Talk:Sea of Galilee

Untitled
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

Modern Times

 * 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]]

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.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;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.

=
=================

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)

The history of Sea of Galilee does not begin with the British Mandate, The eastern half of Sea of Galilee has always been Syria together with all of Golan. Check the Ottoman boundary, look at the Syrid Arabids, Aramaeansm, Amorites, Syrian Arabs that lived there, it was always Syrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.136.39 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 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." 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."

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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Bible is 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 appropriate to refer to accounts from the bible. The bible, particularly the gospel of Mark, are eyewitness accounts.- 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 pretending to be 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


 * I agree that we shouldn't word our article in such as way as to presuppose the factuality of the events described in the Bible. But I think you're wrong when you say that a lake would never form waves tall enough to capsize a boat containing 12 men. A 40-knot wind would be described on the Beaufort Scale as a "fresh gale," two whole levels below "storm." Such a wind, blowing over a body with a fetch of 20 km (the length of the Sea of Galilee) and a depth of 10m (half the average depth of Galilee), would produce waves nearly 2m in height. I'm getting this figure from http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/staffpages/csherwood/sedx_equations/RunSPMWave.html, which has a wave height calculator designed for sea water. Waves on freshwater, which is less dense, would rise higher given the same wind speed, depth, and fetch.


 * My 17-foot canoe is built to hold three grown men plus 100kg pounds of cargo; under such lading it has only about 15cm of freeboard. I'm not sure how large a 12-man boat would be, but I'm pretty sure its freeboard would be under a meter, even if it were built to hold a cargo of fish in addition to the dozen fishermen.


 * None of this should be in the article, of course--it's blatant OR. I'm just saying that you should feel free to be skeptical about the supernatural calming of the waves in the story, but the actual existence of boat-swamping waves on Galilee is not implausible at all. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been waves at around the 10ft mark recorded as recent as 1992 in the Jpost on the sea of Galilee. Also a ship wreck from the first centerary of a small fishing boat lends credibility to the fact that boat were wrecked at sea due to weather.

Kinneret Boat. Sea of Galilee, Israel. 8 m long fishing boat found in 1986. Dated to 1st century AD. Excavated by Shelley Wachsmann. Treated with PEG for 14 years before displayed in museum in 2000. Ref. Peter Throckmorton: Culip IVThe Sea Remembers (1987). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.204.165 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Naming convention?
The body of water is named as several things throughout the article with no clear single one being used. Tiberias, Kinneret, and the Sea of Galilee... Is there an official name or at least one that can be stuck to?? Ghostreveries (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a political move to push Syria into this article. There is no doubt that the entire lake is within Israeli territory, including its shores. This is according to the last internationally accepted demarcation from 1923. 79.177.125.65 (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, lots of arguing. But shouldn't the basin include israel?

Jsond (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Drainage Basin
At present, the listed "basin countries" in the article are "Palestine, Syria, Lebanon". Israel has been removed from this list and replaced with Palestine, despite modern Palestine not actually being part of the Galilee basin. I assume this was a malicious political edit, but the article is protected so I can't revert it. Anyone? (the article is out of date in a number of other places but I also can't update due to locked status). Ariehkovler (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy can you tell me on which page this is in the middle east book? Fipplet (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I get home from work tonight will do. (also changed the title of the section)  nableezy  - 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Lebanon should be added aswell, doesnt the Hasbani river connect to the Sea of Galilee?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look here: http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/ispal%20images/water.jpg The Hasbani river connects to the Jordan river and flows into the Sea of Galilee. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this map Syria is not a basin country. Only the Golan heights. Fipplet (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * page 301; jordan river drainage basin, which feeds lake tiberias, Syria, Yarmouk River, northern Israel, occupied Golan, and Lebanon. As to your comment, sources say the Golan is in Syria, so if the Golan is included so is Syria.  nableezy  - 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok it's Syria then. But although this is the wrong venue and the basin question is settled; sources do not say Golan is in Syria, even your own source say it is not and even places it next to Israel. Fipplet (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed this isnt the place for this.  nableezy  - 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Syria categories and links

 * There is no need to expand every article until it explains the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, but it is a bit premature to suggest that this is merely an Israeli Lake. International boundaries are neither essentially nor solely a matter of Israel's domestic jurisdiction. The UN partition plan required the new states to honor the treaty agreements made on their behalf by the mandatory administration, such as the 1923 British and French boundary treaty mentioned in the article. That treaty gave Syria rights to construct a pier, and to navigate and fish the Lake. After the termination of the mandate and the conclusion of the armistice agreements, Israel advised the UN that it had adopted the "clean slate" doctrine with regard to prior treaties. Under that doctrine successor states are still bound by the rules of international law, dispositive or localized treaties (e.g. port rights, fishing rights, demilitarized zones, navigation rights etc.), and boundary treaties.


 * When disputes arise the UN Security Council can legally impose boundary settlements, e.g. Iraq-Kuwait. The 1949 cease fire and armistice lines were established by the United Nations Security Council acting under the auspices of paragraph 39 and 40 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter. That was acknowledged by the representative of Israel, Mr. Eban, during the 340th meeting of the Security Council. It has also been confirmed by the Security Council Report, a project sponsored by the UN Missions of Canada, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. You can select a language to download a pdf of the verbatim record of Mr Eban's remarks here: S/PV.340 or read the "Special Research Report on Security Council Action Under Chapter VII: Myths and Realities, dated 23 June 2008 online. EU Foreign Minister Solana recently suggested that the 4 June 1967 boundaries be imposed on the parties if they fail to reach an agreement on their own.


 * After the armistices were signed, Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149


 * A considerable portion of the shoreline of the lake was included in a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that was established under the Armistice Agreements - pending a final negotiated political settlement. see the map here Prime Minister Ben Gurion unilaterally declared the 1949 Armistice Agreements null and void, evacuated the Arab residents, and asserted Israeli sovereignty over the Demilitarized Zones. The Security Council did not recognize Israeli sovereignty, and decided that the Arab residents were entitled to return to their residences. It held that no person could be transferred across international frontiers, across armistice lines, or within the DMZ without UN authorization under the terms outlined in Security Council resolution 93.


 * UN resolution 242 requires a negotiated (not unilateral) boundary settlement with Syria. The resolution requires withdrawal of the Israeli military from occupied territory to secure and recognized boundaries. harlan (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * you're correct that it may be in Syria following negotiations in the future, and who knows what will happen in 1000 years too, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball.WP:CRYSTAL Amoruso (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is already in Syria today, but there is an occupation that prevents the Syrians from reaching their lake. It doesn't mean its not Syrian. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It never was in Syria (either a 10m gap or a DMZ), it's not in Syria today physically and it's not in Sria according to any International Law. You possibly mean the Golan Heights which is a different issue, despite unsupported claims by Syria's dictator to the contrary. Sorry. Amoruso (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Come on, people. The modern times section is not wiki-fied at all. It's a long section that only covers the period 1909-1924, with extensive quotes from one agreement out of the myriad number that have sought to determine the status of the region over the past number of years, and it doesn't even explain why, at the time, the area was called 'Palestine'. Definitely not comprehensible to a general reader. Too much detail, and it covers too little. I know this topic is contested (and we obviously haven't come to a stable consensus which clearly illustrates both sides, which is why I marked it NPOV). The discussions on this page only serve to further illustrate that fact, but we can do better than this.


 * Nothing you mentioned is an NPOV issue. There have not been any other international agreements that have changed the status of the treaty cited in the article. There is an on-going state of belligerency between the effected parties, but that does not alter their rights or international obligations.


 * There was an on-going argument regarding the connection of Syria with this article, until the text outlining Syria's treaty rights was added. That material is easily verifiable, adequately sourced, and presented in a neutral narrative. The customary rules of international law on succession of States in respect of treaties allow successor states, like Israel, to adopt a clean slate. However, dispositive treaties, navigation treaties, and treaties dealing with boundary regimes are exceptions.
 * If you want to copyedit or add material feel free. But you need to cite a neutrality issue when you add the NPOV template.harlan (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's indeed not NPOV. It says "The Zionist movement pressured the French and British". "These constant demands influenced the negotiators and finally led" to the inclusion of the whole Sea of Galilee..... "The High Commissioner of Palestine, Herbert Samuel, had demanded"... it's still very messed up, but I summarized the provisions. One would think the article is ABOUT that agreement and not about the lake. Amoruso (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The agreement is vital to understanding current issues surrounding it. Unomi (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * how so? Amoruso (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be evident that the treaties surrounding use and access to a body of water are important to an article on such a body of water. Unomi (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you have examples of other bodies of water articles which spell out provisions of old treaties? Amoruso (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This "old treaty" established the international boundary of the State of Syria and those provisions are still in force. BTW, the Suez Canal article cites the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and recites the terms regarding passage of foreign vessels through its Great Bitter Lake in the lede. harlan (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This old treaty has nothing to do with borders - it talks about fishing. It's what we're talking about here. Suez Canal ios about 40 times as long. That's where WP:WEIGHT kicks in. Amoruso (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso, stop your pov pushing, the source says indeed that the The Zionist movement pressured the French and British and that these constant demands influenced the negotiators and finally led to the inclusion of the whole Sea of Galilee. The High Commissioner of Palestine, Herbert Samuel had demanded full control of the lake. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * it's funny how you say "stop your POV pushing" when it's you who insists on using such extreme pov language. Amoruso (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the text is anything, it is pro-israeli, because the original text was even more not to your liking. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be pro-Israeli if it describes the Zionists in antisemitic terms? Amoruso (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What in the text is against-semites? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is reminiscent of antisemitic claims as if Jews exerted political pressure to gain territorial claims in the land of Israel, and it's used repeatedly in 2 sentences. Amoruso (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The truth is that the Zionist movement pressured the negotiators to gain more land and control of water. This is not anti-semitic, this is the truth. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing truthful about it. They didn't have any ability to do any pressure. The Jews were supposed to get the entire Palestine as Jewish national home, but lost Transjordan arbitrarily, lost the north of Litani river, lost the eastern banks of the jordan river along the hejaz railroad, and lost 70% of western Eretz Yisrael as well. Syria ended up with huge territories including the entire Bashan. Amoruso (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wishful thinking is not reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Utterly ridicilous. Amoruso (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

sourced
When I added the text back in June I had sourced it from pages 150 and 130, the sentences from "The Zionist movement" down to the source are sourced from those pages. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Info from blog
Info from blog is not reliable --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. WP:SPS states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  In this instance, the "Water Blog" is the official publication of an NGO that has been in existence since 1999.  Since this is the official publication of a NGO that cites some scientific information, and not someone's personal "diary", it may very well fall into the category of exclusion.  Further research and discussion will need to take place to determine whether or not the NGO and their official publications are some form of WP:RS. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 03:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

geographical and prehistorical details?
where does the Jordan enter and exit? no mention of the various archaeological evidence that has come to light during the dry seasons? --Sreifa (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no information on the age of the sea of Galilee? Some input from geologists would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.101.93.50 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

about the "lowest" lake, what about te Baikal??? see the german version of the article for a small discussion of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.195.18 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Water Supply update and map?
We need a better geography map of the Sea of Galilee at the top of the page. What is there now is mainly a Syria map, showing some features on the east side of the sea, but hardly anything on the west side, like Capernaum. At a minimum the map should show upper and lower Galilee, and other major points like mount Hermon to the north with the sources of the Jordan that feed into the sea, and the Jordan river outflow to the south. —Telpardec TALK  14:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Kinneret Water Level" chart in the Water Use section needs updating - it only goes to April 2010. See latest chart at Save the Kinneret. Can anyone help with this? —Telpardec TALK  14:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just updated it with data from 2004 until Feb 2012. I can try to keep updating this after each season (i.e. after each peak on the graph). Rendsburg (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Again, Thanks. —Telpardec TALK  23:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. Thanks for the update, especially going back further in time to the point the level went below the upper red line and has been below ever since. If you can't update it a some future point, leave a message here with info on source(s), or whatever someone else would need to know to make an updated version.

Sea hydraulics
Some explanation of how a sea that is 700 ft. below sea level 'drains' in to the ocean and remains fresh water would be nice. JMichaelRyan (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC) James Michael Ryan

Map
While there has been some discussion about it, what this article lacks - IMO - is a map placing it somewhere. All we have now is close-ups, but a map of the middle east with the lake would help put it into place. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Risk of becoming irreversibly salinated
Someone should reword this, and I wonder about the reliability of this. Saline water is more dense then fresh, and will tend to settle out to the deeper depths. In a continuous body of water like a sea there will be a constant diffusion of salt into the fresh water, which would be increased by any mixing of the two layers (ie by wind and agitation of the water). If the lake is as it was described, with a salt water source (spring)providing pressure from the bottom, and fresh water flowing in at the top, then yes drawing the water level down too much will in fact increase the amount of salt water flowing from the bottom spring. Over time, this absolutely could lead to an increased salinity at all levels of the lake. The major error here is that in no sense would this process be irreversible. If water use from the lake was cut, the level would build up again slowing the influx of water from the bottom spring. With freshwater continuing to be supplied at the same level as it always is (ie whatever flows into the lake) the salinity would begin to decrease and over time restore itself to the level where it would be had no water been taken.

I guess it's the use of "irreversible" that I find inappropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.60.202 (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sky news translated only half of dangers (The algee is called "blue algee" in http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=13271 ), As can bee seen here the irreversible bit is caused by a "toxic algee grouth" ,salinity incress and pollution damage. אגם הכינרת : מליחות הכינרת and אגם הכינרת : תהליכי זיהום Should be added in the page to explain the process 5.144.60.231 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sea of Galilee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130313005012/http://ca.news.yahoo.com/israel-unveils-hiking-trail-galilee-christian-pilgrims-20110415-093756-814.html to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/israel-unveils-hiking-trail-galilee-christian-pilgrims-20110415-093756-814.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sea of Galilee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421094709/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080909201308/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/29/00039450.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/29/00039450.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Sea of Galilee, is it considered a "Large" Lake, or a "Small" Lake?
I have seen small lakes in Colorado Springs, such as "Prospect Lake," but by that standard, the Sea of Galilee is considered a large lake. On the other hand, when compared to Lake Tahoe in Nevada, the Sea of Galilee would be considered a small lake. The question is, how should we designate the lake size here, in Israel? I say that it should be judged by lake sizes here in the region (e.g. Israel, Lebanon and Jordan). Can we get a consensus on this, say from contributing editors like User:Zero0000, User:Debresser, User:Avraham and others?Davidbena (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest we don't call it large or small, but just a lake. The dimensions immediately follow so readers will know how big it is. Zerotalk 00:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great. I agree.Davidbena (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit made – before I noticed this thread – and seems to be supported by consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 - Avi (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends, where are you from. In Canada or Sweden this lake is not much more that a pond. In Germany, where I live, we have some larger lakes, but Sea of Galilee would be one of the largest, rank no. 3 I think. And in Israel, where tehy have only the Mediterranian Sea in the West, the Red Sea in the deep South, these big waters were called "sea" but not lake with reason. As I see it the Lake Sea of Galilee is the only significant fresh water lake in Israel/ Palestine. (And the Dead Sea in the south is salty and large as a sea.).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sea of Galilee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203051354/http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/Lake.asp?LakeID=ASI-09 to http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/Lake.asp?LakeID=ASI-09
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508060657/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sea-Of-Galilee-In-Israel-Is-Facing-Disaster-Says-Friends-Of-The-Earth-Prompting-Government-Campaign/Article/200905115274946 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sea-Of-Galilee-In-Israel-Is-Facing-Disaster-Says-Friends-Of-The-Earth-Prompting-Government-Campaign/Article/200905115274946
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203051354/http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/Lake.asp?LakeID=ASI-09 to http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/Lake.asp?LakeID=ASI-09

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please fix headers, minus signs, repeated paratheticals per MOS

 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Which part of the shore did Syria control from 1949-1967?
Per the Modern Era section (bold mine):

"Under the 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Syria, Syria occupied the northeast shoreline of the Sea of Galilee."

I'm having trouble reconciling this with the maps of the 1949 armistice lines and adjacent DMZ (de-militarized zone). As far as I can tell from available maps, the 1949 armistice lines approached but never actually reached the shoreline of the Sea of Galilee…



Per Golan Heights (bold emphasis mine)…

"While negotiating the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Israel called for the removal of all Syrian forces from the former Palestine territory. Syria refused, insisting on an armistice line based not on the 1923 international border but on the military status quo. The result was a compromise. Under the terms of an armistice signed on 20 July 1949, Syrian forces were to withdraw east of the old Palestine-Syria boundary. Israeli forces were to refrain from entering the evacuated areas, which would become a demilitarised zone, 'from which the armed forces of both Parties shall be totally excluded, and in which no activities by military or paramilitary forces shall be permitted.' Accordingly, major parts of the armistice lines departed from the 1923 boundary and protruded into Israel. There were three distinct, non-contiguous enclaves—in the extreme northeast to the west of Banias, on the west bank of the Jordan River near Lake Hula, and the eastern-southeastern shores of the Sea of Galilee extending out to Hamat Gader, consisting of 66.5 square kilometres (25.7 sq mi) of land lying between the 1949 armistice line and the 1923 boundary, forming the demilitarised zone."

In other words, as I read that section, the part of the lake where Syria had de facto access between 1949 and 1967 was the southeastern shoreline (approximately 3-6 o'clock) of the lake—not the northeastern shoreline.

On the other hand, the Jewish Virtual Library article on the line of June 4, 1967 (immediately prior to the Six-Day War) says (bold mine)…

"In a letter to the author dated June 12, 1999, Professor Brawer outlined his understanding of key points along the line of June 4, 1967 as follows: […] The Syrians fully controlled the northeastern shore of Lake Kinneret and the adjacent waters of the lake;' within the southern sector of the demilitarized zone Syria controlled small parcels of land 'north of the former village [of] al-Nuqeib, a small area near the village [of] Kafr Hareb and an area west of Upper Khirbet al-Tawafiq' as well as al-Hamma and the entire Yarmouk salient, 'up to about three kilometers of the Israeli village [of] Shaar Hagolan.'"

So we've got some sources which say Syria had de facto control of the northeastern shoreline of the lake from 1949-1967, and others that say Syria had de facto control of the southeastern part of the shoreline in those years. Any other sources that can help resolve these ambiguities? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 16:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Lake Tiberias"
Some sources call this "Lake Tiberias". Shouldn't that be mentioned in the intro? I found that name on recent maps of Israel and of Syria at the Perry-Castaneda Map Collection. This is not a political question; it has nothing to do with who "owns" the lake; it is a question about how to deal with multiple names in use. Zaslav (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested Edit due to extended protection
At present, the listed "basin countries" in the article are "Palestine, Syria, Lebanon". Israel has been removed from this list and replaced with Palestine, despite modern Palestine not actually being part of the Galilee basin. I assume this was a malicious political edit, but the article is protected. Ariehkovler (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The edit was made by an anonymous editor without explanation a mere few hours before protection was instituted and apparently missed in the cleanup.  Their other changes form Israel to Palestine have already been reverted.  I have manually reverted the change and if any editor has reason for changing it back, they may feel free to open a discussion below. This is taken to help maintain compliance with WP:ARBPIA Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2020
Hi, please add a link by changing

The Sea of Galilee (יָם כִּנֶּרֶת, Judeo-Aramaic: יַמּא דטבריא, גִּנֵּיסַר, بحيرة طبريا), Lake Tiberias, Kinneret or Kinnereth, is a freshwater lake in Israel. It is the lowest freshwater lake on Earth and the second-lowest lake in the world (after the Dead Sea, a saltwater lake), at levels between 215 m and 209 m below sea level. It is approximately 53 km in circumference, about 21 km long, and 13 km wide. Its area is 166.7 km2 at its fullest, and its maximum depth is approximately 43 m (141 feet). The lake is fed partly by underground springs, but its main source is the Jordan River, which flows through it from north to south.

into

The Sea of Galilee (יָם כִּנֶּרֶת, Judeo-Aramaic: יַמּא דטבריא, גִּנֵּיסַר, بحيرة طبريا), Lake Tiberias, Kinneret or Kinnereth, is a freshwater lake in Israel. It is the lowest freshwater lake on Earth and the second-lowest lake in the world (after the Dead Sea, a saltwater lake), at levels between 215 m and 209 m below sea level. It is approximately 53 km in circumference, about 21 km long, and 13 km wide. Its area is 166.7 km2 at its fullest, and its maximum depth is approximately 43 m (141 feet). The lake is fed partly by underground springs, but its main source is the Jordan River, which flows through it from north to south, leaving at Degania Dam.

(The change is at the very end, similar request for article Jordan River, thx) Mws.richter &hArr; bla, бла... 07:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Water level info confusing (possibly wrong?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee#Water_level

The entry states that "Since the beginning of the 2018-19 rainy season, the Sea of Galilee has risen considerably. From being near the ecologically dangerous lower black line of -208.9 m, [...]"

while 208.9 m BSL is apparently the UPPER limit: "The upper red line, 208.9 m below sea level (BSL), where facilities on the shore start being flooded."

So unless the "-208.9 m" stands for something else than "208.9 m below sea level (BSL)", there is a mistake in the text. If the text is correct, a clarification might be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.177.131.180 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information in article
Citing an English piece of news, the article says, falsely, that “ In Hebrew, there is no distinction between the words "sea" and "lake", since the word yam (הים) is used to describe any large and wide body of water.[10]” As a native Hebrew speaker: this is all incorrect, we have a different word for lake and yam means simple sea. The whole sentence should simply be removed as it is also contradictory with what is written two sentences before it.147.161.12.213 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. The source doesn't even say that. Zerotalk 05:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit
i am requesting that the following be added to the article:

In 2023, Israel was using desalination to replenish the sea's water supply.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If the people in power aren't going to respond, then why is the page even locked? Why can't I just add the info myself? If the mods are going to keep a page locked, the least they could do is explain why they haven't edited the article as I requested. I don't understand why they have not responded to my comment. Reuters is an extremely reliable source. What's with the holdup? SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Misleading link
In the section on Archaeology, please change "including Irenaeus" to "including Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre".

It currently mentions an inscription that mentions Irenaeus, and links to the page on Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202 CE), but the source that is linked at the end of the paragraph implies that the inscription is talking about Irenaeus of Tyre, a Nestorian bishop who lived in the fifth century (who does not currently have a wiki page). The link should be removed and it should be clarified that it is Irenaeus of Tyre. OdonianOnUrras (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Why can't people swim in the sea of galilee
The sea of galilee 41.223.73.252 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)