Jump to content

Talk:United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.69.18.130 (talk) at 15:19, 15 May 2014 (→Countries Formerly Involved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merge

The information here is almost entirely duplicated on Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Lets merge it here. TewfikTalk 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. UNIFIL has been in place for almost 30 years (maybe the next 30 years, too!) and current events are just one more chapter. My preference would be to eliminate the material here that's under the heading "Conflict with Israeli forces" and refer to the main article for this topic.
Not sure that's quite right. There were incidents of conflict between UNIFIL and the IDF prior to the recent war, so it is valid for this article to have a brief summary of these events, with a redirection to the other page for more detail. We also don't know how much longers UNIFIL will continue and if there will be future incidents after the Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanon war is over.--FNV 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice, but I'm not sure how practical it would be ... I've seen a lot of skirmishing in the Hezbollah page, with POV-pushers trying to get 'a brief summary' into the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict section. It's a demilitarized zone right now, enforced by both sides, completely blank except for the references. I do agree that if the skirmishes prior to the 2006 war do not have their own article, then these should be reported here. Preferably in one subsection of the 'Conflict' section, the other section being the reference to 2006. There has also been Hezbollah/UNIFIL conflict, which should also be reported. JiHymas@himivest.com 05:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the details remain from both articles I don't see why it shouldn't be merged. Maybe wait and see how it plays out? Ryanuk 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (yuck) with tewfik on this one, it should be merged as a section in the UNIFIL page. We can cover the objective tally and a brief intro in the main page of the conflict, and move the larger discussion to UNIFIL, where it belongs. If we dont want a merge the lets make it a page on the entire history of casualties of the UNIFIL with a section on the recent attacks. IF not, this is the same type of useless POV fork like the abominable "Role of Syria and Iran" page, IMHO.--Cerejota 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the opinion that Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict should be merged with UNIFIL. UNIFIL has existed since 1978 and 260 of its personnel has been killed. This is not the first time Israel has been shooting and bombing at UNIFIL, this has happened their whole history. It would look silly if we had a very detailed description of recent events, and say nothing about what has happened before, since there was no Wikipedia and Internet then.--Battra 20:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the merge reluctantly, following Battra's opinion. Though I would suggest that depending on events, Attacks on could expand to Attacks on and Role of or something less awkward. Also, has someone added the Qana shelling yet?
Oppose as per above. Wikipidian 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly due to what's mentioned above. UNIFIL has been around for decades. If something like this should be included there should be a complete rewrite, and the latest incidents are of just as much value as those 20 years ago. This is an ecyclopedia, not a newsoutlet. galar71 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it is better to make it a sub-page of the UNIFIL page, and then improve the UNIFIL page drastically, so it covers all previous incidents involving UNIFIL, like the 1996 shelling of Qana. Thomas Blomberg 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (See my new view below. Thomas Blomberg 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose - This article should contain only old information. All current events should go on a separate page. After the details have had some time to settle, and some time has passed to give a broader view of the event, then perhaps some of the information should be incorporated in this article. I suggest using the other page until the conflict is over, or it is clear that it will not be over for at least a year. So basically, the articles should not become one. However, many of the details currently in this article should ONLY be in the other article. 71.103.113.139 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not belive this should be merged with the existing article, because it would "mess up" the topic, UNIFIL, and be an issue of controversy. It is essential for the credibility of Wikipedia as an independent and free encyclopedia, that the articles and topics written and displayed, are free from the suspicioun of specific political agendas. The readers and users should be certain of that the articles are purely based on facts, and within the definition of the topic covered. ( Added by 85.166.246.19 at 17:50, 16 August 2006)
Oppose. I've changed my mind, as Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by now is twice as long as this article. It may make sense a year from now, provided people can agree that the other article then should be chopped down to a few sentences (as that material otherwise would totally dominate this article. Doing it now would only lead to another edit war. Thomas Blomberg 18:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unencyclopedic! It would not be expected to appear in an encyclopedia. Bardwell 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote results

  • 2 in favor
  • 9 (or 10, depending on if you count Ryanuk) in opposition.

Result: should not be merged.

"merge" tag removed from main article. 71.103.114.85 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abduction story

"Israeli families and official also accused individuals in the UN force of aiding the abduction." This seems only as an unproven claim. Who has revealed what about UN involvement in this case? Jakro64 22:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The story was put forth by the families of killed soldiers and implied by some members of the press. According to a partisan web site on the matter (and there are many), an Indian peacekeeper also claimed in a radio interview that UNIFIL cooperated with the abduction. Suspicion was also caused by the UN's denial of posession of a video filmed by Indian peacekeepers a day after the abduction, which it later admitted to having and turned over (as mentioned). A UN investigation has found the accusations to be false but the families are unconvinced and suing the UN. Even if one rejects the UN story, it is not clear what the motive would have been in aiding Hizballah since, according to the UN-drawn Blue Line, Hizballah is attempting to wrongfully claim Israeli terrirory. Kalanga 27 Feb 2005

Some one with sources better than me should include a segment on interactions with the various Lebenese militas (Amal, Hezbolla, S.L.A. etc. ) and the IDF(Israeli). I know quite a few UNFIL personnel were killed by both the Militas and the IDF. Also to balance the 2000 IDF Kidnapping segment, It should be noted that the IDF(Irish Defence Forces in this case) suspects that 2 of its soldiers in UNFIL were abducted & executed by the SLA, allegedly acting under guidance from at least 1 Shin Bet agent, possibly 2 (cira 1984, not exactly sure). This is documented in "Pity The Nation" by Robert Fisk, not sure about where you would find other sources 195.7.34.195 12:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) K.B. McKenna March 23 2006[reply]


Misspelling

I am about to correct a minor misspelling - it is actually "Hezbollah". The article spells it "Hizballah".

That's actually just a transcription difference... AnonMoos 02:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the link http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/210/76/pdf/N0521076.pdf?OpenElement appears to be broken.Mcspiff 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UN does not seem to allow direct linking to documents. You have to follow the link from the relevant page on the UNIFIL site. 195.134.63.86 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arms smuggling undeterred by UNIFIL

As evidenced by the large numbers of rockets directed toward Israel recently, UNIFIL has failed to prevent Iran and Syrian supply from reaching Hizballah.

Israel's Prime Minister Olmert is also calling upon the UN to enforce its Resolution #1559.

Who wrote the above? Please remember to sign your posts. Also, what changes to the article are you proposing here?--FNV 14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] was from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon&oldid=65345810#Debate_over_UNIFIL_presence was removed for being a broken link.

I've found that it still exists at the following links: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=623427 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=623427

Article info:

  • Israel accuses UN of collaborating with Hezbollah
  • By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
  • Last Update: 11/09/2005 10:24


[1] was removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon&oldid=65345810#Debate_over_UNIFIL_presence for being a broken link

It was a broken link when I checked a few moments ago, but was giving a "file not found" error. I just tried now though, and IT WORKS AGAIN. I believe this to have been a temporary web server error.

Also, when verifying links at the UN, it is often necessary to click through their pages rather than accessing the links directly. http://documents.un.org/advance.asp (accessible from the javascript-required "advanced search" button) links to http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/210/76/pdf/N0521076.pdf?OpenElement when you search for job #N0521076.

Article Info:

  • UNIFIL forces have fallen out of favour in Israel and claims that little regard has been given to their safety by the IDF [citation needed]
  • Title REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON (FOR THE PERIOD FROM 21 JULY 2004 TO 20 JANUARY 2005)
  • Job Number N0521076
  • Publication date 17/1/2005
  • Symbol S/2005/36
  • Session/Year 60
  • Distribution GEN
  • Area UNDOC
I've put these links in ... with a note about the second one. It appears that the UN has problems of its own and even the links that they want to have working are inoperable! JiHymas@himivest.com 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annan's quote "apparently deliberate"

Hope no one objects, but Annan is quoted twice in that passage - it's awkward, I'm going to reword it without altering the meaning.--FNV 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better now. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV

This article has some POV issues. I've tried to fix some of them, but other editors more familiar with other parts of article should also try to do that. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some POV issues which I think I rectified in part. I removed the subheading saying that the attacks were from one side, as that isn't the case, I rephrased the bit about "in apparent defiance," as that is unnecessarily inflammatory, and I removed the Annan quote, as the only way to balance that would be to include the counterquotes from the Israelis and/or the discussion on Hezbollah's location vis-a-vis the post. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mandate expires July 31st

From the first section 'UNIFILs mandate expires July 312t 2006'. Does anyone have a soucre on this, or news of any additional extensions (security council or interm resolutions)? --mitrebox 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some links. As of now, that's all she wrote. JiHymas@himivest.com 06:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries Involved

I proposed a chart of that shows the committment of troops each country is making to the expanded UNIFIL based on UN Resolution 1701. It could look as follows:

Country Date of committment Size of committment Currently deployed Sources
 Italy 24 August 2006 3000 [1] [2]
 France 24 August 2006 2000 170 [3] [4]
 Spain 24 August 2006 1200 [5]
 Finland
 Norway
 Sweden 		24 August 2006 800 [6]
 Poland 25 August 2006 500 214 [7] [8] [9]
 Belgium 24 August 2006 400 [10]
Totals 7900 1990 [11]

What do you all think? user:mnw2000 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added such a chart detailing the forces by country and what their stated roles are. Now that the bulk of the chart has been completed, I think it should be fairly easy to maintain. I would argue at least two direct sources for every fact in the chart, which was not hard for me to obtain.--Joshua4 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart need update, as involved countries and amount of deployed soldiers have changed. Some sources are also unavaible. 94.237.72.140 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is UNIFIL neutral?

UNIFIL is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old. user:mnw2000 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mnw2000 is quoting the weekly Standard in its article from 09/04/2006, Volume 011, Issue 47. The article is currently linked on the Drudge Report. I have performed a cursory investigation and have read several older press releases on UNIFIL's website and the claims within the weekly Standard's article appear to be true. I suggest that someone with a better sense for Wikipedia writing add a section to the UNIFIL article regarding this, as well as possibly a concurrent item on Wikinews.

You can confirmt hat the Weekly Standard article is true by looking at the press released from the UN [12]. Actually, I learned of the article from another source other than Drudge, but I did go to the UN web site to confirm the information. I was actually quite amazed at the information provided by the UN about a ongoing military operation. Not only was the article correct about the detail information regarding Israel's operations in Lebanon, but the lack of information about Hezbollah's operations in the same region. I also suggest that someone with better writing sklls than I, create either a new section or a new artcle regarding UNIFIL's role in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict (dating back from 1978). user:mnw2000 14:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It seems to me UNIFIL does not know or is confused about its own mission.

According to Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006, UNIFIL, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426, shall:

  • Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
  • Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon;
  • Coordinate its activities referred to in the preceding paragraph (above) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
  • Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
  • Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area;
  • Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel.

Now compare the above with UNIFIL's current 'mission statement' as stated on their web site:

"Originally, UNIFIL was created by the Security Council in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore international peace and security and assist the Lebanese Government in restoring its effective authority in the area. Following the July/August 2006 crisis, the Council decided that in addition to the original mandate, UNIFIL would, among other things: monitor the cessation of hostilities; accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south of Lebanon; extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons."
(see http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/index.html)

There seem to be some omissions of substance in the above! Note the 'clever' use of the words 'among other things' in the above statement. Can you spot what specific points of Resolution 1701 are missing? Can you figure a reason as to why they were left out? Are the omissions of little significance? Do you think it demonstrates a 'balanced and neutral' stance by UNIFIL?
Bardwell 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgently needed - new definition for the word ’neutral’

On 26 Augus IDF operating in southern Lebanon blasted open a Hezbollah bunker 400 meters from the security fence near Rus Naqoura, where UNIFIL is headquartered, and only a mere stone's throw from a UN post. The bunker was erected by Hezbollah in a 40-meter by two-kilometer pit, in which they built dozens of outposts. The bunker had shooting positions of poured concrete, and the combat posts inside were equipped with phone lines, showers, toilets, air ducts, and emergency exits, as well as logistical paraphernalia for Hezbollah. Among the findings was a Katyusha rocket launcher, most likely used in rocket attacks against northern Israel.
See; http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525953897&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. How does all this square with UNIFIL neutrality? (A friend of mine would like to know.)
Bardwell 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN missions aren't neutral, just impartial.
UNIFIL missions are clearly designed to protect lebanese population from Hezbolla and israel.
They shouldn't care if the people they got to disarm to enforce security in lebanon are arab or jews.
The security of israel is not currently threatened by lebanon (no rockets since the cease fire to 5 september), so there is so no need for a UN mission to protect israel from lebanon.
Taulier 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this last piece of information (proven by news reports and photographs) as part of the article itself. This is similar to many reports that have accused IDF of hitting ambulances and press vehicles but with a lot less convincing proof that have found thier way into Wikipedia articles. user:mnw2000 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need more references than one single op-ed paper, in a neo-conservative magazine, by a "president of the Zionist Organization of America" (?). Wikipedia is not a contest to collect arbitrarily outrageous accusations by increasingly extremist fringes. Rama 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous accusations? How about the ourtrageous accusations of massacres, targeting of journalist and ambulances, etc. that we hear against Israel on a regular basis? We heard that 60 were killed, but the Red Cross could only verify 28. We hear how the airport was destroyed, but only its runways were targeted (and already repaired). As for the ambulance in question, did you look at the pictures (which were once on the Red Cross' own web site) for yourself? Why is it we trust the picture as fact when it seems to indict Israel but doubt it when it does not? Wikipedia should allow analysis of photos before using them as fact. We already now about several faked and staged photos coming out of Southern Lebanon. user:mnw2000 15:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chefs?

Is the Chefs section supposed to be Chiefs? If not, are the chefs really necessary? I don't think it is material who cooks for the soldiers. --יהושועEric 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled some of the names. The first one is actually a chef (!) but some of the rest are UN functionaries and at least one didn't hit anything relevant. Goodness only knows what the list is supposed to represent -- I've deleted it for now, since it just doesn't make sense in its current form. Raymond Arritt 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Chef" could mean "Commander" in Swedish, and I believe that this is an example of false friend. Someone has used the wrong word.....and if s/he actually meant chef, then I am glad the person did not use the Swedish word. --MoRsE 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Columbia casualities June 24, 2007

However, Columbia isn't listet in the article as part of the mission. --213.155.231.26 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest confrontation with militants (March 30-31, 2008)

Does anybody intend to add the info about the last incident when the UNIFIL patrol was threatened by armed militants while trying to intercept an ammo-laden truck?

The Lebanese source: http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/327F51C7B8C4E871C22574340050CA68?OpenDocument The Israeli source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870467690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Deinocheirus (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Deinocheirus[reply]

Text removed from lede

I removed the following text from the article's lede section:

The Lebanese government claims that the Shebaa farms area is Lebanese territory, although the UN considers it to be Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. They contend that this dispute gives continued legal sanction to armed anti-Israeli groups in Lebanon (though the UN has officially certified that Israel has fully withdrawn from all areas it occupied after 1973).

It is quite unclear to me why someone would want this text to be part of the lede. __meco (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "aljaz":

  • From Special Tribunal for Lebanon: "Beirut talks call for Lebanon unity - Middle East". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
  • From 2010 Adaisseh incident: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/08/20108120421136940.html

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report: UNIFIL helped prisoners flee IDF

[13] This should be part of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.244.155 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. Or maybe it belongs in an article about Hagerup Haukland (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meco#A_Norwegian_UN-soldier ).--Sølvguttene (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders vs. the various "Secretary-General for Southern Lebanon"

The section titled "Personal representatives of the Secretary-General for Southern Lebanon", is listed "in front of" the commanders of UNIFIL. That does not make sense, considering the name of this article. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon#Personal_representatives_of_the_Secretary-General_for_Southern_Lebanon ).--Sølvguttene (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is already solved.--Sølvguttene (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Redeployement

Ireland is deploying 440 soldiers to Lebanon by the end of June, I believe the previous 150 went back? Irish Defence Forces Article http://www.military.ie/press-office/news-events/single-view/article/defence-forces-troops-prepare-for-deployment-to-lebanon?cHash=381f874598c5e69a169ad855205bf747 Someone please put it in wherever it should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feljin J (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Task Force

Someone should expand this section with the treasure trove of information in this article.--RM (Be my friend) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

File:Turkish Soldier UN.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Turkish Soldier UN.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countries Formerly Involved

You forgot Canada. We sent 112 (think that number's correct) in April-September 1978 in a support role. We provided radio and teletype communications. Daniel.pardy@forces.gc.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.18.130 (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon&oldid=608699072"