Talk:1982 Lebanon War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Lebanon (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article 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.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article 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.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article 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.
 
WikiProject Syria (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article 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.
 

Make Yasser Arafat a linktext[edit]

I know everyone's busy bickering, but could we still try to maintain the kind of informative content and hyperlinked nature that make Wikipedia worth bothering with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.234.240 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Non POV-neutral[edit]

Most importantly, the title of this page is completely Israelo-centric. It should be reverted to "Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon". From the POV of Lebanon's people or any other people in the world except Israel's tiny population, the agency and participation of Israel in the war are of central, not-to-be-ignored importance. Supercarpenter (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is the worst I've ever read on Wikipedia. Not one mention of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israel. All "facts" are attributed to commentators and opinions. The ostensible "casus belli" was rocket attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.220.67 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I normally dont make too much fuss about POV/NPOV, but this is pushing it. Whoever wrote this obviously has a deepseated hatred of Israel and a desire to believe and cause others to believe that they are simply a bunch of terrorists. I'm slightly surprised the author didn't mention that Jews make bread with the blood of arab children. Jamesg 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Jamesg, this article is way over the line in places. I'm considering reporting it to be put as disputed neutrality. Rudy Breteler 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is far from perfect and could do with significantly more substantiation of the facts and figures it presents, but I don't detect any systematic bias towards either side. Tchicherine 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel attacked Lebanon unprovoked with no explanation given. It is widely recognized among scholars studying the war that Israel's invasion was merely a response to the fact that Lebanon elected Hamas in a democratic election, something that Israel did not want. The U.N repeatedly passed security council resolutions asking Israel to pull its troops out of Lebanon but the U.S vetoed them. The general assembly voted 183-3 telling Israel to get out of Lebanon, Israel did not listen. Making this article not look anti-Israeli would be like making the U.S invasion of Iraq look pro-U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talkcontribs) 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

James and RudyB, How is this pushing it? This is the truth and everything has a reference. To top it off Im Lebanese, my parents are Lebanese we grew up in this war. Please dont start with the Anti Israel thing or Anti Jews, this article is not intended to attack Jews or Israelis. If you are used to attacking other ethnic groups or religions we have had enough of being attacked we dont attack others. Deep seated hatred of Israel? Are you serious using that excuse again? This is the truth, why is it you find the truth to be anti Israel? Is it because maybe Israel's actions during these times (1982 war) were less than flattering? People world wide and nations have made mistakes, suck it up and stop it with this sympathy card you like to use. Germany admitted it made a mistake, America admitted it made a mistake in Vietnam, and Israel made a mistake with invasion. Simple, we are not using this article to air out dirty laundry. Everything is factual and referenced. Rudy report it, its all referenced, we all know who really runs wikipedia...so manipulation of the truth will always work for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.27 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

and James you made sure to capitalize the word Jews, why dont you capitalize the word Arabs, since it represents an ethnicity, a people. Or are they not people in your eyes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.27 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it pushing it? Maybe because its "sources" are Bennie Morris and Noam Chomsky, who once said (at Brandeis University of all places) that any action of Hamas against Israel is morally acceptable because anything is permitted in a revolution. And the opinions of these two are written as facts instead of being credited as the opinions of fringe theorists. While the morality of this invasion is questionable, it is not the equivalent of the American invasion of Iraq, PlasticJesus341, because Iraq did not attack Israel (whereas the PLO was launching rockets) or assassinate American officials. Encyclopedia entries really need to be less biased. Present the facts and let the reader come to conclusions or present opinions as just that - opinions. The truth is that there's a lot about the massacres at Sabra and Shatila that's not well understood (despite Arik Sharon's resigning afterward). This entry made it sound like the Israelis facilitated the massacre instead of, the more likely (although also reprehensible) situation that the Israelis didn't do everything they could have to stop the massacres. Blame the Phalangists at least as much as you blame the IDF. 98.207.115.54 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)byronicgyro

Noam Chomsky is not a fringe source. He is the eight most cited scholar in history. A lot of his books are international best sellers. He is the Einstein of Linguistics. This is hardly the resume of a fringe theorist. He does not think Hamas's terrorism is justified because they haven't proven that it is morally or tactically necessary. In any event Hamas's terrorism is not terrorism according to the UN Convention on International Terrorism. Lebanon has NEVER invaded any country. Israel has invaded Lebanon 4 times in the last thirty years alone. The so called rocket attacks are a joke. In this case, they didn't even exist. Israel tried to provoke them by bombing Southern Lebanon and when it didn't happen, invaded anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Chomsky is cited once, Morris twice. It also cites Reagan, Kissinger and Thomas Friedman. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the entry says that Rafael Eitan had a "famous saying 'Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal. I don't know, we need to screw the PLO.'" I find it curious that for such a "famous" saying, the only source is a 2008 Asia Times article. Having searched further, I've found no other evidence that Eitan said anything of the sort. This entry is full of this sort of flimsy evidence and Wikipedia needs to step in and insist on its usually higher standards. 98.207.115.54 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)byronicgyro


The basic premise of this war was-1. A civil war between the majority arab population of lebanon, the PLO, Arab States versus some "Christian" forces. This is so absurd. Christians fighting makes them not Christians.(Sermon on the Mount) The Israelis then attacked Lebanon, outright aggression. They preceded to do so three more times in the next 30 years.


I must say that I too feel this article is very much unbalanced. This is expressed in several manners: - The sources used: The article uses almost exclusively historians with critical views on Israel, such as Morris and Shlaim. This doesn't mean that their views aren't legitimate, but there's room to show other views. - Confusing facts with unbased facts and opinions: For example, stating that the PLO didn't hit Israeli towns because they missed on purpose or that Israel was looking for a casus belli (Based on Ball, also a strong critic of Israel). Infact, the mere fact that the headline says "Israel's Casus Belli" Already shows that the article has chosen a non-neutral POV. - Ragarding Chomsky - while indeed a respected Academic, he's not a Historian and he's clearly not a neutral source. I don't see any reason to base a historical article about a war on the words of a linguistic, just like I wouldn't use a military general as a source for a linguistics article. - I must say I'm also not convinced in the historical knowledge of some of the people who've claimed this article is balanced. It starts with the article itself, which ignores the bombardment of Northern Israel on July 4th, the Syrian attacks on Israeli forces that predated mole-cricket 19 despite Begin's requests for them to avoid fighting, the huge increase in Syrian presence in Lebanon in the year prior to the war (mostly SAM batteries) and many other historical events. And it continues with people in here talking about Hamas (which was never in Lebanon and didn't even exist at the time) or stating that Lebanon never invaded Israel (it did, in May of 1948, not to mention dozens of smaller attacks by Lebanese militias, usually against civilians).

In conclusion, this article is far from being neutral, calling "facts" for what isn't a fact and ignoring real and proven facts in order to show Israel as the aggressor.Gal Kr (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLA patch.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SLA patch.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article displays a clear anti-Israel bias.[edit]

As an example, the sections on the causes of the war itself are clearly biased in favor of the PLO and against Israel. This article fails to grasp that the 1982 war was clearly a continuation of the 1978 Operation Litani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

which in itself was a clear continuation of the 1975 attempt at Israeli annexation up to the Litani...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pls provide justification(s) that the 1982 war was a continuation of the 1978 and 1975 war/attempts or whatever you call it. Speculative claims like these are unconstructive. Guppywarrior (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if it seems anti-Israel but you may see how it is hard to make the event not look anti-israeli because the attack on Lebanon was unwarranted, and unprovoked. The U.N numerous times would have passed security resolutions ordering Israel to stop their aggression immediately has the U.S not repeatedly vetoed any resolution that was put on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talkcontribs) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And the U.N. is the absolute moral authority in your world? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't call them the Useless Nations for nothing. And who do you thing built those ghettofied refugee camps?--98.114.134.238 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Casus Belli and the Assassination[edit]

I've edited these and will put them together since the assassination was the casus belli. SummerOne (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

assassination attempt....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Woops - that's what I meant as my edit shows! - SummerOne (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Jewish Virtual Library.org is not a reliable source[edit]

I deleted a sentence that said that the Palestinians were solely responsible for breaking the ceasefire, and killed many Israelis in unprovoked attacks. The sentence was sourced with some website called jewishvirtuallibrary.org, an extremely pro-Israeli website with no credibility. Do not try to re-add this sentence if you are going to use this source again, use a different source please.PlasticJesus341 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the JVL being unreliable. Was there a consensus about this at WP:RS? Yes, it is generally pro-Israeli, but that doesn't necessary mean they're not reliable. This particular article was written by Mitchell Bard, who is a scholar, even if a controversial one. Also, the article didn't say the Palestinians were solely responsible for breaking the ceasefire, and qualifies the charges as Israeli one, not as facts. This article could use better sourcing for sure (I'll do that when I have more time), but I don't think blanket removal of this paragraph is necessary. -- Nudve (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read some of the other things on that site, and most of the information is either entirely misleading or just plain false. The source is entirely unreliable, just take a look at their justification for different examples of Israeli aggresion.PlasticJesus341 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
commenting due to question raised at WP:RSN - the JVL is a reliable tertiary source. Most of its articles are written by noted experts and accademics. This is not to say that every fact in every article within the JVL is uncontested or accurate, but we must remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth. If something stated in an article hosted on the JVL is disputed, we can note this fact. We can (and should) discuss what the articles at the JVL say, and what other reliable sources say. I would agree that the JVL has a distinct pro-israeli bias, but having a bias does not make something unreliable. It simply means that only one viewpoint is represented. We can discuss and cite what other sources say for other, contrasting, viewpoints. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm also arriving here as a result of seeing the RSN, where I've commented. The JVL does a good job with some of it's articles - but then so did David Irving do a good job with some of his work. PRtalk 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the JVL is generally a reliable source - as Blueboar notes, if there is a particular fact that is disputed it should be corroborated, but cites to the JVL are not suspect of themselves. To PR - I think its inappropriate, as a matter of polite interaction, to compare the Jewish library project to a Holocaust denier. I'm sure you didn't mean to be insulting, but it comes across that way. More care with that sort of thing makes collaborating smoother for everyone. Avruch T 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, no one has raised any specific issue concerning this particular JVL article, and consensus seems to be that it's not generally unreliable, so I'll reintroduce that info. -- Nudve (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I did come here after you popped in to the Israeli Settlement discussion Nudve (I'll be honest about that as I seem to have become a magnet for slightly odd "stalker" accusations recently - but I am doing it in a collaborative spirit in a bid to clarify an issue of fact. I actually try to avoid becoming entangled with editors I have problems with, which is why I'm always a bit puzzled when they accuse me of it. And not that I count you among those, btw). Anyway I have no particular thoughts on the reliability of this website - I would point out however that, in respect of the ceasefire issue, I've always understood that the PLO did more or less observe it from 1981-1982, so was a little puzzled to see that this source seems so definitive about the fact that they were in regular breach. A quick bit of google searching brought this Ynet article and this CNN.com piece, which appear to back that interpretation. I also dug up this piece on the Rand website, which explicitly claims that Reagan's envoy Philip Habib ruled that (possibly a paraphrase) the "ceasefire held for the next eleven months, despite minor violations", until the invasion. There is also this, which includes the following details:
On 3 June, the Israeli ambassador to Great Britain had been wounded and permanently disabled in an assassination attempt by a splinter group formerly associated with the Palestinian Liberation Organization(PLO). Although the group, known as Abu Nidal, had been expelled from the PLO in 1974,5 Israel responded to this terrorist action with an air attack on Beirut directed against known PLO positions. The PLO countered with an artillery and rocket attack against northern Israel, known as the Galilee, reportedly killing one Israeli.6 Until this action, a cease fire between Israel and the PLO, which had been negotiated by American Ambassador Philip Habib the previous summer following a confrontation over Palestinian and Syrian actions in Lebanon, had held. As Israeli authors Dan Bavly and Eliahu Salpeter noted in their book Fire in Beirut, when Israel attacked "it was after ten months of outward peace and tranquility, in which not a single Israeli in Galilee had been killed or wounded by the PLO."
Anyway I won't get involved any more here, on the main page or on talk, but I did want to comment and to provide material for others to look at. --Nickhh (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There were violations, but it's true that they were few and mostly came after Israeli raids. However, since these claims are attributed to the Israeli government, it's not a real problem, and it seems Sharon did cite them as a casus belli. -- Nudve (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've also noticed that there's actually material further down in that para, sourced to Morris, that talks about calm on the border. The previous sentence to that one (about the Habib-brokered ceasefire) also duplicates material at the top of the paragraph - so perhaps both should be pulled up to the beginning of the para, so that the contrasting interpretations are set directly against each other, and any repetition about the start of the ceasefire removed as well? Just as a tidying-up thing if nothing else, and otherwise the para just reads as if it's contradicting itself at each end, as well as contradicting the information in the "casus belli" section. Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't get involved any more but I did just spot that .... --Nickhh (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
ps: I would add that I do think it is also worth including on top of the Israeli govt claims that (per my links above) the envoy who brokered the ceasefire took the view that it was not breached prior to the invasion.
This is ridiculous, this cannot be added just for the fact that it has been widely recognized that the PLO did not break the ceasefire, and certainly not "repeatedly" and furthermore the source this comes from is very pro-Israeli...I am deleting this, and for good reason. There is actually a sentence further down in the article saying that the PLO had observed the ceasefire for nearly a year, this is a comlete contradicition of this JVL source. PlasticJesus341 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


The Abu Nidal Group tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador where? Outside of Lebanon in the UK right?

What does that have to do with Lebanon and Beirut, what does that have to do with the Lebanese?????????? The Israelis responded by killing Lebanese. This shows it was the Israelis who broke the ceasefire for Lebanon between the Israelis and PLO. Lebanese bebe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli claim of ceasefire being broken[edit]

Okay yeah Israel claimed violation of the ceasefire because they were being attacked outside the country, well what about the Palestinians who were being attacked inside the occupied territories? If we are going to add this long paragraph about how Israel thought the ceasefire was broken, if we are at all going to be fair we have to add now the Palestinians who felt that the ceasefire was being broken because their countrymen were being pushed off their land and put into refugee camps.PlasticJesus341 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles already says that they felt they were not violating the ceasefire. The rest is irrelevant. -- Nudve (talk) 19:43, 8 December

2008 (UTC)

I moved it right where it should be, I hope we can all agree on thatPlasticJesus341 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright. -- Nudve (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious?[edit]

Why is there a dubious tag on PLO violations of the ceasefire? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Diplomatic strategy[edit]

What did the PLO's "diplomatic strategy" consist of? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PLO Research Centre[edit]

Why is there no mention of the destruction of the PLO Research Centre by the Israeli army that occurred during this war?DruidODurham (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Lebanese bebe[edit]

Between 12:35 and 13:22 on August 13, user Lebanese bebe made a slew of unsourced edits, culminating in moving the page to 1982 Israeli Invasion and Occupation of Lebanon. Now I've moved the page back and reverted a lot of what the aforementioned editor added but I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether some of the edits were helpful. Specifically, I've left untouched three edits (1, 2, 3) so maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject could check them over and possibly even find sources for them. Perusing Lebanese bebe's contributions this editor is a very recent startup who possesses what seem to be very pointed opinions on Lebanese topics but I'll let him/her make his/her case before I pass further judgement.--Lairor (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mivtzah Shlom Hagalil" is not "Operation Peace of the Galilee"[edit]

Hi!

"Mivtzah Shlom Hagalil" (in Hebrew - מבצע שלום הגליל) means "the operation for/of the Shalom of the Galilee". However, Shalom in Hebrew has several meanings, including "well-being" and "welfare". For explanation see this blog entry on my blog about the S.L.M/Sh.L.M root in Semitic languages. So the operation should more accurately be called "The Operation for/of the welfare of the Galilee" or "The operation for/of the well-being of the Galilee".

I don't know what the official name of operation was in the Israeli English media, but "Operation Peace of the Galilee" is a very poor translation.

Shlomif (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Peace for Galilee is the standard English title. Even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses it. -- Nudve (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposing forces[edit]

Adde what information I could find, not much on the IDF though.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To 114.150.252.15 (IDF Air Losses)[edit]

Ok, so you're insisting that these six sources which I've marked as "failed verification" actually support the claim about 62 Israeli aircraft lost. Also you claim that I'm "simply lying". So let's check these sources.

The claim is: "some sources put that number in 62 Israeli aircraft downed".

  • http://army.lv/ru/mig-23/primenenie/502/96 This source takes its information from the "Fighters" book by Vladimir Ilyin (1996). It says: "В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по 11 июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов". So, Syrian air force shot down 23 Israeli aircraft. That's all. Does it say anything about 62 Israeli aircraft downed? No. Failed verification.
  • http://combatavia.info/index1mig23.html This source also takes its information from the "Fighters" book by Vladimir Ilyin (1996). It says: "В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по И [sic!] июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов". What, again not a single word about 62 Israeli aircraft downed? Yes. Failed verification.
  • http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html Change of tune, it's American source. It says: "By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7". Also it says: "The Soviets went even further in extolling the SAF's combat virtues: the military newspaper Red Star announced triumphantly that "sixty-seven Israeli aircraft, including modern US-made F-15 and F-16 fighters, were downed". Red Star newspaper appears to be less modest than Syrian Air Force in its claims... Still, it says 67, not 62. Failed verification.
  • http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/syria.htm Oh, it's an article by the top Soviet military advisor in Syria! He writes: "Таким образом, за неделю войны сирийцы средствами ЗРК и силами ВВС сбили 58 воздушных целей. Из них: самолетов -50, беспилотных аппаратов - 8". So, the claim is 50 Israeli manned aircraft shot down plus 8 unmanned aerial vehicles shot down, 58 total (yes, he appears to be more modest than Red Star newspaper). What about 62 aircraft? He says nothing about it. Failed verification.
  • http://paralay.com/f15.html Again Vladimir Ilyin, but it's not his 1996 book, it's his 2004 article. He writes: "Потери израильской авиации в воздушных боях составили, по сирийским данным, 42 самолета (из них, как минимум, пять F-15)". So, 42 Israeli aircraft downed in air-to-air combat (by the way, it is his mistake, actually he meant 24... more on that later). But 42 isn't 62. Failed verification.
  • http://alerozin.narod.ru/Syria81.htm Another Russian source, this time by some Alexander Rozin (I don't know who is he, but it's his personal website). He uses different publications. "Самолёты ВВС Израиля в период 6-12 июня выполнили 3121 боевой вылет, потеряли 1 самолёт ‑ штурмовик А-4 «Скайхок» (6 июня) и 5 вертолётов" - Israeli aircraft lost 1 aircraft during the 6-12 June period. "Сирийцы сообщили, что средствами ПВО Сирии в небе над Ливаном и частично над Сирией было уничтожено 35 воздушных целей, из них 27 самолётов и 8 беспилотных аппаратов" - Syrian ground units shot down 27 Israeli manned aircraft and 8 UAVs. "В сообщении приведены всего две цифры, которые можно проверить. <...> А вторая ‑ явный вымысел: «сбито 67 израильских самолётов, в том числе современные истребители американского производства F-15 и F-16». Она дана, видимо, что бы как-то оправдать непомерно большие потери сирийских ВВС, и обезопасить зарубежные военные контракты". So, Alexander Rozin thinks that the claim of 67 Israeli aircraft downed is a lie. He gives different figures from different sources, but I can't find any mention of 62 (not 27, not 67 - we are talking about 62) aircraft downed. Sorry, again failed verification.

Now I'm returning "failed verification" template because these sources doesn't support "62 downed aircraft" claim.

By the way, if you can read Russian, there's an article about Lebanon war aircraft losses in Russian Wikipedia. You can find out some interesting things there; for example, it shows that Vladimir Ilyin's claim about 42 Israeli aircraft downed in air-to-air combat isn't supported by his own data which lists just 24 aircraft downed, and the top Soviet military advisor in Syria also gives 24, not 42. Creo11 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Принято считать, что “воздушная война” 1982 года завершилась “вничью”. И такое мнение правомерно – соотношение потерь в воздушных боях было почти равным – сирийские ВВС имели совсем небольшой перевес – в воздушных боях Сирия потеряла 56 самолётов, а Израиль 62 + 2 самолёта ВВС США. http://skyfireavia.narod.ru/weap/godsarrow/godsarrow.htm this says 62, very clearly, and * http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html Change of tune, it's American source. It says: "By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7". Also it says: "The Soviets went even further in extolling the SAF's combat virtues: the military newspaper Red Star announced triumphantly that "sixty-seven Israeli aircraft, including modern US-made F-15 and F-16 fighters, were downed". it says 67, not 62 As you can see 62 or 67 was one of the original numbers claimed by the russians here are other numbers Боевое крещение МиГ-23 произошло в небе Ливана. В целом, истребители ВВС Сирии в ходе активных боевых действий с 6 по 12 июня 1982 г уничтожили в воздушных боях 42 израильских самолета (в том числе, как минимум, пять F-15A и шесть F-16A), а также один ДПЛА, потеряв при этом четыре МиГ-23МС, шесть МиГ-23МФ, 26 МиГ-21бис и 11 МиГ-21МФ

42 israeli aircraft shot down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talkcontribs)

http://skyfireavia.narod.ru/weap/godsarrow/godsarrow.htm is the only source which gives 62. It isn't a reliable source. It was written by Russian poet (yes, he's not historian, he is a poet) Andrey Shityakov, infamous for his purely fictional publications about Russian military aviation in different military conflicts. He makes a lot of factual mistakes; actually, he invents facts. Typical example: "У сирийцев, на долю МиГ-23 приходилось 35 из 64 сбитых самолётов противника". He credits Syrian MiG-23s with 35 victories, although all other Russian sources say that MiG-23s had just 7 victories (five F-16s and two F-4s downed). "Оценивая итоги использования самолетов МиГ-23 в Сирии, следует признать, что «боевой дебют» сирийской эскадрильи, оснащенной перехватчиками МиГ-23МФ, был довольно успешным: выполнив с 6 по 11 июня 52 боевых вылета и проведя семь воздушных боев, МиГи завершили «матч» в небе Ливана со счетом 5:6 (кроме того, ими был уничтожен один ДПЛА). Значительно хуже проявили себя фронтовые истребители МиГ-23МС: сбив лишь два «Фантома», сирийцы не досчитались четырех самолетов этого типа."
As I've said before, Ilyin's figure of 42 downed airplanes isn't true. Anyway, 42 isn't 62. Now you continue to remove "failed verification" tag from these six sources. First of all, you're provoking an edit war. Second, it's almost a vandalism. So please stop remove the tags and stop pretending like there's universal acclaim of the 62 figure in Russian sources. I repeat, there's a single source (unreliable) which gives this figure. Thank you. Creo11 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ah now i see you say he is a poet not a historian, if you say to me there is no evidence but there is evidence Russian authors claimed a number in the region of 62 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html says very clearly Soviet/syrian sources claimed 67, you have another estimate at 62 and a few more of 42, your not reliable is in your head, airpower maxwell is a western source saying soviet/syrian sources claimed 67 israeli aircraft, the article says Russian historians claimed a similar number of kills to the israeli claims, some put that number in 62 yeah 62 or 67 or 42 your problem is you pretend to be right when is obvious you are not, these have been estimates given by russian historians, here is another estimate with anumber of 58 По израильским данным, соотношение потерь в воздушных боях в Ливане составило не менее 13:1 в пользу самолета F-16, однако, это явно недостоверные цифры. Согласно сведениям, опубликованным в советской печати, в период наиболее активных боев с 6 по 11 июня 1982 г. ВВС Израиля потеряли 58 ЛА всех типов (35 от огня ЗРК и 23 в боях с сирийской авиацией), а сирийская авиация — 67 ЛА (47 в воздушных боях и 20 от огня ЗРК). Таким образом, соотношение потерь в воздушных боях составило около 2:1 в пользу Израиля. Это объясняется не столько превосходством имевшейся у Израиля техники, сколько лучшим планированием боевых операций, более тесным взаимодействием ЛА различного назначения, а также авиации и наземных сил. Причем, большая часть сирийских самолетов была, вероятно, сбита все же не F-16, а истребителями F-15.http://paralay.com/f16.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you're constantly using "Russian historians" definition. It's not always true. Andrei Shityakov is a freelance author and a poet. Vladimir Ilyin is a TsAGI worker; he can be called independent researcher, but not a historian, I guess. This source... Author is some Yevgeny Veselov, who's he? A historian? Nobody knows. Alexander Rozin - another unknown person. This source don't even have an author named.
Also, that's what Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Rozin's personal page is a self-published source so it's not reliable, according to Wikipedia definition. Same with Shityakov's and Veselov's websites. Creo11 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of source is obviously a political one, a historian is simply any one who writes historical accounts or basicly writes about social and cultural events in time, by definition history is not even a science since there is not even predictability, can you say what is going to happen socialy in 3000 years from now with 100% acuracy? answer no, history then falls more in the realm of literature than science; it only narrates what happened according to a view, this is usually a political one. Some historians use economics and social sciences but lack a complete view and lack predictability. since is not really a science but more a branch of politics or literature, the academia is a political view rather than science and only a historical concensus is given by several sources agreeing or a political view supporting them

Mathematics can be used and up to a degree can predict events with a very blur definition few years from now and it falls more in the realm of statistics and probability than the realm of scientific method. History then is closer to religion and philosophy, to religion because it lacks a really accurate method to be a science that is the reason even the history channel relies in prophets rather than historians to guess the future, even it is obviously religion and not science

Now these russian authors are only a reflection of what has been written in Russia, are they historians? yes they are, they do not need to have the academia supporting them to say they are historians, in fact wikipedia is a place for people to write about history.

Since in the case of Lebanon is very hard to really know the loses each side had, including both versions is the best, the main problem with history is it can be part of a political view and then become propaganda, and this is what we can see obviously since the Israelies claim 0 loses in air to air and the Syrians said at least more than 19 israeli aircraft shot down on June 6, 1982. The Israeli version has never produced more pictorial evidence than the Syrians, however they are supported by the self addmision by Syria of at least 16 syrian aircraft lost on June 6 1982.

As such including the pictorial evidence and versions of both sides does at least give a minimun of veracity to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I write about the war of 1982 in Wikipedia, so I'm historian, lol. I should make a website about this war and claim that there were 384 Israeli air victories during the first day (6 June 1982) - including 37 MiG-25s, 18 MiG-29s and 11 Tu-160s, and then post it in Wikipedia... Sorry, not my way. Actually, if you're a journalist, you'll be called a journalist even if you write an article about the fall of Rome.
By the way, about pictorial evidence... There's an article by Andrey Shityakov where you can find a picture of F-14 (U.S. Navy!) shot down by Syrian Mi-24 on 8 June 1982 - or so claims Shityakov! Would you believe him after this? Creo11 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalism and history are the same, writing your article in that way is similar to what Israel has done, 80:0 or 100:0 and a detail all the kills Israel acknoledges of June 1982 are where the pilots were KIA and paraded by the Palestinians or POWs interesting that statistically all the downed Israeli pilots fall in the hands of the enemy. Where is the evidence of the MiG-25 kills by Israeli F-15s? where are the pictures? none up to now, the only evidence you will find are claims and only support is the fact russian historians admitt 2 MiG-25s were lost in 1981 but most reports say Israel shot down 3, i challenge you to give me pictorial evidence of the third MiG-25 allegedly shot down in June 1982 or give me pictorial evidence of 100 aircraft shot by Israel, not 42 as Russian reports claim but at least 80 or 100 as it has been claimed and 80 in air to air combat.

Yes Israel has a very important evidence, Syria acknowledged from the start they lost aircraft, in fact most wars after WWII you have contradictory combat records because as aircraft technology advanced less and less aircraft were involved so a kill was more detailed and more important as propaganda tool in WWII there were thousend of aircraft fighting but in GWI just hundreds, so with the past of the years each side claimed different scores, that is what the reporters claimed the journalists, as such journalists wrote history, read Russian reports of the korean war or vietnam war they are different from those of the west.

Even modern reports are contradictory and the evidence is even the same few pictures lots of claims.

Of course as a propaganda tool as you are you using now you just question one side`s veracity and honesty, the reality any warring side lies and is dishonest, each side hides losses or at least tries to make them appear less embarrasing in the west for example SAMs are most common justification for Western losses, in Russia well inflated scores, i am not saying a side is more honest i am just saying each side uses propaganda and later this becomes the historical evidence. Journalist write the evidence that later is presented like historical facts, that is the reason is so hard to know what is the real score of june 1982.

About the F-14 shot down by a Mi-24, here he presents a photoshop, that is not a F-14 but a MiG-29, however the Mi-24 is said to have shot down a F-14 by many russian sources and also in the Iran-Iraq war it is said a F-4 was shot down by a Mi-24, the Mi-24 can be armed with AA-8 Aphids which are air to air missiles, technically it is possible for a helicopter to shot down an aircraft, in fact many russian sources claim the Mi-24 has shot down AH-1s in Lebanon june 1982 and in the Iran-Iraq war, if you say his article is unique then dismiss it, but the reality many russian sources say the same see http://worldweapon.ru/sam/r60.php http://otvet.mail.ru/question/30610093/, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VTXe0WIiaOMJ:live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php%3Fact%3Dattach%26type%3Dpost%26id%3D13604+%D0%9C%D0%B8-24+.+F-14&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk here we have other examples Как известно, конфликт в Ливане имел продолжение. В середине сентября у побережья этой страны начали сосредотачиваться военные корабли США, Англии, Франции и Италии. Американцы в ультимативной форме предложили сирийцам покинуть Ливан. В ответ на это в январе 1983 г. СССР оказал Дамаску непосредственную военную помощь, направив свои воинские части, главным образом, ПВО. В Сирии разместили ЗРК С-200, имеющие максимальную дальность поражения 200 км. Дальнейшее обострение отношений между участниками конфликта привело к установлению в декабре 1983 г флотами стран NATO морской блокады побережья Ливана. Американские линкоры начали обстрел сирийских позиций, а израильская авиация возобновила бомбардировки в долине Бекаа. В свою очередь, сирийцы нанесли ракетно-бомбовый удар по корабельной группировке NATO в районе Джуния, вынудив английский и итальянский отряды отойти к Кипру. В этот период средства ПВО сирийской армии сбили девять американских самолетов F-14A "Томкэт" и А-6Е "Интрудер", а также два французских "Супер Этандара", а советские расчеты ЗРК С-200 уничтожили на дистанции порядка 170 км самолет ДРЛО Е-2С "Хоукай" и три американских беспилотных разведчика "Файрби". it says that in the late period of 1983 the Syrians shot down several aircraft among them F-14s now see this http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_278.shtml this talk about the A-6 shot down in november 1983 over lebanon and now see this crashed 11.11.1983 into the Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon after crew ejected http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-11.htm now tell me accident or shot down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 114.150.252.15 and 118.0.18.192 (who are probably one and the same as they both geo-locate to Japan) had used extremely poor sources that do not qualify as RS. He made extensive use of obscure blogs and online forums some of which didn't even support his edits. I've gotten rid of them for the most part and where possible, replaced them with reliable sources from Rabinovich (Schocken), Herzog (Random House), Time-Life books as well as two online publications including one from Air Force Magazine.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

haha reliable sources you are just empoverishing wikepedia by making it a bunch of propaganda, i presented pictures and videos and an unbiassed view, but of course lies can only win if truth is blocked and that is what you do mister Jiujitsuguy you are just propaganda, www.waronline.com and www.skywar.ru are much reliable than the sources that you are presenting they have pictures of Merkavas destroyed, AH-1s destroyed and the very well known Israeli pilots captured in 1982 that even Israel admits and by the way most of the people working there are russian jews some even from Israel, the SANA claims were even claimed by ABC news and there are pictures of Merkavas and other tanks destroyed and a detail the Merkavas never ever fought the T-72 they never faced each other, the T-72 were destroyed by Helicopters not Merkavas. so far i can say this you can block other views but sources like www.waronline.com of www.skywar.ru are still there the videos of the lebanon war are still there for people to see and the russian historians are still there so if i read your version and the one of www.waronline.com at the end i know your way of convincing others is no more than propaganda freedom means the ability to choose your style is pure propaganda but thankfully the internet has many views and are there you can feel the owner of this article have it it is yours but there are more views on the internet better than your propaganda styled version that does not accept the freedom of questioning a version by the reader and only feeds you a version for political propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.86.5.139 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Casus Belli[edit]

Casus Belli section is hopelessly one-sided without giving equal weight to both sides. Some have repeatedly and inappropriately reverted works by Herzog published by Random House. Instead, we get George Ball and others who make little effort to hide their bias. I'm not saying that those views should be excluded. On the contrary, they should be included, but along side positions that posit an alternate view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And incidentally, this opinion piece by a virtually unknown, obscure "Syrian political analyst," can hardly be considered an RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense pro-Israeli claims[edit]

This article has quite abit of nonsense. Sorry, T-72 and MErkava never met head to head. T-72 losses were a result of a TOW ambush. Second, the Soviets were not "shaken" by the Syrian losses, they were well aware of previous ARab combat performance. Claiming that these losses led to Glasnost is hilarious and totally unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.125.117 (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the claim is pro-Israel or not, but it's not reflective of academic consensus. Here's a good paper that rebuffs conflating NATO's performance during the 82 conflict and a hypothetical conflict against Warsaw [1] Warsaw didn't disband until about a decade later.

biased article[edit]

the article is completely biased. israeli losses r put to 650 dead while the former israeli chief of army staff general gur put the total number of israeli losses to 4000 killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.156.22.237 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

State/cite your source.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What Schiff and Yaari say about the run-up to invasion of Lebanon[edit]

In this edit user Degen Earthfast replaced the first passage below with the second,

  • On 10 July 1981, violence erupted in South Lebanon and Northern Israel. Israel renewed its air strikes in an attempt to trigger a war that would allow it to drive out the PLO.
  • On 10 July 1981, violence erupted in South Lebanon and Northern Israel after the PLO began shelling northern Israel. Israel then renewed its air strikes in an attempt to trigger a war that would allow it to drive out the PLO.

  ^ Schiff & Yaari (1984), pp. 35–36

Both the "before-his-edit" and the "after-his-edit" passages above are cited to the same source, pages 35-36 of Israel's Lebanon War, by Schiff & Yaari (1984). An excerpt appears below:

Degen's edit appears to be in direct opposition to the actual statements of the source that it's cited to. This source clearly states that there was a six-week period of quiet beginning on 3 June 1981 when Israel ceased air strikes, and that this interval was ended on 10 July 1981 by Israel's suddenly renewing its air strikes on PLO targets in southern Lebanon. It further states that during the period prior to that six-week interval that the PLO was responding to Israeli air strikes in a "gingerly" way.

Further, if one reads the context around these pages, one sees that the authors present the case that Ariel Sharon, as defense minister, ardently wished to invade Lebanon with the goal of clearing out the PLO, and did everything he could to provoke a war sooner rather than later, for that purpose exactly. The book even presents evidence that Sharon radically circumvented previously-existing internal governmental policies and processes in order to be able to do so.

The book certainly doesn't present the view that the shelling of Galilee was a unilateral act that came out of the blue; rather it states that this shelling began five days after Sharon's unilateral 10 June 1981 escalation. For these reasons it seems appropriate to ask Degen Earthfast to revert this edit so that the text accurately reflects the source it's cited to.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Degen has not responded here, nor reverted, I've just now restored the text that accurately represents the cited source, in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you on this. Any other story needs another source. Zerotalk 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

After going over the article, i noticed some of the references being cited from very questinable sources, including Professor Homsky. As widely known, Homsky is a political activist writing about his opinions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but having no scholar background in history - his views are merely activist opinions and do not have any reliability or special importance for proper referencing. I tagged those for "better source needed".Greyshark09 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your last edit removed some material cited to Avi Shlaim also, I hope you have another reason for this and you do not consider him to be an unreliable source. Regarding Chomsky, he is meticulous in citing his sources, so it could well be possible to check his citations and use them. Dlv999 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No, he's not a reliable source. He's not a historian and has adopted extremist positions that are not within mainstream discourse.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
He was the most cited scholar on the planet for a good number of years. To say he is outside mainstream discourse indicates that you have a strange conception of mainstream discourse, but does not say anything about Chomsky. I agree he should be attributed if he is used on historical issues, but he has been published on middle East History, so it is pretty clear that he can be at the very least used as a significant minority opinion for inclusion in articles that he has published on. Also I did not say he is a reliable source for facts in the Wiki voice, I said he meticulously cites his work so it amy be possible to check his citations and use them if they are appropriate. Dlv999 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think i have removed any relevant material, attributed to Shlaim, can you bring the passage?Greyshark09 (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
"With the completion of Israeli withdrawals from Sinai in March 1982, under the terms of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, the Likud-led government of Israel hardened its attitude to the Arab world and became more aggressive." (ref)Shlaim, Avi (2007). Lion of Jordan; The life of King Hussein in War and Peace. Allen Lane. p. 412. ISBN 978-0-7139-9777-4(/ref)[1] Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
you are correct - i apologize and restore this paragraph. It must have been lost during the many cut-n-pastes i did for restructuring of the mess in previous version.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Onwar source[edit]

Onwar is an activist website, which is often citating wikipedia, and hence as commonly known is not considered a reliable source, since wikipedia cannot be a reference. I'm removing it completely, since a better source is used to reference the discussed issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This 17,825 figure comes from random newspaper An Nahar from halfway during the war. The Lebanese gov use far lower figures now. I try and find the source but this figure would appear to be unreliable, so it is probably better to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.124.227 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Result[edit]

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Lebanon_War&diff=495827853&oldid=495827187 is the subject of discussion. I have restored it, as it appears to be a RS. here is the text from Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism [Paperback] Judith Palmer Harik To the wider Arab world, Hezbollah is a legend: the only Arab fighting force to have defeated Israel, forcing its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000. Since this article refers to events up to 2000, I can see no reason why this RS should not remain. It is irrelevant whether or not Hezbollah existed at the beginning of this war, as the article already refers to events in 2000.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to this article.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

An alternative take on the objectives of the war[edit]

Provided for anyone who might find it of interest: Gush-Shalom - Uri Avnery - The War of Lies, 09 June 2012.     ←   ZScarpia   02:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Result of the war[edit]

I added a source, David Hirst's book "Beware of small states", regarding the outcome of the war -- whether it was Israeli military victory or not. I did not remove any content that existed there before and did not alter its conclusion (that it was an Israeli victory); I only added that according to at least one reliable source -- Hirst's book, which, by all means, is more than adequate for Wikipedia's standards -- the war didn't end in Israeli victory. According to Hirst, Arafat chose to move out from Beirut -- an unpopular decision among many Palestinian militants -- so as to prevent Israeli continued destruction of the city. Hirst's conclusion is very much in line with pre-existent article content, which notices that, in spite of its much criticized, indiscriminate shelling campaign, Israel didn't seem to be getting any closer to taking over West Beirut and overruning the PLO over the course of the war. Nonetheless user:Sonntagsbraten removed the content that I added -- which, for the second time, is well-sourced -- saying that, if only the US didn't intervene, the PLO would have been destroyed: clearly, a brazen statement of personal opinion, and not, by any means, objective, impartial asessment. Sources on the war provide differing assessment on the war's outcome, and there's no reason the entry should discriminate one in favour of the other. BilalSaleh (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's true the battle of Beirut was cut off half-way, but what does it really matter? Israel achieved its goal of ousting the PLO, and the Palestinians lost their last major foothold along Israel's borders. I have never seen or heard anyone claim this to be a Palestinian victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cold War perspective[edit]

"According to Abraham Rabinovich, the complete dominance of U.S. and Israeli technology and tactics over those of the Eastern Bloc was to have been a factor that hastened the demise of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union."

Israel was fighting outdated Soviet fighters which were also fighting at a tactical disadvantage since they were being scrambled after being supprised by the attack. MiG-21s - which were introduced in 1959 - were of course outclassed by F 15s (1976) and F 16s (1978). Most Syrian MiG-23s (1967) were not equipped with modern radars, were lacking any ECCM, and were incapable of firing modern soviet missiles due to their basic radar some were lacking radar alltogether. These fighters were inferior to the versions used in Russia. The Eastern Bloc was well aware that Generation 3 fighters were in dire need of replacement. Both MiG-29 (1983) and Sukhoi Su-27 (1984) were about to be introduced and were in development since the 1970ies; the same goes for the R-27 Air to Air missile. The SA-6 system was the only modern system Syria employed. It seems extremely unlikely that the failure of SA-6 caused anything other than showing that it is ineffective against generation 4 fighters using electronic warefare equippment. The claim therefore seems nonsensical and shows both arrogance and ignorance (of soviet technology). It should be deleted. 84.151.27.116 (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

done[edit]

Coastal Road Massacre done by Palestinian militants, Christian done - I know what they mean, but this is ugly and unconventional english in my opinion. It detracts from easy reading (as much as the subject allows) of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsheffield (talkcontribs) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arabic name[edit]

At the very beginning of the article, it states that the Arabic name for this war is: (Arabic: الاجتياح‎, Al-ijtiyāḥ, "the invasion"). I don't know anything about Arabic, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe in some culture- or country-specific sense, a word that just means "the invasion" could be referring to a specific war. But I have trouble believing that the official name of this war across the Arab-speaking world, in places as far apart as Morocco and Iraq, is "Al-ijtiyah". Haven't there been other invasions in Arab history? In summary, the name sounds too Lebanon-specific. 69.118.3.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1,000 death toll[edit]

Hello,

I removed the sentence about the Lebanese government releasing in 1984 a figure of 1,000 deaths for the war. I checked the cited edition of The Washington Post, and it is a reference to a statement made by Lebanese Brigadier General Mohammed Haj during military negotiations. The newspaper article seems to imply that this was a verbal remark. No detail is given or a justification of why the estimate is so low (even compared to Israeli figures). Unless someone can find a source that has more information I don't think it should be included.

Thanks. InverseHypercube (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Outcome[edit]

No one is arguing that the 1982 invasion wasn't a military victory. But the war didn't stop there. To sum up the outcome based entirely on events in 1982 is very misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is "summing up" anything. We are including the fact that the result was a military victory together with the long-term strategic failure at the end. I'm not suggesting to remove the "strategic failure" thing, but to include the military victory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirSurfLera (talkcontribs) 12:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Why? Israel scored a military victory in 1982, but as I said, this does not reflect the final outcome of the war. Instead of becoming a client state, Lebanon was regarded as an enemy state when Israel withdrew. The war is not remembered as a victory in Israel, but as a costly failure.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Who mentioned anything about Lebanon "becoming a client state"?? The objective was to drive the PLO out of Lebanon, and it was achieved by military means during this war. While I'm not sure where did you get that the war "is remembered as a costly failure in Israel" (source?), I think you are confusing this war with the later Lebanon conflict (1985-2000), when Israel withdrew and Hezbollah took its place.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Infobox: Collapse of Maronite-Israeli alliance, failure to achieve Lebanese-Israeli peace (source: Morris, p. 559). So yes, signing a peace treaty with Lebanon was definitely one of the war aims, which ultimately failed mainly due to Syrian pressure on Lebanon and the lack of any Israeli response to this. The war could have been a victory had Israel only aimed to expell the PLO, but the war aims were far more complex and ambitious than just that. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So why do you bother if we also include the Israeli military victory against the PLO and Syria in the infobox, besides of the failure to achieve a peace treaty with Lebanon (not 'instead of')? After all, it was the main objective when the war started.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Including both makes the most sense to me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Because this military victory happened in 1982, while the war continued until 1985. The war was certainly a defeat for the PLO, but Syria and Iran benefitted a lot from it politically and militarily, and Israel in the end only achieved one out of three goals it had set. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, I think you are confusing this war with the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000). The main objective of Israel was to expel the PLO from Lebanon. It was also a strategic failure because at the end Hezbollah replaced the PLO and Lebanon didn't become a pacific border. But nobody is suggesting to remove the "strategic failure" or the "Syrian political victory" from the infobox, only to clarify that it was also an Israeli tactical military victory against both the PLO and Syria.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You only talk about the invasion phase and ignore the three-year occupation of large portions of Southern Lebanon, where Israel encountered Iranian- and Syrian-backed guerillas that also defeated Israel's allies in the Mountain War. Defeating the PLO in the early phase of the war does not make the war itself a military victory, at least this is not the optimal way of describing the outcome. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I know you changed the date of the war for this purpose. But there's no source saying that the Israeli withdrawal to the security zone which ended in June 1985 was a military defeat for Israel. Quite the contrary. The Israeli withdrawal in 2000, on the other hand, is a different story.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't mentioned any military defeat so far. But Israel definitely (and unfortunately) didn't achieve its objectives, and the infobox should reflect this. By the way, which date did I change? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It was a military victory, but a strategic defeat. The infobox reflects this.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
How was 1985 a military victory? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"In January 1985, Israel started to withdraw most of its troops, leaving a small residual Israeli force and an Israeli-supported militia, the South Lebanon Army in southern Lebanon in a "security zone", which Israel considered a necessary buffer against attacks on its northern territory."
(so?)
Who says something has to happen in 1985? The Israelis withdrew to the security zone after completing their task in the rest of Lebanon. The war was a military victory itself, for the reasons already known.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Israel withdrew under fire, and fighting continued long after the official end of the war. Syria exercised tighter control over Lebanon than ever before, the PLO returned in great numbers (only to be expelled for a second time by Syria) and Lebanese "resistance" groups paved the way for Iranian influence in Lebanon. Israel won the first and shortest phase of the war, but definitely ended up losing the second and longer phase. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing this war with the south Lebanon conflict that followed. By the way, where did you get that the PLO "returned" to Lebanon? (I'm just curious).--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not confusing anything - just as in May 2000, in June 1985 the Israelis withdrew under fire, but from much larger areas. I don't see how the 1982-1985 war and the 1985-2000 conflict can have been two separate conflicts, as they were much more like two phases of the same one (preferably we should have an article that would cover the whole 1982-2000 war rather than using the 1985 withdrawal as an artificial division). By the way, if you're interested in the continued role of the PLO beyond 1982 you should look up the War of the Camps, in which Syria interestingly turned against its former Palestinian allies. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm in favor of restoring the old version of this article where the date ends in September 1982, because in the first phase of the war (considered in Israel as the official "First Lebanon War") Israel fought mainly against the PLO and its Syrian allies, and the objective was first to expel the PLO from southern Lebanon and then to expel the organization from the entire country (a secondary objective was to eliminate the threat of the Syrian SAM and air force in the Bekaa Valley). In the second phase Israel fought mainly against Hezbollah and it had nothing to do with the first phase. At the begining it was unexpected by Israel the emergence of the Shiite organization. Nevertheless, I don't think the planned withdrawal of 1985 (which was carried out after the military victory over the PLO and Syria) is the same than the retreat under Hezbollah fire of 2000. In any case, the 1985 tactical withdrawal to the security zone doesn't diminish the Israeli military victory. Israel's objective was never to occupy a large portion of Lebanon, just a small buffer zone to stop attacks on its northern population (after expelling the PLO). It's the same than the battle of Karameh: Israel retreated after destroying the PLO camp. In other words, Israel withdrew after defeating the enemy. A withdrawal doesn't necessarily mean a military defeat. The 2000 retreat is completely different.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get this from? The Israeli ministry of foreign affairs regards Operation Peace for Galilee to have lasted until June 1985, and while it is true Israel did not intend to keep occupying Lebanon, it sure stayed for quite some time after the invasion. It's not the same as Karameh, as Israel's political goals were far more comprehensive, hence the prolonged stay. And the second phase has everything to do with the first one, just as the Iraq War after 2003 is the Iraq War likewise. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Casualties - 1,000 Lebanese?[edit]

I have good faith reverted this edit. Firstly the figure of roughly 20,000 figure refers to both Lebanese and Palestinians, while this is talking about only Lebanese. Secondly, the citation is to a single Washington Post 1984 article. I do not know exactly what it says (if someone can provide it to me, it would be helpful), but just one citation is not sufficient for such a claim. Thirdly, even if this was correct, it should not be stated in WP's voice. It is clear from reading the source, that it is an extremely biased and opinionated source. Finally, it is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. For example, see the other American source claming 5,000-8,000 civilians killed. Kingsindian  06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:The citation your reverted is a book from academic publisher not newspaper article--Shrike (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I know it is a book. It is citing a Washington post report. Kingsindian  11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what is citing.It was already explained at WP:RSN by uninvolved edtor to you that book by academic publisher is WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It does matter what it is citing. Just because someone cites something to prove something else in a book does not mean that it is true. I have tracked down the original Washington Post report. It makes no mention of any repudiation of the 20,000 figure. That has been tacked on by this particular guy. The quote is: "In demanding war reparations, [Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohammed] Haj said that about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion and that more than 1,000 others were wounded". It is possible that he was simply talking about the Lebanese soldiers killed. If Lebanon has indeed repudiated the figures from 20,000 to 1,000, it should be possible to find something directly saying so. Kingsindian  14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't think the 1,000 figure self-evidently contradicts the earlier figures, there is still no reason to exclude it, your original research notwithstanding. The Lebanese would be in a better position to know than anyone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You own explanation why do you think that the source is wrong don't really matter.The source coming from respected academic publisher and as such there are no reason to exclude it.--Shrike (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Shrike: I wonder what happened to WP:BRD? Reverting in the middle of a discussion? If someone gives a figure 20 times lower than the official figure, that falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you feel that there is a contradiction, find multiple reliable sources which explicitly say there is a contradiction. That requires a better source that one newspaper report, which does not even say it is a contradiction. If someone claimed that in WW1, not 20 million, but 1 million died, you would not be so blase about including such figures. Kingsindian  16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Widely-repeated" does not mean true or official. The Lebanese figure of 1,000 is not fringe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The article says, just by the first week, Red Cross and Lebanese police reported 10,000. If you want to say that Lebanon officially retracted the figure, you need to provide a better source than an obscure book edited by an English professor and another writer. As I mentioned, the citation does not even mention anything about repudiation. And, again, the 20,000 includes both Lebanese and Palestinians, so it is meaningless to say that Lebanon has retracted the figures when it is talking about something else. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Kingsindian  16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You're citing this article as a source--one of the worst-written POV articles anywhere on Wikipedia? The Red Cross were just repeating extreme PLO propaganda, which also claimed there were 600,000 homeless in south Lebanon, more than the entire population of the area. I do not know why you think an estimate of Lebanese casualties should be excluded for not including Palestinians. There is no argument for blanket removal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not WP:BRDDDDDD--Shrike (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on WP:RSN for this. Kingsindian  18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html