Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Discussion about the name of the article

Why we shouldn't call it war - yet

Wikipedia attempts to be such a strange beast as an up-to-date encyclopaedia. This means that the naming of articles covering ongoing events will always be difficult. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Not until the dust has settled after this conflict, will we know what the majority of English speakers will recognize it as. It may become known as the "2006 Israel-Lebanon War", but it may just as well end up being called "The Lebanon Crises", just as the 1956 conflict over the Suez Canal is known as the Suez Crisis, although it was a conventional war involving more than 500,000 soldiers from four countries, and resulted in 1,650 soldiers being killed, 4,900 being wounded and 6,000 being taken prisoners. Likewise, the 1978 Israeli attack into Lebanon, when they moved into Lebanon with 25,000 men and occupied the area south of Litani River, is today just known as Operation Litani, and the two week conflict in 1996 is today just called Operation Grapes of Wrath, although it involved some 30,000 Israeli soldiers and caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee. Nobody called the first world war World War I until the second was over. In fact, nobody called it "The Great War" until it was over.

At the moment, the ongoing military conflict is being called lots of different things by the involved parties as well as the media. Most of the English-language media seem to label it "XX Crisis" or "XX Conflict" in page, section or TV news banners, and are avoiding the word "war" in headlines while it often appears in article texts and interviews. As long as that is the case, I see no reason why we need to change the name of the article. Some people seem to want to add the word "war" as they think that "conflict" is somehow too mild, considering what is happening. However, that in itself is a POV regarding the word "conflict", as this is frequently used as a descriptive word for war, as war is a conflict and the word conflict isn't a measure of the size or seriousness of the war. A text about WW II which starts "The Second World War was a conflict which involved..." is therefore perfectly correct.

After an intensive debate the first couple of days (with some people screaming "WAR" immediately), we ended up with the current name of the article. It's reasonably accurate and encompassing, and it is in line with the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. Eventually, the final name will evolve in the real world, outside this forum of obsessed nerds who spend all to much time in front of their computers (including me), and then we'll use that. But for now, let's concentrate on more important matters. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above diatribe by Thomas Blomberg; which, as an obsessed nerd, I naturally find more than somewhat disconcerting!Phase4 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Thomas's logic, we would have called the Algerian War of Independence (from 1954 to 1962) an "operation of public order" until 1999 (date at which the French National Assembly — and therefore the state — recognized for the first time that it had been a "war", and not only an interior police affair). But if I provided numerous English-speaking sources, and first of all from Reuters, AP and AFP which are the main sources of all medias, be it CNN, Fox News or whatever, which are using the term "war". I'm not even speaking of foreign medias, some of whom of course spoke of war the first days. But when Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz, whom are respectively Prime minister & Minister of War of Israel, speak of "war", I honestly believe that using euphemisms and weasel words is a lie at worse, and a mistake at best. I am not engaging myself in the question of the title of the article, which is yet another debate. But it's a war, and both sides (whichever they might be) have clearly stated it. Tazmaniacs 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[Re: Blomberg] Oh, wikipeadia! First thanks for one of the few examples of well-reasoned, non-soapbox, stick-to-the-basics contributions. May I gain your wisdom. Now, I do beg to differ, and have divided my response into what I arbotrarily consider your main points:
  1. The lets-not-get-ahead-of-ourselves argument - This one I think is weak in making a case. If at some time in history this is known as a "Crisis" and not a "War", we can always change it back. This is wikipedia my friend, its very easy to correct.
  2. The Naming Conventions argument - You have a valid point there, but titles are not exempt of other policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS. If all the reliable sources (and of course all leaders of the combatants) can be verified as calling it a war, then why don't we? I agree there where those in the start who screadmed "War!" when the world screamed "Conflict!", but now you are their mirror image: you want to get stuck with "conflict" when the world screams "war"! One must recognize when the time is up. Almost a month ago this was indeed a conflict. Now it's indeed a war. Wake up and smell the spent propellant!
  3. The Headline argument - This is your best one: after all we speak of the wiki equivalent of a headline, and at least my impression tends to be the same as your. But here WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V come into play. First, there is not verifiable source that says that headlines are overwhelmingly "Crisis" or "Conflict" but the text "war". We shouldn't base a decision on content solely on original research, because we would be in violation sacred pillars of wikipedia. So then all we have is the sources themselves, which means we should cite from them, which means not relying on their headlines. And the sources say war. Read the sources in the pages and sub pages and see for yourself. Lastly it is a verifiable fact that all combatants are more or less unambigousy calling this a war. If the participants form all sides call it a war, and this is verifiable, then we must follow. Even NPOV requires that we do this.

All said and done, right now, the title expresses not an NPOV view (ie one balanced between combatants), but a minority POV that this is not a war. Its as if the title for "Sex" were "Love". Not quite weasel words (as this implies lack of good faith) but borderline. Maybe chipmunk words.

BTE I am not a nerd, obssesed or otherwise. Am a Geek. My obssesions are much more satisfying ;).--Cerejota 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know if any of you have been watching CNN, but ever since Israel crossed into Lebanon last night they have been saying “war.” They have been saying the word “war” every other second. So if you are saying you do not want to call it a war because the media does not you aren’t watching the news. Right this second on “The Situation Room” (On CNN) the scroller reads “New blasts in southern Lebanon after Israel Okays wider ground war.” 550talk 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


First of all, a quick comment to Tazmaniacs: If Wikipedia had been around in the 1950s and early 1960s, we would definitely not have called the Algerian conflict the Algerian War of Independence, as that would have been considered extremely POV, and we would have had thousands of hysterical Frenchmen and Algerians involved in frantic edit wars, just as we now have thousands of fanatics from both sides trying to prevent the creation of NPOV articles about the current conflict. We would probably have called it the Algerian Rebellion, but even that would probably have been considered POV by many on either side.

In answer to 550, the term "ground war" signifies that hostilities are taking place on land, as opposed to in the air or at sea. It doesn't necessarily mean that a state of war exists. Similarly, the word "war" is often used to describe military actions, as any type of military clash can be considered a war, because the combatants are engaged in "warfare" and use "weapons of war".

However, the issue here is whether we should label the whole conflict "war" or not. There are two important issues to consider:

  1. Should we change the current descriptive title to another descriptive title, by simply changing "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" or something else with a lowercase "war"? It seems that many think so, because they (wrongly, in my opinion) think that the word "conflict" somehow is a weasel word that diminishes the gravity of the situation. The word "conflict" doesn't measure the gravity of a conflict. It can be used to cover anything from a minor disagreement between two persons to a world war. However, almost any other word for a conflict, including "crisis", contains a measure. You can't very well call a minor disagreement a "crisis", nor can you call a world war a "crisis". Similarly, you can't call a full-blown war a "disagreement" or call a minor disagreement "war". Consequently, "conflict" is the ideal NPOV word, while "war" definitely is POV, as it carries a measure. There is nothing wrong with the current article name, and it doesn't attempt to diminish the gravity of the situation in any way. Stating that "conflict" is a weasel word just shows that some people don't know their English well enough.
  2. Should we change the current descriptive title and instead give the conflict a proper name, by changing "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to "2006 Israel-Lebanon War" or something else with an uppercase "War"? Definitely not! If we were to call this conflict "Something War" at this stage, we would be the first in the world to give the conflict a name. Not only would that be against the Wikipedia policy, which states that we should use established names for military conflicts, but as we are at the top of the Google hit list, such a decision would carry a great responsibility, as we would actively influence the perception of what this conflict should be called. That's not our job. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a policy institute or a bloody "think tank".

What's important, when considering the name of this article, is what banners the TV news programmes and the newspapers are currently sticking on the material about the conflict, as their banners is the closest equivalent to a Wikipedia article name covering a developing story. Their headlines change by the hour, while their banners (if they have any) are static identifiers of which news category the articles or news pieces belong to. CNN, BBC and Sky News are all still using a banner saying "Middle East Crisis" when covering the Lebanese conflict, while Fox News have opted for "MidEast Turmoil". As for newspapers, both The Times and The Independent have banners saying "Middle East Crisis". Unfortunately I don't have access to any other major English-language newspapers right now, but I'm pretty sure hardly anyone have the word "war" in their banners yet. I agree with Cerejota, that when all the reliable sources, and all the leaders of the combatants are calling it war, then we should do so as well. But that is not yet the case. Not even Siniora, who has better reason than anyone else to call it war, has yet done so. This may change at any moment, however, following the hawks' killing of the doves in the Israeli cabinet this afternoon (well, actually yesterday afternoon, I just realised). So those who want to call it war may very soon have my support - but probably only for a new descriptive title. Good night. Thomas Blomberg 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FOR EVERYONE THAT THINK IT ISN'T A WAR YOU MUST SEE THIS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPd-yubPdx4&mode=related&search=

--TheFEARgod 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good! Thomas Blomberg 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Hopefully not all medias follow CNN. Tazmaniacs 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Have we agreed that the two major participants are Israel and Lebanon and not Israel and Hezbollah? -The monkeyhate 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.

The article is too long

I moved some part of article to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Because the length of this this article was more than 60 Kb.--Accessible 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article becomes too long . Please add what you want in the main articles and try to shorten this article. I prefer to strat from "Targeting of civilian areas " and "Historical background " parts.--Accessible 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Great idea in theory, but you can't just cut the bottom half of the section off - you have to leave behind a summary and keep it balanced. Thats why I reverted your change. I've had another go at removing some stuff, feel free to cut it down some more if you think there's still some excess in there - as you say, we've got to get it down to about 60kb. --Iorek85 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the sources accounts for much of the size. If I just cut and paste the article text to notepad and save it is just 26 kB. Vints 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We've done it! Down to 59kb! Now we just need to keep it there. (And yeah, those references are a biggie.) --Iorek85 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And now it's been completely undone. Almost 80kb. --Iorek85 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to long to add in some bumpf about resolution 1559 :) Doesnt that belong in the article concerned with the res? 82.29.227.171 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot of culling - lots of people like to add info, which is great, but not often do they remove it. Down to 66kb, which is still too long, but I can't find anywhere to lose it from. --Iorek85 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

International reaction and propaganda

There has been an amazing, unprecedented state-organized pro-Israel activist mobilization to bend international public debate in favour of Israel. See the times online article, and the website [www.giyus.org] which provides automated tool to do this.

I believe this has its place in this article, but should of course be balanced by info on pro-Hezbollah propaganda. Or perhaps an article exists which I didn't find? --Josce 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article has been deemed off-limits to editing- who is deciding the ultimate content of this article? Why should debate and editing of this article be off-limits? There should be concern that this article has not been labeled as having undue bias... If the community/ other people have no say into the content of this article, how can Wikipedia claim to be the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? -- ben2028 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You can edit as long as you're an established user (basically you need to be registered and with an account that's at least 4 days old). We've had a lot of hit-and-run vandalism on this article, so semi-protection of this sort is a sensible compromise between having to constantly revert vandals and completely protecting it so that nobody can edit. -- ChrisO 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

Semi-Protected

The article is semi-protected because of the non-stop removal of pics. -- Szvest 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Haim Ramon's Comments under "Israeli Position"

Earlier I removed Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon's comments from under "Israeli position". In my opinion their mention a few sections below is sufficient and placing them in that context is highly misleading, as regardless of Ramon's words "all civilians in southern Lebanon are terrorists" and "villages should be flattened by air force before ground troops move in" are not Israeli policy in any shape or form, let alone an official one. My changes were reverted by user:El C with the explanation that the comments are "historically significant". I think that still doesn't change the fact that Ramon was merely expressing his opinion of what should be done and not in any way voicing official policy, so the quote should be included but in another part of the article. --AceMyth 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, not every comment from a person with a government position is expresing said governments views and policies. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile I changed the "X but Y" syntax (which is basically an underhanded way to say X, but disregard X, because Y), and replaced the very rough paraphrase of Ramon's words with his actual phrasing. I think it's less jarring now, but should still be moved elsewhere. --AceMyth 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He was expressing his "opinion" in his official capacity at an Israeli Government cabinet meeting. As a member of the Government currently in power it might be assumed that his views go towards forming policy on the ground. I believe Ramon's comments are valuable because they go some way to explaning this idea that South Lebanon is a free fire zone. Yesterday it was announced that it was IDF open season on all moving vehicles. Conflict of policy? Drop leaflets telling people to flee then blow up any vehicles moving? 82.29.227.171 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you are assuming is whats wrong. Furthermore there was a warning given regarding moving vehicles and an explanation why. Lastly they were told to flee some weeks ago, those still there I doubt have just been packing bags all this time. Again, stop "assuming" as assumptions are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a fair assumption. Assuming that the Justice Minister's views count for something isnt farfetched at all. If it is why is he in the post? Why assume his views are ignored in cabinet meetings?
The warnings are quite useless when faced with bombed roads/bridges/convoys, a lack of living drivers, a lack of money to pay them, a lack of vehicles which arent on the "strafe on sight list". Even when people do flee they get shot at. PLUS we now have examples of areas being bombed without leaflet drops. Check this article which provides examples to back up everything I just stated. Although based on your comments I think youre more likely to agree with Ramon when he said "all those in South Lebanon are terrorists" 82.29.227.171 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"might be assumed that his views go towards forming policy on the ground" I am tired of arguing with all the anon's that dont understand how Wikipedia works, just provide sources stating his views are guiding policy and its acceptable, else please stop assuming as it doesnt contribute anything to the article.. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why assume his views are ignored in cabinet meetings? Provide a source that says they are. His own words as a member of the Government indicate Government policy. His own words tally with whats happening on the ground. Commonsensical. RandomGalen 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to prove that comments in a cabinet meeting indicate policy. Other ministers expressed dismay at Israeli expansion of the conflict, yet they were clearly not made into policy. To argue to what degree such comments tempered an even more aggressive plan, or to what degree Ramon's comments fanned the flames is original research unless you can show a media source reporting such analysis. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I wont push on the matter, not because you have argued the case convincingly but because I just noticed that Justice Minister Haim Ramon is under criminal investigation "by the Fraud Squad" (sexual harrasment). Clearly past 30 July his influence can be called into question. [1] [2] Although you make my point for me- other ministers did express 'dismay' at the conflict- they werent listened to. It was clearly Ramon and the Hawk, who were pro-war that were listend to because widening the conflict became policy. Lets not forget this is the person who said the condemnation voiced in Rome was a "green light" for more war. [3] RandomGalen 11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Request that "Civilians..." section be cleaned up

I am unable to edit right now, so I would like to draw a more senior user's attention on this matter:


This paragraph needs to be changed to use less inflammatory wording:

Strikes on Lebanon's civilian population and infrastructure include Beirut airport, residential buildings,[67] clearly marked ambulances,[68] fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags,[69] United Nations posts and personnel,[70] ports, a lighthouse, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks,[71] mobile telephone and television stations, fuel containers and service stations, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait.


"clearly marked ambulances" and "fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags" is ridiculous wording, clearly showing an Anti-Israel bias.

It is fine to say that there have been confirmed instances of ambulances and fleeing civilians being hit, but to use language like "clearly marked" and "prominently waving white flags" is completely unacceptable and should be removed.


Also, I will request again that some mention be made of Hezbollah's use of warheads filled with ball bearings (whihc are designed to maximize human casualties). All mention of this was removed, apparently by POV vandals. 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Gidklio

The part about the ball bearings was moved down and is now next to the part about Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, I believe. --AceMyth 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this article which provides examples to back the wording up. Is it "anti-Israel bias" when its factual? The detail on the shrapnel rockets does belong in this article. 82.29.227.171 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think the objection he expressed was regarding the tone, not necessarily the content. 2. I can't access the source for the civilians "prominently waving white flags", for example, because I'm not registered on the NYT website, but as it stands the article implies basically that Israel attacked civilians waving white flags and Hospitals and so forth for no reason in particular except that it sounded like a fun thing to do at the time. I mean, is that it? Has Israel denied these allegations, issued any official response, anything?... I smell PoV by omission. --AceMyth 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Haven't Israeli "ports...roads...factories...telephone and television...service stations" also been hit? At the rate of 150-200 Katyushas fired per day, there's no way that Israeli roads have been magically spared the destruction from cheap inacurate rockets. Why is this list put under Lebanon if it's not also put under Israel? And in that case it should be removed entirely because it's expected that in an air war, roads will be damaged.Gidklio 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IRGC should be readded as a combatant

Reuters story says that IRGC members were found by Israeli soliders. [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hello32020 (talk • contribs).

There were reports they were fighting before, and this is proof that they are there, so it makes since to include them in my oppinion. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is denying that Iran is supplying Hezbollah with weaponry, not even the Iranian government itself.
And the fact that their have been Iranian casualties, most likely Pasderan, has also been well-established, IMO.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Oops forgot to add name before

We should readd if we get one or two more people due to consensus. Hello32020 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While Iran is involved to an extent (documented somewhat at Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - though more detail would be appreciated), I'm not sure that they should be considered a combatant yet, just like China was not considered a combatant in Viet Nam. I don't claim to know the line they must cross to be considered, but this, like so many other issues here, may be subject to the Elephant test. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli use of human shields: a look at the other side of the coin & a New light on Hezbollah

Firstly this is an article by a jounralist in Israel who has managed to give some information, as little as it is, that proves Hezbollah is not deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, at least yet. It is in depth and covers the issue through a military analysis with verification. If you will all take the time to read it you will agree and see. It is also neutral and looks at both sides with critique.

Hypocrisy About Hezbollah by Jonathan Cook http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9511


Now as for the missile claims and Hezbollah using civilian shields this has been rebuked as false almost totally by the local population, observers, international aids, the Red Cross, Lebanese government officials, on-site journalists, relgious leaders (Christian & Muslim) and Hezbollah.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060803&articleId=2899

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAM20060801&articleId=2883

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060730&articleId=2860

69.196.164.190

Antiwar.com doesnt seem like a WP:RS source of information. Furthermore its an opinion peace by a non expert in the field. Take it as it is, one mans opinion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you have no idea what you are talking about; firstly it is a ledding jounralist talking about basically how Hezbollah is not attacking civilians, but targets in Israel that are industrial or military. It says a lot maybe you should read it. Secondly it was not written for ant-War.com, it is featured there. 69.196.164.190
Odd there are no credits for it coming from somewhere else, so either you are misunderstanding or its a copywrite violation. WP:RS doesnt extend to the journalist themself, but the agency in which they write for, perhaps there is a reason he isnt writing for his normal outlet. Its also still an opinion piece by a non-expert. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Pasderan Links

Here are some of the sources that lend credibility to this assertion:
http://www.nysun.com/article/36326
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5242566.stm?ls
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505160247
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T215844Z_01_L09100220_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-LEBANON-IRANIANS.xml

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just heard reports on WABC news that reporters were shown Iranian identity papers discovered on the person(s) of individuals killed in S. Lebanon.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Pasderan Links Seem to be Propganda

These claims seem to be propaganda because;

  • Military personal of a covert natural wil never wear or have anything that can be traced back to their nation
  • The Israelis are making a claim, nothing has been proven and verified by a neutral party
  • Hezbollah & the Iranian government have said there are no Iranian troops in Lebanon; this are official statements to 'consider', but also NOTE the fact that so far Hezbollah has been more honest than Israel has.
  • It is a clear Israeli and White House objective to produce a smoking gun for Iran; meaning blame Iran for the attacks for justification of somesort of future conflict with Iran and /or Syria.
  • The claims are made about dead bodies; how can they tell they are Iranian? Even if they are they are not wearing any Iranian uniforms, etc.
  • So far a lot of the Israeli claims have either proven to be false and/or contradictory

I also want it to be noted by all impartial and fair editors that there is a strong and repeteaded eagerness to involve Iran in this conflict by Israel and the White House as part of their PR, there are also certain editors who wish to do the same and their history and actions have given strong indications to where they stand on the issue and who they favour. Also remeber that it has been discovered that Israel and the Israeli lobby have declared a cyber-war where they are lunching a campaing to manipulate the internet with propganda. Just checking a lot of these IP histories and so on will confirm what is being said. Thank You

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20079382-23109,00.html http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T233401Z_01_L09130902_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-HIZBOLLAH-DENIAL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3 http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L10130494 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09805695-3577-421D-BC35-8FE01E8EAD06.htm http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/597/597_10_MythsLies.shtml 69.196.164.190 Bold text


I believe the impartial and fair editors of Wikipedia are perfectly able to judge PoV from NPoV and tell propaganda from well-cited material without your generous, neutral efforts to point them in the right direction, thank you very much. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. --AceMyth 11:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed UN resolution

Is there a Wikipedia article on the proposed UN resolution? I've started to write something at Lebanon and the United Nations but don't know if that's the best place for it. HieronyMouse 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the United Nations per se, but an article about the reaction of international organizations does exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_by_Organizations

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have started 2006 United Nations Security Council resolution on Lebanon and need help with it. HieronyMouse 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some reading material,
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/08/08/diplomatic_divide_on_halt_to_fighting_stalls_new_proposal/
http://www.nysun.com/article/37518
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/REPOSITORY/607260363/1043/NEWS01
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7f9a2caa-5e39-48e5-8d4d-760139d63710&k=71041
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/world/15148142.htm

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there is already an article called Negotiations for ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which the 2006 United Nations Security Council resolution on Lebanon should be linked to, just as the Siniora Plan already is. Negotiations for ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is in desperate need of a re-write, by the way. As for the first UN draft text, you'll find it at the Democracy in Lebanon website. However, judging from what's happening in New York right now, that text will either be re-written a lot, or totally scrapped, as France and the US are quickly moving in opposite directions. Regards Thomas Blomberg 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Big bias against Hezbollah

It looks like the international media suppresses news of big jewish losses. The chief of zionist army in the area was sacked the day before yesterday, because he was deemed "overly cautious and slow-acting". Major-General Mose Kaplinski replaced him. During first night following this leadership change FIFTEEN zionists soldiers were killed by hezbollah warriors, which is a huge loss for such a short time. Even if it is true that jews killed 40 hezbolah warriors in the same clashes, the proportion is still very good for the jihadists, considering the vast equipment overpower of jews due to tens of billions of dollars in free american weapon shipments. The fact that Hezbollah is not an underdog is not properly represented in this article. Hezbollah is the best muslim army, besides Pakistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sources, I know people want to help balance the article and add information, but you have to post links or some other information for anything to be included in the article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I read that he was fired, first time this had happened the media said. Although what they expect him or his men to do against such well trained and well equipped Guerilla is beyond me. A former leader of 'Peace Now' who protested the previous invasions and an 'military correspondant' as prime minister may not be the best candidates for the job :D RandomGalen 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Who would give a military job to someone who wants peace ... that is not sarcasm, seriously who would do such a thing? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

((removed rhetoric)) Please keep in mind this is not a political forum. Discuss the article in question directly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Various hits, situation not exactly as 195.70.32.136 describes, but close. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/747986.html mdf 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Action

What's wrong with the last sentence in this section on the main page? Precis 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz References are not acceptable

References from haaretz are weakning the reliability of article. Abulfazl 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Abulfazl 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. Haaretz and JPost are in the business of selling papers to a public in battle, they are also under restrictions from the censors in Israel. Haaretz does report well but the JPost has frequently inserted words into the IDF spokesmans mouth which give a misleading impression. Editors should take care to check the actual IDF press releases/video and Hezbollah output which the journalists write about. I always take care when a strange statement, figure, or remark is reported to use the qualifier "reportedly this happened"- this alerts the reader that this may not be the entire picture. This protects wikipedia from journalistic bias in combatant nations. Just as you would not take comment from journalist in Lebanon Daily Star reports about "Israeli crimes" so you should do the same for all sources. RandomGalen 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and argue there if they are sources that meet the standards. Until a concensus forms on WP:RS that they are to no longer meeting the requirements, they are acceptable. Also if you have reports from Lebanese news sources that are in english, feel free to add them, they are more then welcomed as has been pointed out numerous times. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"the censors in Israel"? Are you kidding? It's front page news around that world if Israel's Cabinet votes to expand or not expand operations! The Israeli press is incredibly loose (how else would everyone know that Dimona-of-peace-power is actually Dimona-of-don't-tell-them-we-have-the-bomb)? Gidklio 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of Mordechai Vanunu telling it to the british press? My point is that their media is operating in national conflict, with some journalistic reportage and some censor control. I accept your point. RandomGalen 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference 22

It's a dead link... 84.109.52.88 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Section: International Reaction

  • In addition, Tehran reportedly sends Hezbollah $60-100 million per year. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan criticized Hezbollah's actions, as well as Iran and Syria for extending support to the organization, although they are under pressure to change their stance. This part of the article needs to be fixed. First off let's repalce tehran and put Iran. Then Iran gives 100 million exactly, not 60-100 million a year.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/3/israellebanonConflictStirsLocalTensionResponse

Political Correctness BS

Should someone add that the IRA ( Iranian Revolutionary Army) Has been found amognst the dead bodies of hezbollah terrorists, and that they (IRA) should be added to the death count, and this leads to the issue of political correctness in this article. Fact is what i said above should be added to the article. Also let's stop labeling Hezbollah, Amal, and PFlP-GC as militas, let's cut the political Correctness BS and label them what they are.... TERRORISTS, Come on guys. Add this stuff and be fair like wikipedia is supposed to be. If we can agree on the stuff on the stuff that I posted all above on deathtoll, section:International Reaction and, political correctness. I would like to have open debate on this and have and it the fair way, and i think the death toll needs to be configured within three to five days. Zonerocks 17:23 (UTC)

First I heard of this, are their sources to support? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue of using "terrorists" or "militants" is much more trouble than it's worth. Why all the fuss when the word "militants" has basically become a shorthand for "considered terrorists by most of the people they blow up, considered legitimate by some of the people they don't", which is NPoV par excellance. --AceMyth 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering their operate illegally under the UN Charter, they should at least be labeled an illegal militia, can a militia be legal? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"...are their sources to support this?"
Look upthread.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, didnt notice this was a break off from another discussion, seeing some of the sources are highly reliable I think it should be added, they all seem to say Iran denies it however so that should probably be included, until proof is offered that is beyond the point of doubts. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Man someone had to write something. now i lost everything i typed in my response. ok lets try again. Hey I understand, But not everyone know this ace. The sooner people understand that groups like hezbollah aren't legit, and they are more like terrorists, the sooner people will understand that what hezbollah is doing, are terrorists acts. This article is very politically correct, and it paints the picture that, HEZBOLLAH IS A MILITIA DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF LEBANON BY FIGHTING THE BIG, BAD ISRAELIS. Where in this article does it say hezbollah is the probelm and isn't supposed to be there. Ruth those articles are legit. Also ruth the un charter says alot of things, and brings the point on why shouldn't the things the charter says not be in this article, and if we don't put terrorists, then we need to put illegal milita. --zonerocks

Ruth the sources are legit so let's move to the next stage and edit the money and im ok with adding iran denies it. Also What do yall think about adding The IRA to the casualty list. Read the entire beginning of political correctness to know what i am talking about. --zonerocks

Depends if there is an accurate count and further if its ever verified or proof offered I would say. I wouldnt add them if its like 5 soldiers, but if its bordering on 20 or so, then I think it should be added. However barring Iran stops denying or mass media stops believing they are not there. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruth well in that case then why do we have that one "Milita" that has one casualty, and ruth how are we going to edit this stuff it won't allow it. Do we ask to temporarily allow us to do it. --zonerocks

I don't think we should add anything about IRA as it is an Israeli claim, Hezbollah and Iran denies it. If it's added, then the article will become biased, which it shouldn't. Unless there is real proof coming from non-propaganda media, the Iranian soldiers being part of Hezbollah's army are to be considered as being false information. At least, that's my opinion. Also, about this "call them terrorists" thing, I wonder why people still have the guts to call Hezbollah terrorists.. Who calls them like that ? the US, UK, Israel ? why ? because they're against them, that's it. And it's public opinion because Israel+US govern the media... If you read other people's opinion, you'll see that Israel is a terrorist state, it used many of the Holocaust's strategies against the Arab world and if Hitler was wrong (and he was), Israel is also wrong. -- KaKaRoTo

US, UK, Australia, Netherlands, Israel, Canada consider them a terrorist organization and EU considers their senior intelligence officer a terrorist, Russia has condemned their tactics as "terrorist methods" and EU has recognized clear evidence of terrorist activities. That is just to answer your question. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The first bullet point in the first pretty pastel-shaded box in this page reads "Please do not use [the talk page] as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". Please take note, and acknowledge that exactly this sort of unwanted discussion is what tends to get started when you go around calling a whole country "terrorist" and comparing it to Nazi Germany. Personally I came here exactly because I find a psychological refuge in the tenets of Wikipedia, where even people involved in highly controversial subjects are committed to NPoV and searching for the truth instead of hurling around emotionally-resounding accusations. So... Please. --AceMyth 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Begining of the conflict

Hi, why is it that the begining of the conflict states that Hezbollah attacked Israel with Katyushas and mortar? I never heard of that and I see no source proving this. The only source there is a 404 link. This should be corrected. If two versions of the story are available (from Israel and from Hezbollah) then both versions should be stated, not the 'pro-israel, anti-hezbollah' version. This article really looked biased and non-neutral. KaKaRoTo

(Personal attack removed)

It's like clamoring for equal numbers of pro-heliocentric and pro-geocentric editorials in the Times. Would we say a paper is biased because it runs off a thousand and one heliocentric aritcles before printing a geocentric one? Gidklio 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Israel is a terrorist entity, all the people of the Middle East; Arabs, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and Iranians alike are committed to freedom, which Israel is trying to take away from them. There were no Iranian soilders amongst the Lebanese Resistance fighting the Israeli invasion to grab more land and take water. Israel lies and has provided no proof. Israel atacks civilians, the unarmed U.N. observers, and Red Cross. 69.196.164.190

Won't respond. Too busy oppressing Greeks and Turks. --AceMyth 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a political forum. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you opinions from the most side about start of the conflict should be printed. 203.81.232.245 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Background of conflict

I think that some key points regarding the background of the conflict should go to the introduction instead of being stuck in the obscure lower regions of the article. Like the declared aim of Israel in initiating its attack, the status quo between Israel and Hezbollah prior to this conflict (including UN resolution 1559 and its implementation or rather lack thereof) and Hezbollah's aims in general in occupying the border. A lot of important things about this conflict stem from the historical context in which it is taking place. --AceMyth 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm able to edit the article (it's only sprotected, not fully protected). I just wanted to bring this to the talk page and see whether maybe anybody has some valid reasons against before I mess around with the article's structure like this. --AceMyth 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you edit it? So i guess i object cause i want to know.

Sprotection only lets "established" users (accounts over 4 days old) edit articles. --AceMyth 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How much background information regarding the historical context should be included?
If we want to trace this back to its root causes we can go back all the way to 1975, when the Lebanese civil war began, or to Black September and the Palestinian exodus from Jordan, but something tells me that isn't the direction you were suggesting.
Actually, Lebanon (along with other Arab nations) attacked Israel in 1948 and has never — unlike Jordan and Egypt — made peace.пан Бостон-Київський 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

hwo do you get Sprotection

I guess it might be to late to object. But im going to object anyway. First im sure all of would want to know what "structual" things you will be doing, and I think before you add it, we should all be able to see it, and then come to an agreement. --zonerocks 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border

There are certain editors that are helping put an Israeli POV, which is based on falsehood and propganda into this article,

Please look up where the Israeli soilders were captured...it was in South Lebanon according to Lebanese officials, the Lebanese Police, and Hezbollah. This was reported widely in Europe and the Middle East but started getting covered up...The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times have also reported this and I have provided a link within a link to them...

Check

http://uruknet.info/?p=m25034&hd=0&size=1&l=e http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hezbollah_soldiers.html http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24913&hd=0&size=1&l=e http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060720&articleId=2767 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FRA20060725&articleId=2813 http://www.voltairenet.org/article142056.html

These links themselves have links to even more significant sources...

Also two of those sites are world famous for their work, by leading experts and adacemics. Two of those links also had other links on them, plus one of the verifications is The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times.


I also want you to note that the Israeli media has proven to be censored and used for propaganda purposes...all their reports of advancement into Lebanon have turned out to be bogus. Or even reading this says it all; http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291980307&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I noticed that there is a lot of pro-Israeli rhetoric on the site that is trying to give the world a false image of the attacks on Lebanon and Lebanese civilians.

God Bless 69.196.164.190

The link you posted leads to an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with Israeli military progress in South Lebanon, or censorship related to military operations.
Also, I don't think Uruknet is a valid, let alone unbiased, source.
You are not objecting to the impartiality of this article, simply insisting that your biases be included.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to mislead others or are not lookig at the wrong link. The last link shows how low and stupid Israeli propganda is. All the links are listed. 69.196.164.190

So we have one Forbes story of all those sources against every other source that says otherwise ... I think its safe to conclude that if it was the way you say, more then Urukunet and GlobalResearch would have said so by now. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You supporters of Israel or Zionist supporters are clearly trying to add misinformation on this site on behalf of Israel. It is Israel that attacked Lebanon, it is Israel that continually kidnapped people from Lebanpon, it is Israel tht continually according to the UN and ionternational observers shlled and killed Lebanese farmers before the conflict and violated Lebanese soverignty (you think any nation will allow another nations jets to fly over its territory unchallenged whenever it wishes? And this was before this conflict!); it is Israel that has invaded Lebanon 3 times; it is Israel that has used car bombs to kill Lebanese officialsand even people going to courts to testify against Israeli war crimes; it is Israel that was stealing Lebanese natural resources for years; it is Israel that does not respect international laws; it is Israel that has massacred unarmed civilians before this war; it is Israel that attacked American saiolrs on the U.S.S. Liberty and tried to frame the Egyptians; it is Israel that assasinated Red Cross workers and European diplomats trying to forge peace in the Holy Land; it is Israel that uses collective punishment; it is ISrael that uses Canadian passports for assasinations; it is Israel that has been caught fabricating and lying over and over again. 69.196.164.190
I find it ironic that you post something like this and accuse something else of being "propaganda" in the same breath. Propaganda, as I see it, is not about these claims being made or other claims being made (true or alleged). Propaganda is a frame of mind, it's the disgusting practice of trying to tell people what to think by presenting them with only one version of the truth, borne out of cowardly doublethink- being absolutely sure that a side of the issue is totally in the right while fearing that perfectly rational people might be swayed to the "wrong" side if they are presented with its position. Israel very probably has a position, an explanation, for each and every one of the incidents you mentioned. Are they GOOD explanations, are they true, are they false, are they merely flimsy excuses? Who knows. Here on Wikipedia is not our place to judge and most CERTAINLY not our place to reduce this controversy to a two-dimensional mockery of the true complexities of the situation, where one side is the sole source of all evil and is responsible for all the pain and death and lies and propaganda. This is the very thing that lies at the foundation of Wikipedia's NPoV policy, the part where we shut up and let the facts do the talking, even if we think that we could speak so much better on their behalf. It is for this same reason that though I've just read your speech, from which it all but follows that the people of my country are heartless, warmongering men without the least bit of sympathy for other human beings if they happen to be over the border, and though I /know/ that is not true, I will not fire up with virtuous speeches on its behalf. If there really are facts that show my perspective to be true, they will speak for themselves. And I will shut up. --AceMyth 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You have one link that really doest prove much. Also, please be a member of wikipedia before you post your thoughts. Your post seems to be more of an opinon then a fair unbiased add to the article. Your jpos link is bull, you can't fool people on here, because we will actually check it out. This is not a forum to spew BS. Zonerocks22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

This article rather bombastically states that "Triggered by a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling". This particular version of the timeline is disputed by many. Here is a good article by George Monbiot in the CIF section of The Guardian. 84.48.108.238 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "good article" link states:
The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. (emphasis mine)
Thus it is, in fact, correct to say, as the article currently does, that the response was triggered by the soldiers' capture. That Israel — having suffered steady stream of attacks for six years since its complete UN-certified withdrawal — had a plan prepared to respond for real (as opposite to pass the sound barrier above a village) at the time of their choosing, changes nothing.
Every country's military maintains plans for all plausible military operations, so that when the government decides to act, the military can do so in minutes.
пан Бостон-Київський 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon claims IDF troops have captured around 350 Lebanese soldiers

We should add this to the table in the front of the article. In the combatants section where it says lebanon and under where is says casualties, we need to add 350 lebanese soldiers captured in the lebanese city of Marj Ayoun. Here is an article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748556.html to support this claim. So let's act quick and add it, and let's think about adding it to the section: Israeli action. Hope we can have a good, and open discussion about it. --Zonerocksandproud 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

THIS USER, Zonerocks, IS AN ISRAELI PROPGANDA ARTIST HERE; WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO MISLEAD EVERYONE ANDand HIDE ISRAELI WAR CRIMES AND ISRAELI TERRORISM! 69.196.164.190
Your caps lock key appears to be stuck. --AceMyth 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Propaganda, but fact. get it through your one sided mind. Stop Whining, Stop being part of the probelm, and start being part of the solution. Release the straight jacket around your mind, and step away from partisan politics. I don't hate you, I don't despise you, I feel sorry for you. This talk is supposed to make the article better, and you have turned it into a political forum. --Zonerocksandproud 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a rolling news channel. Also see WP:V, wikipedia is not a propaganda broadcaster. Try not to get sucked into the reportage of journalists writing for one particular audience who want to hear about "victories" like the capture of soldiers. This wasnt how I read the story in other media. What was reported elsewhere was that the IDF showed up at the base, got some refreshments, left the base, came under fire from Hezbollah, then 'withdrew' to the base again. All the time the LA were in contact with media and arranging their depature with the UN. Hardly captured or POW.
"Two hundred Israeli soldiers returned to the city late Thursday to occupy a building inside the barracks, a senior Lebanese Army officer inside the base told AFP by phone. "They are occupying one building and we are in the other." [5]
"United Nations peacekeepers were dispatched Friday to evacuate about 350 Lebanese soldiers and police detained by Israeli forces in Marjayoun after Israeli soldiers swept into the southern Lebanese town, the UN command said.. Israel said the force was not detained but had been advised not to leave for its own safety." [6] RandomGalen 12:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And Lebanese say? "The Lebanese Army and United Nations forces in southern Lebanon are trying to withdraw a joint Lebanese army and police force from Marjeyoun, after the Israeli army confined them to their barracks there. The Lebanese Interior Ministry said Thursday that around 400 Lebanese police were being held hostage by the Israeli troops, but Israel denied this and said a curfew had been imposed on the area, preventing the troops from leaving the barracks." [7]
I think you/whoever will need to revert the infobox statistic change. RandomGalen 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Soldiers were kidnapped NOT captured

For the last time, you don't kidnap uniformed soldiers conducting operations in enemy territory, you capture them, just like Israel CAPTURED 20 Hezbollah combatants - let's at least be fair here

--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. Any criminal might kidnap a uniformed soldier. Hizbullah terrorists were not uniformed nor has Hizbullah declared war on Israel. That makes the act criminal and the crime **kidnapping.**--12.74.187.164 07:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Israeli soldiers in Israel are operating in enemy territory?Yossiea 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok look The Concensus has decided that they were kidnapped, We could have a 'Concensus vote' if you would like to. --Zonerocksandproud 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that patrol was ambushed IN southern lebanon, before this invasion began --It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers were patrolling the bluie line. they were taken from israel. there was NO declaration of war. Had Hezbollah done so, it could be called such. But, they chose to KIDNAP them during a somewhat peaceable time.--AeomMai 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured for this, among other reasons), the consensus is that Hezbollah crossed into Israel, attacked the soldiers on the Israeli side of the Blue Line, and took the soldiers back into Lebanon. The UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera have characterised the Hezbollah attack as "cross border." You can review more detailed citations at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident (déjà vu anyone). Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If the Lebanese army had taken the Israeli soldiers, during a time of war, I would call them "captured". However, when somebody other than a country takes somebody, it's taking hostages or kidnapping them. This is especially true because they aren't likely to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, and may very well be tortured and executed. There is also no possibility that they would be returned "when the war ends", because Hezbollah will never end the war until Israel ceases to exist, which will never happen. Think of the reverse happening. What if some group of militant Jewish settlers went and grabbed a bunch of Palestinian Authority soldiers ? Would you say they were captured or taken hostage/kidnapped ? StuRat 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I support kidnapped because Hezbollah has already broken the Geneva Convention by attempting to use the soldiers for ransom (prisoner swap) which is against the Geneva Convention. Furthermore Hezbollah is an illegal entity according to the United Nations as per res 1559 as so there action are based on the illegal definition of the word, that being kidnapped. You can look up kidnap and capture, kidnapping is when there is a ransom ... there was a ransom in this situation. Political correctness aside, using captures is just the wrong word, kidnapped fits 100%. Furthermore threatening to kill soldiers of the other faction is also illegal against the Geneva Convention. The soldiers also within 1 week of capture have to be able to contact a neutral representative and their families have to be notified of how to contact them. More violations of the Geneva Convention. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

--12.74.187.164 07:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

When can we start calling this a war?

--Greasysteve13 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have they formally declared war on each other yet? Carson 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Israel is, with the exceptions of Mauritania, Jordan, and Egypt, technically speaking, at war with the entire Arab League.
In other words, it's never reached any sort of peace accord with its enemies, and the situation remains static, a la the 38th parallel that divides North and South Korea.
I know that there have been a series of armistices and truces-the last of which was reached in 1996, IIRC-but I don't think there is any existing peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

greasysteve, look at the beginning of the conversation webpage and you will see that we are currently having a vote on renaming the title. --Zonerocks 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

hizbullah did not start this conflict!

(Here Ruthfulbarbarity and Khosrow II made some antesemitist remarks. The text written here was deleted (fairly justly), but it was reinserted (rather unjustly). To make sure that personal ideas would not be lost, the text was moderated into a more neutral stance.)

The history of this conflict is not only 4 weeks for you to say that hizbullah started, you cannot choose to say who started because you sympathize with the other side! This article is very biased! I will be editing this article to show the hizbullah point of view! Also, whoever put the protect tag on there, obviously not an administrator because editing is still possible. For the record, I'm not muslim, so I think im pretty neutral. Khosrow II 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Those declamatory exclamation marks sure do constitute an irrefutable argument. My bad.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The protect tag

Im about to take the tag off because its useless. only admins can put on protect tags that actually work. anything anyone has to say before I do? i'll wait awhile. Khosrow II 05:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"i think i'm pretty neutral."
Well, you think wrongly.
Also, the article is "semi-protected," which means that most users-although not all-can edit it.
I think your confusion stems from that distinction.
There are various layers of protection, with "protection," i.e. the inability of anyone who is not an administrator to edit an article, being the most stringent among them.
That's what you see with extraordinarily controversial, easily vandalized subjects. For example, the article on President George W. Bush.
I'm not sure, but I think only a few dozen articles have achieved the dubious distinction of being fully "protected."

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth I reported his nick so he should get blocked within a few hours. --Zonerocks 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is protected, by an admin - User:FayssalF. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=68050390&oldid=68050316

I've already requested the page be unprotected. Iorek85 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is right. Flayer 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
@ zonerocks: what are you talking about? why should i get blocked because im iranian? yes, im iranian, but im not muslim, and not being muslim nor jewish mkaes all the difference for an article like this. i dont sympathize with either side really. you want to get me blocked because im iranian? i never said i wasnt iranian, i said i wasnt muslim. are you a racist or you just assume people are muslim by their nationality? whats next, your going to call me an anti semite because i think israel is too blame for this conflict just as much as hizbullah? my profile is open for everyone to see, why would i lie about something? i never even lied in the first place because i never said i wasnt iranian. i dont think a person obviously as racist as you for wanting to ban someone because they're iranian should be participating in this article, your obviously biased.Khosrow II 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Who said you should be blocked because you are iranian? I think you need to just step back and take a deep breath --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth I reported his nick so he should get blocked within a few hours. khosrow, your a liar, your iranian. lol says it in your profile. --Zonerocks 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

^^ what do you call that then?Khosrow II 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental consequences of attacks

I cannot access that sources (81 and 82) regarding the forrest fire in Israel. PJ 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. 81-for some inexplicable reason-tracks back to the Wikipedia entry on the British Broadcasting Corporation, instead of an actual BBC report on the fires.
  1. 82 is a link to an online version of a New York Times' article.
You'll need to register with the site in order to access it.

Ruthfulbarbarity

Who is Terrorist

What was Haganah, the first ever terrorist organization of modern world which later formed the most part of Isareli Army and there is long list of its terrorist activities pls see Zionist Terrorism. --Abulfazl 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Irgun and Lehi organization may be called "terrorist", but not the Haganah. Irgun came out from Haganah bacause Haganah were not terrorists, and Lehi came out of Irgun, because they were even more radical. Flayer 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And none of this is really relevant to the issue in the article except to call the Israeli army terrorists. This isnt a political forum, please stop spamming this page with non article related information. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF allows 400 Lebanese security forces to leave Marjayoun

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3289754,00.html Flayer 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of enviromental part

Im against having a enviromental part. There are parts of the article that need to be cleaned. This should be the thing that is cleaned up. The enviromental issue is a waste of space on this article. Let's be smart and get rid of this part. It is absolutely irrelevent. This is just to move someone's take on the enviromental issue. I hope we can have a good debate about this, and then maybe move to have a general census on the issue. --Zonerocks 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty daft argument. All wars have damaging effects on the environment. This one is no exception - it's led to one of the biggest oil spills ever seen in the Mediterranean, which is already affecting two countries and may affect two more [8]. The issue is one of transnational importance and more than justifies inclusion in this article. -- ChrisO 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, these things should be implemented in the israeli or hizbollah action parts. --Zonerocks 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are neglecting the severity of this oil spill. I suggest you read up on it to see why it deserves its own section. Additionally, it may deserve an entire page on the wikipedia. --Epsilonsa 19:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
One of them already does at Jiyeh power station oil spill. Hello32020 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

POV & historical revision

Please stop qualifying the consensus version of the casus in the Intro as an Israeli version while adding in numerous rebuttals defending the Hezbollah position. Among the problematic edits are insertion of extensive background in the intro. These issues have all been discussed countless times, read the Talk archives and the WP:NPOV policy about how we are supposed to convey competing positions. TewfikTalk 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

you are clearly showing your bias and un-neutrality by refusing to have the other side of the story in this article. therefore, i suggest you refrain from editing this article. it is you that is rewritting history by refusing to have the history of the conflict in this article and the other positions side of the story. I suggest you read the NPOV rules so that you may stop putting your POV in here and stop editing out things you dont agree with it. this is the real world, there is more than one side to every story.Khosrow II 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what he is complaining about is that too much backstory is being added in hopes of changing the concensus on the casus belli being the kidnapping/hostage taking of soldiers. One side is attempting to state the casus belli as the beach shelling or something earlier, the other is stating this specific situations turning point was due to the kidnapping/hostage taking. I think since a concensus was built it should be followed or a RfC should be opened and a new poll taken. You have those two options open to you if you are unhappy with the current situation, but edit warring gets nowhere. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted both your bickering comments, take it to your talk pages or off Wikipedia all together. This page is to discuss the article not fight with eachother and call eachother names. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, since this may mislead the casual reader, this did not refer to any of my comments. TewfikTalk 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No historical background?

Why is there absolutely no historical background for given to the conflict, this is simply mad considering that an understanding of its background is essential for any understanding whatsoever of the current crisis and is one of the main bases for the immorality of Israel's actions.Nwe 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

trust me, i have tried making this article as neutral as possible, but some users just dont want that it seems. they keep reverting my factual changes.Khosrow II 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You misinterpret what I say. 'It's not about being fair khosrow II it's about representing the facts. Were not going to misrepresent the facts, just to be 'fair'. Think hard about that. What im saying is were not going to be biased by saying stuff that helps hizbollah or israel, were not going to make stuff up to be 'fair' were going to represent fact all through this article. Got it now? --Zonerocks 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find historical background under the section titled Historical background. TewfikTalk 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

International Reaction

Allright, if no one objects to me updating the International Page. Read this to see what I am updating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Section:_International_Reaction I'll give yall 30 minutes to object. --Zonerocks 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Discussions

Summary I am GOING THERE!, Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV, edits by banned editor, Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?, Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185, Just ban the vandals already!, Fork for deletion Someone has vandalized the article again, Opinions on civilian attacks??, Am I the only one concerned with article quality?, User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism, Salvage French, Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG, Adding Links, Where are the kidnapped soldiers?, New page, Video of the shot up ambulances, Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah, By Hezbollah, Disproportionate in what moral universe

Mediation, Changes in AP story on July 12, Pictoral bias?, Attacks on United Nations personnel, Claims about captured Hezbollah, July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting

Bad footnote, IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy, BBC analysis of the effect of the war, Two more Un observers die Sorry, trying to fix intro, Unbalanced info box, Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?, Categorisation, use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral, use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral, Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately, Added suspension of air operations to main page, Possible War Crimes, Sources, SOME ISRAELI KEEPS.. Anti Israel people/sites, Please help edit related articles, Infobox UN dead, Time to remove "AA [antiaircraft]-only" tag for Lebanon?, "Precision-guided", An Analysis on the way middle east "works" that is "jews vs muslims"-free., Oil Spill?

Why the Israel-Lebanon war?, Herald Sun's "smuggled pictures", The War between the Straits, War or Conflict, Introduction Numbers, Yesha Rabbinical Council: all Lebanese may be killed, Hizbollah offered a cease-fire?, Phosphorus & sub-articles, IDF casualties up to date (not 41), 12 Rhetorical support, Equating Hezbollah and IDF operations in this article, please don't add POV pictures, Can we add this photo?, Image use in this article, Beginning of conflict is June 9th Gaza explosion?, Moved the POW stuff to its article, Repeated Sentences, Good artile, Rabbinical Question, Ayta a Shaab Claim, Hezbollah KIA, other figures, Hadera instaed of Beit-Shean, Some statistics you might find interesting, Criticism of advanced warnings, Wounded soldiers and civilians, What's that? Where did it come from?? Flayer 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hizbullah committing war crimes", To solve the disaster, Hizballah military capability, Escalation, Iranian and Syrian Support What section?, External links, Removal of POW stuff, Paring, Page Deletion, Uh, where is the article?, An Important Source Where is the history, Human Rights Watch claims, National Post as source?, Battlebox., Attack on Tel Aviv -- Escalation? Arab-Israeli Conflict Template, Not sure what to do with this, What to do with WHO?, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, Allegations of using civilians as Human Shields, Claimed Amal and PFLP-GC casualties, Semi-protection not working?

  • Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive17#General Discussion
    • It is disputed the IDF soldiers were captured in Israel, War Planned a Year Ago, Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets, Article size, Page reverted to out of date version,Depleted Uranium munitions, Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, Global, Proposed template., Casualties infobox, again, omg, Typo in Reference, Iran Supplying Surface-To-Air Missiles To Hezbollah, Casualty Country Error, Factual accuracy, References, Dating schema - vote, Frivolity, Template Update needed, Updating the picture on the title, Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section is completely POV, New proposal for the lead, Request for Arbitration on WP:EL-Links and Images, Re Cluster bombs allegations' section.

Israeli Soldiers were kidnapped NOT captured

For the last time, you don't kidnap uniformed soldiers conducting operations in enemy territory, you capture them, just like Israel CAPTURED 20 Hezbollah combatants - let's at least be fair here

--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. Any criminal might kidnap a uniformed soldier. Hizbullah terrorists were not uniformed nor has Hizbullah declared war on Israel. That makes the act criminal and the crime **kidnapping.**--12.74.187.164 07:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Israeli soldiers in Israel are operating in enemy territory?Yossiea 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok look The Concensus has decided that they were kidnapped, We could have a 'Concensus vote' if you would like to. --Zonerocksandproud 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that patrol was ambushed IN southern lebanon, before this invasion began --It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers were patrolling the bluie line. they were taken from israel. there was NO declaration of war. Had Hezbollah done so, it could be called such. But, they chose to KIDNAP them during a somewhat peaceable time.--AeomMai 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured for this, among other reasons), the consensus is that Hezbollah crossed into Israel, attacked the soldiers on the Israeli side of the Blue Line, and took the soldiers back into Lebanon. The UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera have characterised the Hezbollah attack as "cross border." You can review more detailed citations at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident (déjà vu anyone). Cheers, TewfikTalk 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If the Lebanese army had taken the Israeli soldiers, during a time of war, I would call them "captured". However, when somebody other than a country takes somebody, it's taking hostages or kidnapping them. This is especially true because they aren't likely to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, and may very well be tortured and executed. There is also no possibility that they would be returned "when the war ends", because Hezbollah will never end the war until Israel ceases to exist, which will never happen. Think of the reverse happening. What if some group of militant Jewish settlers went and grabbed a bunch of Palestinian Authority soldiers ? Would you say they were captured or taken hostage/kidnapped ? StuRat 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I support kidnapped because Hezbollah has already broken the Geneva Convention by attempting to use the soldiers for ransom (prisoner swap) which is against the Geneva Convention. Furthermore Hezbollah is an illegal entity according to the United Nations as per res 1559 as so there action are based on the illegal definition of the word, that being kidnapped. You can look up kidnap and capture, kidnapping is when there is a ransom ... there was a ransom in this situation. Political correctness aside, using captures is just the wrong word, kidnapped fits 100%. Furthermore threatening to kill soldiers of the other faction is also illegal against the Geneva Convention. The soldiers also within 1 week of capture have to be able to contact a neutral representative and their families have to be notified of how to contact them. More violations of the Geneva Convention. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Casualties

Israeli/Lebanese casualties

Although the figure for people dead is (more or less) undisputed, we have a slight problem with figuring out the number of wounded/injured people and the severity of those cases. This is partially because "injured" is a grey-zone unlike dead (which is or is not!)

As numbers are running up, I would like to ask: Can we skip the injured, and let people deduce for themselves the numbers of injured from the numbers of dead? MX44 08:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I say "yes". I told it before: I, as Israeli, have no idea how many Israeli injured since the begining of the conflict, not mentiioning how many Lebanese injured. It is a grey-zone indeed, and we should not report the number of injured at all. Flayer 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I also agree here. There are big issues with what "injured" means. Lost a limb? Slightly upset by a bang in the distance? Stephen B Streater 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will wait another 24h for other editors to voice their opinions before doing anything "bold."
There is also the "dead" vs "missing" figures giving me a hard time calculating anything reasonably. MX44 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thought: The "missing" may or may not be dead/wounded/whatevever, so if I sum up the dead, that will be it! MX44 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (feeling uneasy, summarising tragedies to statistics)
I think we should just keep dead. Injured can mean anything and missing can lead to duplicating figures. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that was what intended to say, but to clerify: Agreed! :) MX44 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it strange for you to start by claiming that "the figure for people dead is (more or less) undisputed", although Reuters has reported that Lebanese claim 1000 dead (including 1/3 children) but that here some tireless editors decided 500 would be better? Tazmaniacs 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that would be the "lesser" part of undisputed, but the lower numbers always comes with the qualifyer "at least." What can be said is that Lebanese gov now claims 1000+ dead and Israel claims 100+ The BBC reports as of today: More than 1,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the month-old conflict, the Lebanese government has said. More than 100 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also died. This is also in line with what Reuters reports: The war has cost the lives of at least 1,005 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and more than 100 Israelis. NY Times detailed the Israeli figures yesterday to be 36 civilian and 65 miltary, but since then 15 more Israeli soldiers have been killed. MX44 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll

I have to agree with you about the death tolls. We need to do a better job about handling the death tolls. For example, right at the beginning, Where it says cause belli: It states this "Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three other IDF soldiers" Do you see the error? "killing three other IDF soldiers" It was eight not three. Then under that it gives terrible statistics. Now come on. The deaths grow every day. We need to update this. But because there are hooligans who do stupid crap, we have to have censorship on the pages. So We can't keep it up to date, and that is the other issue.

The other five were killed in "hot-pursuit," but belligerence already existed by then, so I don't think they can be included in its cause. TewfikTalk 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel gave there reasons for the cause of it all, and that is the reason. Zonerocks22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a source please? Thanks, TewfikTalk

LOL, of course, wikipedia israel lebanon conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately." --Zonerocks 05:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for overlooking. In any event, there must be a subjective definition of casus belli, and I have a feeling it wouldn't include the 5 latter casualties. As opposed to many other parts of an article, a casus can't just be what is claimed by one of the combatants, but should be the international consensus. In this case (while the sources I checked weren't clear and I haven't the patience to conduct detailed research now), I'm not sure that the 8 are in the consensus, though the initial raid and barrage seem to be. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Updating death counts

We need to be able to keep up with the death counts. Also fix the beginning where it says cause belli: fix from 3 deaths to 8, to understand what im talking about, scroll up to death counts and read that. --zonerocks 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job Fixing that number from 3 to 8.--Zonerocks 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Update on lebanese civilan deaths

This needs to be updated, it is 3 days old so let's update this quickly. Over 1000 lebanese civilans have been killed . Again I'll reiterate the need to stay on top of casulties, captured, and wounded people in this conflict. So let's update this in all areas that it needs to be updated. --Zonerocks 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Over 1000 Lebanese civilians have been killed."
First of all, we don't have confirmation that a thousand Lebanese people have been killed.
There might be a thousand Lebanese who have died during these hostilities, there might be less.
There might be more.
My point is that the figures are constantly fluctuating, and that to assert definitively that x number of individuals have been killed-especially when there have been so many attempts to manipulate media coverage of these events, and when it is impossible for journalists to report from the actual scene of battle-is not a productive exercise.
Furthermore, your implication that every single Lebanese citizen who has been killed was a civilian is patently absurd.
I don't think even Hezbollah is making that ludicrous allegation.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry I forgot to post the link. Here it is. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07082006/323/1-000-killed-israeli-raids-lebanon-official-tolls.html --Zonerocks 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli or por-Israeli editors want the article to be unlocked so you can put more ISraeli propganda on it. You are trying to sound unbiased by saying you want to adjust the number of civilians murdered by Israel, whenin reality you are going to make adjustments to the causes, the history and so on. Will you add all the recorded and verified cases of Israel and the Israeli military using illegal weapons and braking international laws too??? 69.196.164.190
Rest at ease. No matter how cleverly he disguises his true intentions, he can never hope to appear as unbiased as you do. --AceMyth 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the protection page and saw someone wants to take off protection, im against that, because there are idiots like you who will put propaganda on the article. There are also ways of editing the article without taking off protection.

Zonerocks 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Since this war started the pro Israelis have constantly been undermining the page and trying to put the lower figures, I gave up years ago. The Best joke was when a couple of days ago i saw the figure back to 537, LOL. When are we going to add a section about the well documented attempts by israelis to change sites just like these to help their cause? # Reaper7  

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_21&oldid=1079211375"