What happened to the Jews? -- Zoe

I removed the sentence. There were two Jewish revolts: in 70, which led to the destruction of the Temple, and 132-135 (Bar Kochba), which destroye any plans for regaining Jewish sovereignty. Nevertheless, Jews continued living in the country, particularly in the area around the Sea of Galilee. In fact, the Mishnah and later the Jerusalem Talmud were written there in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Arab conquest was in the seventh century, so it is incorrect to assume that Arabs predominated there prior to that. If anything, the sentence is just an attempt at politicizing. Danny

Contents

[edit] Modern Times BOOGAH BOOGAF RET

In 1923 an agreement between Britain and France established the border between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria and put the entire lake area, including a 10-meter wide strip along the northeastern shore, within the territory of Palestine. From 1948 to 1967, the lake's northeastern shore was occupied by Syria, which captured it in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The 1947 UN Partition Plan put this territory area inside the Jewish state, but it wasn't until 1967, as a result of the Six Day War, that the entire Sea of Galilee came under Israeli control.

Someone please check this for accuracy. It was difficult to decipher what this paragraph was saying, but this is the best I could make out of what was there. Cbarbry 06:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This source seems to confirm it. It's an article published by the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, and it appeared in a print magazine before it was published online. I see no reason why the CAABU would want to put out false info on Anglo-French treaties, so I am assuming it is accurate. {{user:Fishal|Fishal]]

[edit] Syria?

Read the article, please.

The border was re-drawn so that both sides of the Jordan river and the whole of the Sea of Galilee, including a 10-meter wide strip along the northeastern shore, were made a part of Palestine[1] (http://www.caabu.org/press/focus/gee.html). The 1947 UN Partition Plan put this territory area inside the Jewish state.

Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Syria occupied the north-eastern shore in 1948 and still claims it. Officially, the north-eastern shore is part of the Golan Heights. As per consensus on that article, all geography categories were included.Yuber(talk) 04:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it was Syrian occupied land, not Israeli occupied. Please stop inserting the opposite, it can't possibly be part of the "occupied" Golan Heights, since it was never legally part of Syria to begin with. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Just as the Israeli-occupied golan heights are listed under Geography of Syria, so must Lake tiberias be. Putting occupied in scare quotes isn't appreciated either, thanks.Yuber(talk) 05:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense; the Sea of Galilee isn't in the Golan Heights, there is no "Syrian part of it", and isn't occupied any more, though Syria occupied part of it for almost 30 years. As for the Golan Heights, they are annexed, which makes their "occupied" status a matter of controversy. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, the top section deals with Geography; as such, it doesn't discuss anyone's claim to the Sea. The last section deals with politics. Please try to keep relevant information in relevant spots, rather than simply inserting POV as prominently as you possibly can. Remember, the purpose here is to write a NPOV encyclopedia, not forward your political agenda. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your political agenda is already on the top by saying that it is "Israel's largest freshwater lake" with no mention of Syria.Yuber(talk) 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Please try to recall that I didn't write this article. Now, the fact that it is Israel's largest freshwater lake is a geographical fact, is it not? However, Syria's claim is a purely political one. I urge you again to show good faith by reverting yourself in order to make changes based on their value to the article, rather than on promoting your political position. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not denying that it is Israel's largest freshwater lake, that is an indisputable fact. What I am saying is that Syria also claims the northeastern portion of the lake and that according to the map on this page and maps by the CIA the northeastern portion of lake is in the occupied Golan Heights.Yuber(talk) 23:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Israel only has cease fire or armistice lines in this region. Without a peace treaty there's no reason to conclude that it is Israel's lake. It didn't belong to the French, British, League of Nations, or the UN. The Hague Convention took effect in 1910. It legally precluded the occupying powers - including the Mandates - from expropriating occupied territory. --Harlan

And the article already describes that claim clearly, and always has, in the long section outlining various political claims to the territory. Again, the opening section discusses geographical fact, the bottom section discusses political claims. For some reason you have felt the need to take one specific claim from the political section on bottom and insert it up top, in basically the first section. This will look very bad for you when these edits are inevitable examined during an RfC or RfAR, as they demonstrate a continuing pattern of POV editing and a preference for obstructionism and revert-warring over NPOV editing. I urge you to show a break from this pattern, and demonstrate a new regard for the NPOV policy on both this article and others like Jizyah. I'm telling you this for the good of Wikipedia, in a desire to help you become a positive contributor, and in a desire to help you avoid future conflict and potential sanctions. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what Jayjg wrote (except the typos). BTW, what Syria claims deserves another article. Read "The Greater Syria: a History of Ambition" an old (1985 I think) book by Daniel Pipes. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to fix the typos. :-) And it is hard to understand what value the "it belongs up here" revert comment added, especially when there was nothing on the Talk: page that substantiated that. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I dont really care to read any of Daniel Pipe's bullshit, so let's focus on the fact that the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee is in the Golan Heights, okay?Yuber(talk) 02:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Instead, let's focus on why you insist on putting political POV up front in a section that is purely geographical. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Saying it's Israel's largest freshwater lake with no mention of Syria is not purely geographical and you know this. Yuber(talk) 05:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is and you know it. In any event, inserting your inaccurate POV at the top of the article can't help, regardless of your objections to what is already there. Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Daniel Pipes is one of your sources - tell me it isn't so! You have to stop making believe that you are an unbiased source of information - this is getting to be funny. Anything to do with Israel is so slanted in wikipedia that a person starts to think that this may be the entire purpose of the entire site.

[edit] ========================================================================

The whole of the Galilee panhandle was part of Syria until it was annexed into the newly formed British Mandate for Palestine. In the early 1800s, under Ottoman control, the Districts of Acre and Nablus were created, and added as subdivisions (sanjaks) to the Ottoman Province of Syria.

In 1920, France created the modern state of "Lebanon" by annexing onto the Turkish Vilayet of Beirut Syria three Sanjaks (districts). They were taken from the Turkish Vilayet of Damascus Syria -- namedly Tripoli and the north, Sidon and the south, and the Bekaa valley in the east. Up until that time the Vilayet of Beirut had governed the Sanjak of Nablus (from Jaffa to Jenin), and the Sanjak of Acre (from Jenin to Naqura). "Syrians", or whatever they were called, had been fishing this lake for centuries before there was any dispute over the Golan.

Y-chromosome studies indicate that many Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Jews share a common male ancestor (within the last 1300 years). One study concluded that "Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based on cultural and religious, but not genetic, differences." harlan 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golan status

The Golan Heights are simply not part of Israel, since Israel has not formally annexed them. From Golan Heights#Current status:

When Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was asked in the Knesset why he was risking international criticism for this annexation, he replied "You use the word annexation, but I am not using it."[1] The governmental Jewish Agency for Israel states that "Although reported as a annexation, it is not: the Golan Heights are not declared to be Israeli territory."[2]

This is not to say that they're part of Syria either. Accordingly I have put that the Sea of Galilee is "between Israel and the Golan Heights". Perhaps this could be made even more neutral with a phrase such as "Israel proper" or somesuch. —Ashley Y 08:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not let politics cloud sensible and plain writing. The Sea of Galilee is Israel's largest freshwater lake. Israel completely controls it, as it always has, even during the time Syria occupied part of the shoreline. Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of control, it's a matter of location. There, I've put in a note for its location that doesn't claim the lake itself is not Israel. —Ashley Y 18:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
there are two maps in the article clearly showing the location. Putting golan heights in lead sentence seems confusing and giving it undue weight. It's also not physically accurate, there's a narrow line between the geological golan heights and the kineret, so it doesn't border it, nor did it according to the 1947 partition plan. In other words, Kineret has nothing to do with Golan Heights... it's two different things. It's bad enough golan heights article is under attack, this place is just Israel according also to all international law spheres (the International Law doesn't put the sea shore of the lake in Syria NOR does it border with the golan - According to international law line, Israel should control the eastern shore completely). Amoruso 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. —Ashley Y 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE HILLY PLEATU OVERLOOKING THIS SEA AND JORDAN RIVER????????????????????????????????????

[edit] panorama

wow the panorama is neat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.215.201 (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible is not a reliable source

When referencing a source of information it is important that those sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Questionable sources are those that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Therefore it is not appropriate to refer to accounts from the bible. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this: Due to its low-lying position in the rift valley, surrounded by hills, the sea is prone to sudden violent storms; hence the New Testament account of Jesus calming the storm. It is still noted, as in New Testament times, for its rich fish stocks.

This paragraph is a thinly-veiled attempt at getting that message out there! Problem is, the calming of the sea story was copied from the Jonah account almost verbatim and therefore nullifies the Jesus version. Storms may arise often but on a lake you aren't going to have waves tall enough to capsize a boat containing 12 men.

Mark 4:35-39 1. Jesus was in a boat 2. A crew of several men were with Jesus 3. A fierce storm came upon them 4. The storm was so intense that it threatened to capsize the boat 5. Jesus was asleep while the storm was raging 6. The crew was afraid 7. The crew woke Jesus for help 8. The sea grew calm miraculously after Jesus spoke to it 9. Once the sea had grown calm, the crew members grew terrified

Jonah 1:4-6, 15 1. Jonah was in a boat 2. A crew of several men were with Jonah 3. A fierce storm came upon them 4. The storm was so intense that it threatened to capsize the boat 5. Jonah was asleep while the storm was raging 6. The crew was afraid 7. The crew woke Jonah for help 8. The sea grew calm miraculously after Jonah was thrown into it 9. Once the sea had grown calm, the crew members grew terrified


Please have someone remove this blatant and erroneous attempt at adding credibility to the Bible myths. Thanks, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.36.165 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


This blatant Christian editing has to stop! This whole section must be removed or rewritten as there is NO proof a Jesus ever lived much less one who violated the laws of physics. The gospels are unreliable historically and all stem from Mark's version which was a fictional work based on previous stories (as shown above).

Much of the ministry of Jesus occurred on the shores of Lake Galilee. In those days, there was a continuous ribbon development of settlements and villages around the lake and plenty of trade and ferrying by boat. The Synoptic gospels of Mark (1:14-20), Matthew (4:18-22), and Luke (5:1-11) describe how Jesus recruited four of his apostles from the shores of Lake Galilee: the fishermen Simon and his brother Andrew and the brothers John and James. One of Jesus' famous teaching episodes, the Sermon on the Mount, was given on a hill overlooking the lake while many of his miracles were also recorded to occur here including his walking on water, calming a storm, and his feeding five thousand people (in Tabgha). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.36.165 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syria and Lebanon Retained Rights on Lakes and Duty Free Use of Pier On Tiberias

I'm adding the key provisos from this under modern times, and removing the comment that the 1947 partition plan put this area in the Jewish state. GA RES 181 never put anything anywhere, because it never entered into force. It stipulated that the new states were to observe the existing conventions and treaties signed by the mandatory administration. Israel has said it does not inheret treaties signed by Great Britain as the mandatory and views this, and the similar 1926 Treaty on Good Neighborly Relations as 'defunct'. From time to time it has also stated that GA Res 181 is 'null and void'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlan wilkerson (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/29/00039450.pdf No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES * CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ. PARIS MARCH 7, 1923, PAGE 7]:

The Government of Palestine or persons authorised by the said Government shall have the right to build a dam to raise the level of the waters of Lakes Huleh and Tiberias above their normal level, on condition that they pay fair compensation to the owners and occupiers of the lands which will thus be flooded. Any dispute arising between the said Government and the persons so authorised on the one hand, and the owners and occupiers of the land on the other hand, shall be finally settled by a commission consisting of four members, each of the two mandatory Powers nominating two of the members of such commission. Any existing rights over the use of the waters of the Jordan by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired. It is understood that the readjustment of the frontier of Syria northwards between Semakh and El Hammé leaves to Syria the railway as far as Semakh, where the railway station shall be for the joint use of the two countries, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the commission provided for in article 5 of the convention of the 23rd December 1920. The Government of Syria shall have the right to erect a new pier at Semakh on Lake Tiberias or to have joint use of the existing pier, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the above-mentioned commission. The extraterritoriality of the said section of the railway (up to but not including Semakh Station), which by reason of the said readjustment is now in Palestine, and the rights of the Syrian Government and of its technical agents to full and free access for all railway purposes, including the policing of that section, are recognised. Persons or goods passing between the existing landing-stage or any future landing-stages on the Lake of Tiberias and Semakh Station shall not by reason of the mere fact that they must cross the territory of Palestine be deemed persons or goods entering Palestine for the purpose of Customs or other regulations, and the right of the Syrian Government and their agents to access to the said landing-stages is recognised. The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes. It is hereby agreed that the abovf is the final report of the commission in respect of the frontier from the Mediterranean to El Hammé only, and that the British Government shall be free to reopen the question of readjusting the frontier between Banias and Metallah on such terms as may be agreed between the two mandatory Powers with a view of making the north road between these two villages the final frontier. It is agreed that the frontier, as delimited on the ground by the commission, is shown in red on the attached maps, which are signed by the members of the commission. Signed on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's Government : S. F. NEWCOMBE, February 3, 1922. Lieutenant-Colonel, R.E. N° 565 harlan (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo