Comments on: The Golan Heights needs your help

By: Sasa

Sasa — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:02:54 +0000

Werner, perhaps you should do a bit of research before you make wild claims like that. Under international law:

“No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognised as legal.”

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4OQtCFexDQYC&lpg=PA102&ots=Crd_LNgAYI&dq=un%20acquisition%20of%20territories%20by%20force&pg=PA102#v=onepage&q=un%20acquisition%20of%20territories%20by%20force&f=false

By: Werner

Werner — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:27:44 +0000

The Golan hights are neither occupied or disputed territory since Syria attact Israel in 1967. Therefore the area became a onquered and under International Law becomes part of the winners country.

By: Jacqueline

Jacqueline — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:42:58 +0000

The Golan Heights are occupied. You can change the term occupied by the term disputed, you cannot change History.

By: Egyptian chronicles: Fragments on The Notes of Naksa : They Are Still Syrian Occupied Golan Heights

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:37:41 +0000

[...] read this post for Syria News Wire in order to see how You can help , I hope that Egyptian and Arab Wikipedians participate in [...]

By: norman

norman — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:13:42 +0000

syria should fight for the Golan if it wants back and that will make it clear to everybody that the Golan is Syrian under international law , it is like having a neighbor who has his fence on your land , if you do not contest his border he becomes the owner of your land that he has with-en his fence.

By: Shadi

Shadi — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:37:23 +0000

This was my entry, including the code used. I would encourage everybody to freely express their views, whatever they may be, by using the link above. I would also strongly suggest users look at the preview before posting to make sure the formatting and spelling etc are correct. *'''Reply to RFC''' The Golan Heights formed a part of Syria since the country's independence in 1946 and until the [[Six-Day War]] of 1967, when it was ''occupied'' by Israeli forces. Since final border settlement of Israel hasn't yet taken place, it can be strongly argued that they remain ''occupied'', using that term . This doesn't change the fact that they are also ''disputed'' (the terms are not mutually exclusive) but gives a fuller context as to how the territory came to be disputed (because the territory was ''occupied'' by Israel and no final settlement has been reached yet). They thus remain ''occupied'' pending resolution of the issue ? [[User:Shades9662|Shadi]] [[[User talk:Shades9662|talk]]] 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)