Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Discussion about the Combatants

Lebanon?

In the infobox, under combatants, it lists Hezbollah & Lebanon vs. Isreal. I don't see this as true. The Lebanese government has not attacted Isreal, and have condemed the actions of Hezbollah. The govenment is stuck in the middle of this war, and have not yet officialy chosen a side. For that, i believe that Lebanon should be removed as a combatant, because they have not yet attacted anyone. I would like to here your opinions --Dimigw 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

Israel has attacked Lebanese instalations and Israel blames Lebanon for not reigning in Hezbollah. Lebanon has also fired anti-aircraft weapons at Israeli planes. Xtra 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Xtra, what are you talking about? First of all, Lebanon has not taken care of the "Hezbollah" problem because they are literally unable to. With the support of Syria and Iran, Hezbolla is much stronger than the country that houses it. Second, what other choice does Lebanon have? It is a lose-lose situation. If they are to aid Hezbollah and try to defeat Israel, they will surely lose. If they are to oppose Hezbollah and try to end their existence, they will surely spark a second civil war, similar to the one that destroyed their thriving country in the first place. Right now, Lebanon is dead either way.

Source for the AA fire by lebanese armed forces ? dott.Piergiorgio 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was reported on Fox News. Xtra 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ynet 89.138.32.183 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but lebanon is not on the side of hezbollah, they are firing AA guns (didnt know that prior), but they do not have forces with hezbollah. Maybe they should be listed as a third party. Just an idea.--Dimigw 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They can't be listed as a third party, they are under direct attack and are defending themselves. Obviously they are part of the war, who is reponsible for that is another issue. Ryanuk 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon should be listed as a third party. They cannot be listed on the same side as Hezbollah. Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. MJZ, 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah??? The civilian arm of Hezbollah is an official political party with members in the Lebanese Parliament! While other parties within the Lebanese government may not be allied with Hezbollah, the government, as an entity, is responsible for controlling Hezbollah and therefore responsible for its actions.--WilliamThweatt 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has approx. 400,000 members in Lebanon. That means the other 3.1M Christians, Druze, Muslims and others are NOT Hezbollah! Furthermore, the UN and EU urged Hezbollah to put down their arms and become political party. That is why they now have elected members of Parlimant. It is common knowldege that the Lebanese Government has no control over Hezbollah. The Hezbollah militia is better funded and better equiped than the Lebanese Military. Any attempt to disarm them would have erupted into civil war. Since Lebanon still bears the scars from a twenty year civil war, you can understand why no one there wanted to rush into another civil war.

I don't see an alliance with hezbollah either, i don't agree with listing Lebanon the palestines or (even) hezbollah as combatants. its an insult since most only resistance is of the gandhi kind. There hasnt been a lot of fighting. in gaza and untill recently none in libanon. just bombardments, raids, terrorising people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

So...guilt by association? What a very simplistic, narrow view you have...And does putting three questions marks after your "question" make it more pertinent? MJZ, 14 July 2006, 22:03 (UTC)

And does putting "question" in quotes make it not a question???????? Obviously, you weren't reading my comments but just distracted by the pretty punctuation. I didn't say "guilt by association"...it's just "guilt" and "responsibility". Hezbollah is a political party of Lebanon, participating in it's current government. Furthermore, it launched its attacks from Lebanese soil (for which the government is responsible). In not controlling what happens within its own borders, the government is at least culpable and at most passively supporting it. (I hope there wasn't too much punctuation here for you.)--WilliamThweatt 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin acted as the civilian branch of the IRA for many years, yet no-one is silly enough to attach guilt to the government of Northern Ireland for the actions of the IRA. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, GeeJo...definately worth considering further. However, it's not an exact parallel as the government of Northern Ireland (which, before Home Rule, was simply and extension of the government in London) not only publicly, and loudly, disavowed the actions of the IRA, but actively sought to reign in the IRA, through political, financial, and very public police/para-military actions. Had they not, then it would not have been "silly" to attach guilt. The government of Lebanon has never mounted any serious attempts to control Hezbollah...on the contrary, Hezbollah (and their foreign backers) are gaining more control over the government and therein lies the difference and the justification for attaching guilt.--WilliamThweatt 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the government does not speak against them, is that the next day their car explodes and they die. The lebanese government has absolutly no control over hezbollah. The majority of the egovernment is against them though, just not outspoken. The majority of people also despise hezbollah, its only the small minority of shite muslims and palistinianes. --70.39.205.84 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

69.125.1.187HOW CAN LEBANON BE A COMBATANT???? What does it mean to be a combatant because the Lebanese military has not done anything to "combat" Israel thus far, why is Lebanon listed as a combatant in the infobox? How can one be a combatant if the military has not done anything to the agressor. Are victims considered combatants? Just because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, I would have to say that they are acting independantly of the Lebanese government. I think the combatants as of now, are Hezbollah, and Israel. --El Presidente 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon should be removed as a combatant.I don't agree that Lebanon is a combatant. They are a bystander more than anything. By calling Lebanon a compbatant you give an inaccurate view of the actual conflict.

I do not know how Lebanon can be called a bystander in this conflict. Thier government has allowed Hezbolla to exist in the southern part of the country(mostly).Jrltex 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Under international law, a government is responsible for cross-border violence emanating from within its borders. If the Lebanese government can't control Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is staging attacks from within Lebanon, then effectively the Lebanese government ceases to be a player at all. It's just a figurehead in Beirut, or another faction. Accordingly, it may not be accurate to say Lebanon is a combatant, but that assumes that Lebanon doesn't exist as an actor in this conflict. You've got a war going on in territory you claim sovereignty over, but with which you are not involved. How do you square that? Epstein's Mother 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I square it this way, you have nearly 300,000 Palestinian refugees, which has grown from the original 120,000, displaced from the 1948 war, that were left to rot in camps in southern Lebanon. They are not citizens of Lebanon or Israel and Israel will never allow them to return homes. They live in camps stealing elctricity,they are not allowed to hold most jobs and many homes have no running water. Groups like Hezbollah offer them jobs, schools, medical centers and are seen as charities by most Shia's and Palestinians. Moreover, Hezbollah is well funded and better armed than the Lebanese Government. The Lebanese Government spends 560 million a year on defense, in contrast the Israeli Government spends 9 Billion. Regardless of the fact that the arab countries started the war against Israel in 1948, Israel had a responsibility to do something about the 600,000 Palestinian refugee's from that war. Israel took the stance that the arab countries were responsible for the Palestinians. This arrogance and lack of compassion is the primary reason groups like Hamas and Hezbollah exist. Lastly, the Hezbollah represent its 400,000 members, the Lebanese Government represents the other 3.1 million Christians, Jews, Druze, Muslims and others in Lebanon. It would be the equivilant of the US bombing Toronto because of terrorists in Quebec. Israel's bombing of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon is shameful.

If there were anti-American militants in Quebec, and they started shelling America, and Canada chose not to go after them despite being asked, labeling these militants as legitimate anti-American resistance, America would indeed consider Canada as harboring terrorists and thus in the same boat as the terrorists. Governments unwilling to go after terrorists in their land tend to be viewed as responsible in cases such as this, and Israel does indeed see Lebanon as responsible, hence they have bombed Lebanese bases etc. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwillingly to go after Terrorists?!? The Lebanese Government was instrumental in twarting a terrorist attack on New York's transit tunnels under the Hudson River, by arresting and handing over the suspected Al Queda member on April 27th of this year. Is this how we thank them for preventing a terrorist attack in this country? They are trying to avoid another twenty year civil war by trying to deal with Hezbollah diplomatically.

I wasnt aware the United States was involved. Israel is being shelled by militants in Lebanon. Lebanon has refused to go after Hezbollah. It is due to this Israel considers Lebanon responsible. Lebanon sees Hezbollah as legitimate resistance, not terrorists - otherwise they would not be negotiating with them at all. I dont want this to be a political debate, because this isnt the place for it, but instead I am just trying to explain the Israeli viewpoint as to why Lebanon is being targetted - its because they have not sent their army into southern lebanon to break up Hezbollah. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was simply answering Epstein's Mothers question which I believe was directed to me. One last point, the US is involved.

Well sure, same as Iran and Syria. They just arent being fought or fighting at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the lebanese government is extremely weak; they haven't got the strenght to deal with hezbollah.PerDaniel 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is my point. Lebanon, as such, is now a failed state. It doesn't have control over what happens within its own borders. It doesn't seem that the Israelis are targeting the Lebanese government itself. Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be directing any demands towards the Lebanese government, precisely because it recognizes that Beirut doesn't control what goes on in the country. Instead, it has made demands of Syria--which, at this point, also probably doesn't have much control over southern Lebanon. The problem we have here is symantic. There is a country called Lebanon, which is now a battleground. And while there is a legal government of Lebanon, at this point there is no "state" of Lebanon, its representative to the U.N. notwithstanding. So, to say "Lebanon" is a combatant is probably incorrect. At the moment, there is no single state actor called Lebanon that could be a combatant--even if it wanted to be. Epstein's Mother 04:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is "punishing" the Lebanese Government and 3.1 Million people that had nothing to do with this. This has admitted by Israeli leaders and widely reported by the media. Israel has destroyed over fifty major bridges, bombed the civilian airport four times and numerous residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, no one can say with a straight face, that Hezbollah has rocket batteries in Beirut. The blanket destruction of Southern Beirut involves Druze and Christian neighborhoods, too. There are no Druze or Christian members of Hezbollah.

The problem goes back to 1948. Israel never dealt with the "Palestinian Problem", leaving up to "arabs to take care of arabs", which is why you have Hamas and Hezbollah today. Further, the Lebanese Government was not given the support it needed by western Countries to deal with Hezbollah. There is a Lebanese State that wasn't supported by the West. Israel is also taking advantage of the fact the Syria had been forced out of Lebanon by the Lebanese State and was left defenseless. We have to learn by our mistakes so that they are not repeated. Unfortunately, we seem destined to make the same mistakes over and over, when it comes to dealing with the middle east. Israel and the US just turned millions of moderate arabs against them for allowing the decimation and indicriminate destruction in Lebanon to take place. History teaches us that this will be a quagmire for Israel like Iraq is for the US. This action will truly breed the next generation of terrorist's against Israel and the US.

Lebanon has not declared war, and war has not been declared on Lebanon. Lebanon is simply the country that Hezbollah calls home. This conflict is between Hezbollah and Isreal. Lebanon Is pleading for a cease-fire. They are not a combatant.--67.82.149.158 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)JC

That argument really isn't enough. By that logic, the United States hasn't been in a single war since World War II, since no official declaration of war has ever been issued by the U.S. Congress since 1941. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're arguing over the directionality of "combatant". Lebanon and Israel are definitely the location of the conflict, I'm pretty sure that's NPOV because that is simply where the attacks and raids and rockets have happened. Hezbollah is definitely a combatant because of their raid, and their rocket attacks against Israel. Israel is definitely a combatant, because of their raids and bombing runs against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and Lebanese infrastructure. Lebanon is a graph node with only incoming edges, because as far as we know, the Lebanese military has not acted in any official capacity against either Hezbollah or Israel. How can we indicate that Lebanon is experiencing the receiving end of combat, without implying that they are actively fighting by calling them a combatant? UltraNurd 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question. The Lebanese military is still not taking any military action against Israel. Does anyone know what the Lebanese army is doing? I doubt they are just drinking tea and following non-crisis procedures. Sijo Ripa 13:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are on state of high alert and would act if Israel tried to push North of Sidon. They man various checkpoints and anti-aircraft batteries but we're talking about leftover US equipment from the 1970's and 80's. The Lebanese army is no match for anyone. They are more like a big police force. The Hezbollah has more modern anti-aircraft equipment from the Russians and Chinese.

The template 'Infobox Military Conflict' indicates that the combatents shout be ordered cronologically by order of attack or involvement. and I do think that that is (1)Hezbollah, (2)Israël, (3)Lebanon and that the collums are not ment for indicating sides

I will change the combatents in that sequence--213.118.73.79 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the motivation for making the chronological change, but the current layout is very confusing because it makes it look like (Hezbollah and Israel) vs. (Lebanon). While Lebanon's infrastructure and civilian population is bearing the brunt of this violence, this conflict seem to me to be very nearly triangular (Hezbollah vs. Israel vs. Hezbollah vs. Lebanon or something equally confusing). Is there a way we can reorganize the combatants? I initially thought someone had made a small vandal change by moving Hezbollah over to Israel's column, to make some political point. UltraNurd 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal :) , I simply disagree that somebody can say that Hezbollah and Lebanon are on the same side, so I looked to te template if it was possible to make 3-sides, but found there that the left and right column were not meant to indicated sides, and that combatents shout be ordered by sequence of involvement. And that if Israël and Hezbollah are in the same column people woudn't still assume that the collumns indicates sides. But they still do ... And that does implicates that Lebanon and Hezbollah cannot stay in the same collumn! The best thing to do, is changing the template to 1 or 3 columns. I do think its more confusing for people to see that Hezbollah and Lebannon are in the same column because they will think they are one side.--213.118.73.79 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently :o). I looked over the template after you first mentioned it, and I think it's ambiguous what the template's designer meant. The bigger problem is that, if you don't know there's a template, you see two columns, you think two sides - and I think having Israel and Hezbollah together on one side or Israel and Lebanon on one side is going to make a lot more people go "Whaaa???" than putting Hezbollah and Lebanon together, even though they are not explicitly allied, makes the most sense to me. Oh, and if you do switch the combatant columns, make sure to switch the leader columns as well. UltraNurd 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Combatant - noun - One who engages in a combat or struggle. That is the definition of combatant. As such, Lebanon cannot be defined as a combatant. Iran and Syria are more suitable to list with Hezbollah as they have governments that openly support and fund it. Source for definition, Answers.com - MJZ, 15 July 2006, 18:07 (UTC)

According to CNN TV, Lebanon anti-aircraft guns are now firing on Israeli planes, right after the prime minister of Lebanon said it had the right to self defence. So does this now making it a partisipant?--Rayc 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Show us the article...69.125.1.187 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

One of their corspondants in Lebanon mentioned it, but didn't follow up with any information. I don't see it anywhere on the web. Sort of like the Iran missles thing, lots of talk, but no one can confirm.--Rayc 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Listing Lebanon as a combatant is factually incorrect and highly prejudicial. Are we simply waiting for the "inevitable" to justify this misinformation? Shouldn't this be corrected? MJZ, 15 July 2006, 21:52 (UTC)

It is highly prejudicial, yes, but can anyone think of an instance when this much damamge has been done to a countries infrastructure and the country's military didn't get involved? I think they have a lot of restrain in not retailating up to this point. Though, why retailiate when you can just let someone else do it?--Rayc 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we do end up listing Iran as a combatant then if the Lebanense army get involved (as opposed to just having their soldeirs killed by the Israelis as is the case so far) we defintiely have to add the USA as a combatant as 85% of armaments in the Lebanese army come from America. Andrew Riddles 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of the energy spent here could be used to add some information to the article itself about the position of Lebanon/the Lebanese government in this conflict. So far there seems to be nothing on that subject. --84.193.50.72 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if we start listig countries that are somehow involved (eg Iran because they supplied a missile, USA because they supply most of the military hardware to the Israeli AND Lebanese army (according to Wikipedia articles) then who knows where the list of combatants will end. Andrew Riddles 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is a combatant. They are in this war/crisis, whether they wanted to be or not. Hello32020 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese Army is not participating in any form of combat action, therefore it cannot be called a combatant.

We should at least keep it until we get more consensus though Hello32020 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is also combating Israel alongside Hezbollah. So either put Lebanon vs Israel or Lebanon and Hezbollah vs Israel . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.84.76.18 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2006.

How can Lebanon be called a combatant? It has yet to take any active part other than emergency response. I just don't understand how the only party to this conflict that has yet to take an active role can be called a combatant. --MJZ, 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

just one note - Lebaneses radar was used to target INS Hanit. This *was* an active military action. 62.0.125.178 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Ryanuk 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what the IDF claims; see for example [[1]]. It also makes sense: It was a radar-guided missile, some radar had to guide it, and Hiz' has no radar stations of its own. 62.0.125.178 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

source does not state that Lebanese (as opposed to hezbollah) radar positions were used in the attack.Doldrums 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Y don't u put Lebanon and Hezbollah under the same column? Hezbollawh is Lebanese and part of Lebanon. Robin Hood 1212 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The goverment of Lebanon, while not engaged in military operations against Hezbollah, has not done joint operations with them either, and has called for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, whereas Hezbollah has declared open war.

To any person pursuing NPOV in good faith this indicates that the conflict has three characters:

1) Israel vs Hezbollah

2) Israel vs Lebanon

3) A potential Lebanon vs Hezbollah

This might change in the future, and if it does, we will obviously make a note of it.

Yet the POV that lumps Lebanon and Hezbollah together is not supported by verifiable sources at this time.

--Cerejota 13:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification Cerejota, it looks like I am not alone as a neutral who needs further information about the relationship between the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah, which is implied as known in the opening three paragraph of the article at present. --mgaved 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Lebanon are the same side, Hezbollah is Lebanese and supported by the Lebanese people, he liberated Ledbanon. He's not a foreign force like the Israelis say. Robin Hood 1212 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not a part in this! It's between Israel and Hezbolla! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

If lebanon tried to reign in Hezbollah they would start another civil war. And if a country has Israel invading its airspace then they should be allowed to fire at the aircraft. Lebanon is not a combatant, they are standing idle while their country is being pounded by shells and F-16s. Yahuddi 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be Israeli-Hezbollahh Conflict, with a distinct and prominent statement that "The conflict between exists between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hezbollah Organization in Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon." The majority of reprisals are confined to areas of Lebanon under direct Hezbollah control and influence Jon Cates 04:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

the article lead says "Lebanon, though having been attacked, has acted neither against Hezbollah nor Israel.". so i suggest that the listing of lebanon as combatant be footnoted with such a statement. Doldrums 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

People here seem to be twisted on what "combatant" means, what combat means. AA fire against foreign aircraft, regardless of provocation, is combat. Combat has no inherent connotation of blame and I think it would be a stretch in this case to say Lebanon actively sought to use any force against Israel, but the case is simply they have. Now, the moment the Lebanese government says "Look, we're out of this - please stop Hezbollah because we can't and we sure want't to" then they can take (and we Wikipedians) can give them noncombatant status. An emotional plea to stop hostilities does not make you a noncombatant and neither does defending yourself. "Majority of conflict" qualifiers can't strip Lebanon's combatant status - only their fervent nonaction can. Ranieldule 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

can u point to the source for the AA fire by lebanese forces? i see "Fox News" and "Ynet" in discussion above, not enuf to go by, and a promising listed source "Brink of War: Lebanon Launches Retaliatory Assault on Israel" (fox news) now links to "Israeli Jets Bomb Main Road Between Beirut and Damascus". Doldrums 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is as of Lebanon has not engaged in any combat, it is inapropriate to lable it a combatant. If the argument is that is has but hasn't been reported, than that lacks verifiability. The argument that Lebanon is a defacto combatent because of the location of the combat is bunk, and doesn't need footnoting to explain, anyone who reads the introductory paragraph is aware of the combat's geographic location. Finally, Lebanon 'inaction' in the policing of Hesbola does not make them a combatent. Even if they were patting Hesbola on the head and handing them rockets, the government and the army of Lebanon are not directly involved in any combat, and thus are not combatents. --Bigmacd24

this shld clinch it. "The Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to the Israeli attacks."[2]. given this and the absense of any source reporting retaliatory action by lebanese troops, the listing of lebanon as a combatant in the infobox must be removed.Doldrums 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is your Lebanese anti-aircraft response to Israeli attacks. Here it is not immediately clear who's AA fire, Hezbollah's or Lebanon's is actively shooting at Israeli planes. I will definitely agree that it's beginning to look (outside of a possible anti-aircraft response) that Lebanon is merely "hosting" this conflict. Ranieldule 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

this is from a while ago, but oh well. i didnt bother checking if anybody else said this. true, there has been no official declaration of war. was there an official declaration of war in the American War of Independence? no. ok, so there was a declaration of independence which was technically treason based upon those circumstances. oops. loophole! how about that police action - no, what was it? um... advisory and regular military assistance to the independent South Vietnamese government in their struggle (failed) against the communist forces of the Viet Cong (actually Viet Minh, and later North Vietnamese Army). oh, and by the way, they weren't communists. Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist-Leninist second, and Vietnamese first. 58,000 people died. let me say it again, in case it didnt sink in. 58,000 Americans died in South Vietnam. wasn't a war, right. right. the population of Lebanon is 3,577,000. thats about how many people from independent democratic nations served in South Vietnam, fighting against the same cause that led to the declaration of independence and a new era of history - an era of American dominance in world affairs.

so let us be careful talking about declarations of war, ok. the biggest tragedy of the United States is our mistreatment of Vietnam veterans. oh wait - it wasn't a a war? tell that to 58,000 families who lost fathers, sons, and brothers. explain to me what killed those men if it wasnt a war. JRK

What is Hezbollah?

Excuse my ignorance - but I don't think that the article is very clear... but what is Hezbollah? What is its exact status within Lebanon? Does it have official rights to represent / fight for the Lebanese people, represent the Lebanese government, etc? The reporting of the crisis talks about Israel vs. Hezbollah and it's not clear how Lebanon as a nation fits into this. The opening paragraph of the article is on the lines of "Hezbollah did this... so Israel did this". I am confused as the two actors appear to be Hezbollah and Israel, not Lebanon and Israel.

I would have expected there to be talk of the Israeli armed forces and government, and the Lebanese armed forces and government... is Hezbollah the Lebanese army? Is it a militia movement within Lebanon supported formally or informally by the Lebanese government? is it a rogue organisation distinct from the Lebanese government? Why is the Israeli army attacking "Hezbollah" and not "Lebanon"? (but clearly attacks are being made on civilians in both countries). Why isn't the Lebanese Army responding to attacks on sovereign Lebanese soil? Has Israel officially declared war on Lebanon (or vice-versa) or is this a very public guerilla war? I was under the impression that Israel and Lebanon are two sovereign nations and this all seems quite confused. Help appreciated with any of these questions... cheers! --mgaved 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

In a nutshell, Hezbollah is a guerilla organisation that has recently won seats in the Lebanese parliament and has joined the ruling coalition (two cabinet seats). Thus the Lebanese government is viewed by Israel as technically responsible for the immediate attack, as well as being responsible for not implementing the SC resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah. As far as I know, Lebanese gov't institutions haven't been directly attacked excepting AA facilities that fired on attacking IAF planes and a radar site that Israel has implicated in the missile attack on their ship (INS Hanit). There have been no declarations of war, though there is no lack of rhetoric. Hope I was helpful. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider roads, bridges and airports to be government institutions... 210.86.74.223 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of political neutrality, the political wing of Hezbollah was admitted into the government as an overture to try to convince Hezbollah to disarm and become a strictly political movement (the government of Lebanon held a large majority without Hezbollah). Clearly, it has backfired. —Cuiviénen 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is wikipedia entry on Hezbollah. It is also linked on the main article here, so I don't think we should discuss that here.--Cerejota 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help everybody. I'd like to ask again that *somebody clarifies the opening section of this article*. It is written in a way that suggests that Hezbollah=Lebanon, and Lebanese official policy and military forces, while you all have helpfully pointed out that while Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese authority and government it is acting in a semi-autonomous manner. I think the article will be greatly improved by clarifying this briefly in the introductory section. Thanks Tewfik and Cuivienen. Cerejota, I agree there is material elsewhere in wikipedia and its really useful but I think brief clarification will be useful. I'll try to make an edit now, feel free to improve one and all. --mgaved 08:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few words to frame what Hezbollah is and how it relates to the Lebanese government inline in the article for neutral readers ("Hezbollah, a minority member of the Lebanese government that operates an autonomous military wing" and later "(It is not clear what the official Lebanese government response is or whether the Israeli Government first approached the Lebanese government in order to resolve the crisis by non-military means).") but these have been deleted without comments so I'll leave the article to others to improve. Cheers for your help in explaining on this talk page though folks. --mgaved 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As part of the ongoing effort to reduce size, I think the Hezbollah section is to big a redundant with the Hezbollah page. Perhaps we can shorten it? I would delete it altogether, as no such section exists for the Israeli Defence Forces, but at lest shortening?--Cerejota 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel declared war on Lebanon not on Hezbollah. Why should we say that Hezbollah is an addition side? The org is Lebanese and was created to liberate the south from Israel. Another thing, rearraqnge the combattents. Robin Hood 1212 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

Removal of POV CHECK tag

Please refrain from removing the POV CHECK tag from the page. This tag means that the article might not be NPOV, and that a discussion is on going. We havent reached a consensus, so this remains true. This tag is more tentative than POV tag, and hence if doesnt mean the page is not NPOV, just that a discussion is ongoing, which it is. --Cerejota 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not over-use the tag, though. There's going to be some POV in such an emotionally charged article. Most of it can be dealt with rather quickly, without that ugly-ass POV tag. --Elliskev 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas Elliskev, the POV CHECK is intended to be a more permanent tag. Your POV might say it is ugly, but I think it is better looking and more relevant than the other POV tags.

My attempt by having it there for a while is aimed at preventing a POV tag war (the national wikipedia sport it seems) by not arguing that the article is not NPOV, but by saying there is a disucssion in this regards (which there is). I am tempted to remove the tag, as it seems there is a group of responsible, good faith editors from both sides of the POV, but I resist the temptation because there is still ongoing vandalism and non-consensus edits, some of them massive and by obvious wikignorants. I think we will come to remove the tag when this crisis is over, but will unfortuntelly still need it for a while.

Makes me whish there was a main article equivalent for the talk page "controversial" tag, if you get my point.

--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your feelings on this and withdraw my objection, for now. --Elliskev 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try to establish concensus on this issue by having a poll (Support/oppose) for the npov tag? -Preposterous 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Erpals 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this previous comment should go in the main POV discussion section?

--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I notice the POV check is being vandalised by being removed. There is a discussion thread about removing it here, and I see no discussion about that here. So I assume all removes are vandalism. Please discuss before taking any action, specially considering how controversial the topic is.--Cerejota 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in this discussion which leads me to believe we still need the POV check tag. If you feel differently, please make not of it and specify your concern. If you see something minor, then repair it on your own (this follows my attempts to engage in discussion on supposed issues by the poster). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik: as you can read above, I have little specific issues. Others have raised concerns, which have been edited, but there are continous, seemingly concerted (if one follows the user's talk pages). THe reason I want a POV Check tag is because of the continous POV editing engaged mainly by pro-Israeli posters, but also some vadalic activity by pro-Hezbollah/Lebanon editors. This warns users that the article is both a work. As I said above, I wish we had a controversial tag like we do for talk pages, but we dont, and POV Check is the closests. You seem not to understand that the article is being constantly being peppered with major POV stuff, and that this is a semi-permanent situation. Why is it that in spite of all the constant editing you still want to remove the tag? Is it perhaps your own agreement with the POV being pushed?--Cerejota 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources are contributing to this article's bias

WHile it is highly unusual to mention websites or sources directlly instead of as citations, I can live with this as long as the presentation of this sources is NPOV. DebkaFile is a website with a clear pro-Israeli POV, supported by ads of Jewish only dating services, and with connections to the Israeli intelligent services, which they use as sources for their often exclusive stories. Hence, displaying them without qualification gives the wrong impression that they are a neutral, or NPOV adherent source, which they most surely arent.

Claiming "let the reader decide" assumes that they have all the facts at hand, and this is not the case. The simple description of DebkaFile as "pro-israeli" is not NPOV. It is as NPOV as describing Hezbollah as a Shia Mulsim organization. --Cerejota 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Who is citing Ynet as a legitamate source? There is nothing more biased than that. Of course there are NPOV problems when you only get Israeli news and Fox. Why don't I go get some Al-Jazeera and cite that? Erpals 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be preferable if we could use well respected sources. Ynet is just a webpage, which probably isn't independent, and surely not neutral in this conflict. And what I have heard about "Fox" isn't very reassuring, see Fox News Channel controversies.--Battra 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ynet is not 'just a Webpage'. It belongs to the biggest newspaper in Israel, Yediot Aharonot. quoting it is just as accurate as quoting any reputable Arab source.

As for the number of Israelis injured, I think you have some point. Ynet has already reported that 45 of the injured are still in hospital. The big difference here means that yes, Israeli sources are counting minor injuries (such as "shock injuries") which may not be 'counted' in Lebanon. If you want, you can report both numbers, letting the readers decide. 85.250.179.33 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then ynet should be a good source for the official Israeli standpoint, for example when it comes to the number of killed soldiers. But I still think it would be preferable to avoid references to webpages such as these as much as possible, and use for example news from BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, etc. --Battra 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Though the number "500" for the Israeli civilians injured could hardly be an exact number, it seems more likely that it is some kind if rough guess. --Battra 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I've found the sentence in that article "The hospitals have treated more than 500 people since Wednesday, most of whom were released to their homes." It doesn't say explicitly that they were injured in this conflict, though that might be what is meant. It would be good if we had a more exact number though.--Battra 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on this is that this figure is based off of the number of people treated at a hospital during the crisis, which will be anything from life threatening injuries to bad nerves, and that considering this, 500 seems low; consider the number of people "treated at hospitals" in New York City after 9/11 or any similar event. It can be argued that not all those people should be considered injured, but currently it is one of the few sources available. Also consider that one might not think twice about a figure of 500 injured if the actual numbers of Lebanese injured, by the same standard of anyone treated at a hospital, but unfortunately we will likely never have that figure or not for a long time.--Paraphelion 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely go with the figure quoted in CNN, i. e. over 100 Israelis injured, in the infobox. It should be OK to also give the 500 figure in the article itself, with the descrition "treated in hospitals". btw, Ynet attributes this number to the Israeli Health Ministry. 85.250.179.33 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it says 274 israeli civilians injured. 88.154.91.233 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

BBC's "What is Hizbollah?" article

Some editors are trying to use this a source, in particular regarding Hezbollah's ideology and activities. If you read the article, it is extremely POV, provides no sources, and in general is more an op-ed than reporting. Use of POV sources to support NPOV is not NPOV.

Hence this article is not a good source unless we specify it is an opinion piece and quote directly from it. --Cerejota 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC piece is a news article, and as such, is considered a reliable source. It is thus a good citation, even if it, like all news sources, has some POV. Tewfik^Talk 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik. The BBC article is biased, but not completely towards one side. Several sources say, without any evidence, that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah directly, and they state this as fact; this BBC article is one of those. Other sources only say that the US/Israel or others say that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah directly - and sometimes also that Syria or Iran deny this. However, if someone has a better source than news - something like a US government document citing direct evidence of Syria or Iran supplying Hezbollah, then that could be cited as well.--Paraphelion 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I should like to point out that the BBC has recently been criticised for its pro-palestinian stance (refusal to call bus bombers terrorists and the constant mention of occupied palestinian land despite that being a huge grey area). Not so much an objection of any kind but a 'do not assume that all western media is pro-israeli' note as its been tossed around a fair bit over the discussions. --Narson 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Narson, but the only people that consider the occupation of Palestine a "gray area" are psychopaths and Israelis. --Phabi0 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)phabi0

I cannot aggree more with the above observation. What a Gray Area means? May be Tel a Viv is a gray area for Hamas, but is it for the rest of the world? The same with the 1967 war occupied teritories.

Excuse me, phapi0, but the some people that consider the occupation of Palestine a "gray area" are also some valid scholars. However those equating Israelis and psychopaths perhaps have lost all objectivity, themselves.

Scientific studies like "Bad News From Israel" by Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the Glasgow University Media Group have proven many times that british television news media in general and the BBC in particular, are very pro-israeli in their reporting --Toshotosho 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And media research organization like "CAMERA" have documented decades of anti-Israeli bias by the BBC which can be read on their site before relying entirely on secondary research done to demonstrate a particular government's media as neutral.

"A particular government's media" - Which government would that be? The BBC has nothing to do with the British government and the two institutions are often bickering. The only possible link the BBC has to the British government is it's royal charter which has to be renewed by the government to allow the BBC to be funded. Even that renewal is a very indirect process. The BBC being a tool of the British government is a very common misconception. The BBC is a public broadcaster in the sense that it is a public serrvice funded by the public. It does not get its funding from the government in the same way other public service braodcasters do. The policy and editorial line of the BBC is defined by the reporters and editors, not by any government. --Abc30 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me phapi0 but no personal attacks please, hrm? (And for the record I am neither Israeli nor under any kind of action under the mental health act). I merely thought, considering Cerejota's demands for less israeli favouring news outlets I should mention that the BBC was found to be anti-Israeli in the recent review (I will go and find the report at some point if someone really wants? I just don't fancy searching through 2 or 3 months of news story archives for something that probably can be taken on good faith and is not important to anything but the talk page)--Narson 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I had never heard of CAMERA before, I just had a look at their website. They claim to be a "non-partisan" organisation only interested in a more fair reporting about the Middle East in the media. Then then list virtually every English-language newspaper, radio channel and TV channel as being "anti-Israeli", including ABC, CBS, NBC, History Channel, Discovery Channel and Fox News (!). I think we better stay away from them as a source of reliable information. Thomas Blomberg 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Not all that is published in the news media is a reliable source. Sometimes news media have opinion pieces, not news reporting. There is a difference. A reliable source is one that reports something. An op-ed piece is just that. Hence all I argue for is people to be concious that using opinion pieces compromises NPOV. If we want to do a good faith effor to remove the tag, I think we must be aware of this.--Cerejota 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that there are often opinion pieces published by news agencies, but this is not one of them. While this is within the news section of the article, it is an analysis piece and not reporting on a specific event. That said, it is written from the same dispassionate and objective view as any other news section piece. To be clear, this is certainly not an op-ed. I'll deal with the rest below. Tewfik^Talk 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why you htink it is not an op-ed? As a piece of reporting, it asserts, without providing quotes or sources, a number of controversial things. That qualifies it as an opinion piece. That you seem to agree with it opinion doesnt change this.--Cerejota 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Further more, according to wikipedia WP:RS, single sources should only be used when they are the most authritative or can be crosschecked. As the BBC article was used to support the Israeli POV, I think the BBC's article fails in both counts.--Cerejota 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm removing the POV tag unless someone presents specific area of the article that is disputed. Tewfik^Talk 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be a balance of images. I also think that pictures of the weapontry used should be replaced by buildings, damage on both sides. That's whats actually going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.253.208 (talk • contribs).

That is not a POV issue; there simply are no properly licenced pictures. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting below my correspondance with the Wikipedian who posted the POV tag in the hope of resolving any POV issues and removing the tags Tewfik^Talk 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please discuss on Talk what passages are disputed and merit the tag? ThanksTewfik^Talk 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

if you read the discussion, you will see the specifics raised by me and others. The concerns have not been addressed.--Cerejota 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What specific issues do you have with the article? (please respond on either my talk or the page's talk - thanks) Tewfik^Talk 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Tewfik, perhaps since you have arrived late at editing you are not aware of the concerns and reasons for the POV Check tag. As I did in my talk page, I suggest you read up on the specifics in the whole discussion including comments by me and other. Specifically we can discuss in the section I created for this purpose, "Removal of POV Tag".

To summarize, as specific examples can be revisisted in other places here, the objections are various. I cannot say I agree with all of them (ie the pictures issue seems a limitation not of good faith on NPOV but a lack of open sources), but they are legitimate concerns that merit the POV Check tag.

1) A lack of pictures showing the Lebanese or Hizbollah perspective.

2) A lack of citations for controversial assertions, in particular, but not only, centered on Hezbollah's relationship with Syria and Iran.

3) A heavy discussion as to the political and military motivations of Hezbollah, but not such discussion on Israel.

4) A dependency on Israeli and pro-Israeli media for sources. For example the DebkaFile.

5) A general pro-Israeli bias, whereas Hezbollah's actions are scrutinize for signs of illegitimacy but Israeli concerns are seen as prima facie legitimate.

Please do not continue to edit and revert without discussion, or disregarding views not your own, as you have done several times in the last day. Also, please realize that for the last 5 days many editors, from both sides of the POV, have attempted in good faith to achieve a consensus to reach great level of NPOV, which at times we have been able to achive until others (like you) arrive disregard the previous discussions and start editing from perspective we had already thought achieved.

Our objective is to reach a better quality article. Please join us, rather than abitrarily edit.

Lastly, I prefer to have discussion about specific issues in the talk page of the specific article, where all can see it. Please refrain from using my talk page, if possible. --Cerejota 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cerejota,

I saw your comments above which is what lead to my initial query; I'll deal with your points as you have:

1. The pictures, as you have noted, are not a POV issue, but rather one of availiability, and do not warrant a tag
2. The Hezbollah verse cited with the BBC was slightly discussed above, but the citation is not, as you seem to have inferred, an Op-Ed piece, but rather a news/analysis piece written from an objective, dispassionate POV. If you have concerns about other citations, please list them so that we may clarify and resolve. I encourage you to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
3. What specific discussion of the Israeli side do you believe is lacking? The only inequity that I noticed is that the background has a subsection detailing the history and makeup of Hezbollah - do you believe that we should discuss the history and motivations of Israel? Would that resolve any POV issue?
4. I haven't seen any dependency on Israeli sources. Many of the Israeli press citations merely quote AP or AFP reports, or report on events specific to Israel not covered by other sources. Are there any Lebanese papers that haven't been included? The Daily Star, which is a right-leaning paper, is quoted on casualties, and even Emile Lahoud's (singly sourced) assertion of Israeli war-crimes is included. On the other hand, Debkafile is only cited once, and is even singled out within the article as an Israel-based source.
5. Again, if you have specific concerns, please cite them so that we can discuss. There is qualifying language used on both sides as far as I saw, though I welcome you to note any necessary corrections.

Until this point, I believe that every (potentially controversial) edit I have made was in line with discussion on talk. I would like to note that I have been active from the first day (before you for that matter, not that its at all important;-]). And lastly, I would like to note that I indeed moved the talk from your page to here (see above). Thank you, and I await your (or anyone else who wills) response. Tewfik^Talk 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As to my support of the "POV Check" tag, I refer you (again) to the "Removal of POV tag" section in this talk page. Except for the "casualties" issue, and any that might emerge, those are *my* NPOV concerns. Others, in other discussions, have raised the points I have summarized. Perhaps if you dont agree with them you should discuss them there. But by assuming that the neutrality is not being disputed simply because it is spread around is disingeneous. No one has to sumarize anything for anyone, as the entire talk page is the collaborative display of the discussion. You are doing a Reductio ad absurdum: since no one is able to sumarize things to you, then the article mustbe NPOV. This is not a logical argument.

Lastly, your edits have not followed consensus, as example your continued, near (but not quite) vandalic change on "captured" into "abducted" after a heavily discussed consensus was reached. And your removal of the "POV Check" tag even in the middle of heated discussion. --Cerejota 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made no such assumption about summarising, rather this is a continuation of the POV discussion, within the same section heading. I had participated in them when they took place, and believe that your concerns were resolved there in various manners.

1. Capture --> abduct with discussion, which at the time was a consensus. If a different consensus develops at a future time, we can deal with it.
2. You rhetoric concern was rejected by several users
3. The NPOV tag war doesn't exist if there is consensus. Discussion has not yielded any serious issues. IP vandals are not a reason for an NPOV tag, if that was your concern.
4. The BBC has been discussed three times at this point

Despite the lack of clear reason to maintain an NPOV tag from the discussion above to which you continually refer, you have had another opportunity to cite your concerns again here. I have responded to them in the hopes of reaching resolution, and so if you think we require the tag, please respond. As for other users' concerns, I haven't seen any concerns above that were not dealt with, and it would simply be illogical to state that any number of future NPOV concerns should require the tag now. If and when any new problems arise, we can deal with them. I await your (or any other party who believes there to be NPOV issues) response. Tewfik^Talk 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ad vitam aeternam is peppering this article with POV. --Pifactorial 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And he's been blocked. --Pifactorial 09:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think that the article conforms to NPOV. However, the Attacks on Lebanon part describes the attacks as being almost-purely against military targets, while the Attacks on Israel part describes mainly attacks against civilians. This may be due to several possible reasons:

1. The article's writers aren't aware of the Lebanese civilian casualties or have no confirmed information about the scope of the civilian damage,
2. It is possible that Hezbollah in fact makes more attacks on civilians that the IDF, and\or
3. Hezbollah's military compounds are located near civilized areas, thus ensuring that any attack against them would also cause civilan casualties (which would, of course, worsen the IDF's image).

Whichever of the three is the reason, I do believe that this part of the article is NPOV, because a lack of sources is not a POV issue, neither are Hezbollah's tactics. I would welcome any comments on this, if anyone disagrees (or does agree). Tamuz 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We should definately research and include the Lebanese civilian information. One problem which has recurred, perhaps as a symptom of the same problem, is that there is no clear count of Lebanese civilian dead, as most prominent sources (CNN, BBC) group all dead together, while Israeli sources distinguish between military and civilian casualties. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is probably simply a lack of reliable Lebanese news sources. Whereas Israel has a lot of organized news broadcasters, Lebanon doesn't have so many, and so we can hear more accurate information about Israeli casualties and less information about Lebanese. But I would guess that in the following days we will get some accurate numbers, as the Lebanese government would finish the casualties count and as more foreign news channels would enter Lebanon. Tamuz ^(Talk) 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

Is there any reason to keep that thing on there? Unless there's a strong reason I'm going to remove it, because metadata tags at the top of articles are ugly and only appeal to the very small number of readers to the article who are actually editors. Since this is linked from the main page we have a much higher reader/editor ratio than most pages. --Cyde↔Weys 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant who they "appeal" to, if anyone. They are there to serve as a warning. This article is liable to contain new POV material on a regular basis, so the tag should be permanent until things have calmed down. Honbicot 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the more ridiculous things I think I've heard. {{current}} serves as enough of a warning; do you really want to have a permanent tag on here that basically says "This article sucks, it's totally biased", merely as a precautionary measure because someone might insert something? Have you no pride in your work? Thousands of people are reading this article every day, why should we try to scare off every one of them with an imposing metadata tag at the top of the article? --Cyde↔Weys 16:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I supported "POV check" instead of "NPOV". "POV check" the article may not be neutral. This I think is good definition of the state of this article, as many editors are editing to POV without discussion, and this is a semi-permanent condition.

I disagree that the "current" tag sufficies: many current event articles (such as those of natural disasters) are not under constant POV-motivated editing, and readers might understand that while the article content might change, its contents continue to be NPOV, even when this is not the case.

Furthermore, if you go to the other current and archived discussions here, you see many POV issues have not been addressed still, such as the balance of the news reporting, lack of secondary source information from within Lebanon, lack of citation/WP:OR issues etc.

I think we have made progress, but I think we still deserver a POV Check tag. We dont deserver a "NPOV" tag tho, as the article has been close to NPOV at times.--Cerejota 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I support removing it unless a new rationale can be added at the bottom of this talk page, aswell as any subsequent removal of it unless a rationale is added. Users (or non-users) adding that tag without a rationale are a problem. --Joffeloff 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply object to the assertion that the POV tag needs to stay on articles without any real reasoning merely because it is a "controversial topic" and it is "prone to insertion of POV material". That describes a good number of articles, and we shouldn't be essentially defacing all of them with an ugly, credibility-diminishing, metadata tag. The tag should be reserved for articles that presently have serious POV concerns, and when the tag is added, it must be justified. --Cyde↔Weys 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is absolutely correct. The POV tag should not be there unless there are specific objections that have not been addressed. --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Nimur 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In further justification, I think that there are so many facts with citations, and so few opinions, that the NPOV is well preserved. Nimur 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My own editing habbit has been that if someone drops a NPOV tag on an article and doesn't go into talk and explain why they believe it is POV it is fair game to remove the tag. It's really easy for someone to dump the tag in but a bit tougher to actually explain why. --StuffOfInterest 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that in this case there are current and archived discussions on this article not being NPOV, and they are apparently being ignored.--Cerejota 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this discussion page looks long overdue for an archiving. Thanks for the effort to keep it organized, but it may be necessary to break it into sub pages if you really want to direct discussions to the appropriate sections. --StuffOfInterest 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have put the "POV Check" label up, because I think the arguments are ignoring the points raised on all the other POV threads, many of which have not been addressed.--Cerejota 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read this section rather thoroughly and find no significant, actionable POV problem. The material certainly justifies the {current} tag, but new additions seem to be scrutinized very thoroughly. A NPOV tag is not obligatory for all articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. A NPOV tag is not meant as a permanent earmarker for controversial topics. Without specific and actionable comments, the tag should be removed immediately. If it stays, it should only stay in such sections where disputes remain. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, I've went through the archived POV discussions and have found no arguments that weren't settled, except for several issues which have already been removed from the article altogether (or, at least, I couldn't find them), so they are no longer relevant. Again, if you have specific concerns, please raise them here (and state in which part of the article they appear, 'cause it's a real pain going through all this), but I find no issues that weren't already dealt with. Saying this article is prone to POVing isn't a reason to put any POV tag, becuase this tag simply scares away readers who think there may be mistakes here. I support the removal of any POV tags from this article, leaving only the Current-Event tag. Tamuz ^(Talk) 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is there consensus for maintaining the POV check tag? Tewfik^Talk 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping it. Even the most reasonable seeming editors of this article are very biased when you look at edits for the casualty figures, for instance. Pretty much everyone here who has edited these figures has done so along party lines - you'll see incrase, reduce and reword the casualty figures, often changing sources to support their view, and when doing so it has consistently been for increasing one side's number and decreasing the other side, never both. And this kind of thing is happening dozens of times per day, so until that stops I think the POV fits.--Paraphelion 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Paraphelion and are re-inserting POV Check, the "softer" POV warning.--Cerejota 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the casualties, there is a simple solution: attribute. If different sources give different figures, not the difference. It can only improve the credibility of Wikipedia not to try to fit information into a simple cookie cutter format when the situation is in fact more complicated. Perhaps only a approximate number or a range and a note to see the relevant section of the text? This seems to be the current state of the casualty info, thus making your objection non-actionable. Do to the difficulty of reading the entire archive and the rate at which content has recently been updated, I think its safe to say that one must restate a specific objection to maintain the tag. I removed the second POV template which gave the reason of "vandalism", which is never a reason for a content dispute. If there is vandalism just revert it. Every article can be vandalized at any given moment; we would have a tag on every such article very quickly... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This solution sounds good and I would volunteer but unfortunately I don't have enough wiki-experience to know where to begin on how to format such a thing. I can barely edit an infobox without breaking it.--Paraphelion 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If only the Casualties section is POV, then the tag should only be put on that section, not the entire article. Or, better yet, as Savidan proposed, write approximate figures and link to various sources. Tamuz ^(Talk) 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just used the casualties as an example, but I believe it is indicative of the general pattern of editing on the article; that you will find few and far between editors that make edits which show both sides to be bad or both sides to be good. I have not been paying attention that closely for the last 24 hours so perhaps this has changed. Also perhaps my using those kind of patterns is not sufficient evidence for a POV tag.--Paraphelion 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been against the NPOV or POV tags the entire time, but when I woke up this morning, the article definitely deserves the tag - perhaps even NPOV instead of POV-check. Tag definitely belongs. (war crimes, targeting of civilians...)-Preposterous 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you are going to have to do better than "general pattern of editing." I'm not quite bold enough to remove the tag myself at this point, but I would strongly endorse its removal. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been WP:Bold and removed the unjustified POV check tag. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! :] Now we'll have to work harder to make sure the article remains in a state that does not require the tag (-; Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Debkafile a reliable source?

I don't have any POV problem with DebkaFile, and I love reading it, but is it really a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia? IIRC, Debka runs a lot of lightly sourced rumors, so sometimes it gets early scoops, and sometimes it turns out to be just plain wrong. TheronJ

It's reliable insofar as WP:RS is concerned, yes. While much of their information may turn out to later be mistaken, the same is true of many other sources considered reliable and notable enough to be cited on Wiki. As long as we make sure to identify them as the source of the info whenever they are mentioned, it's reasonable. Rather than saying Ali Larijani flew to Damascus, we note that Debkafile is the source of the info. This is standard protocol with all sources which are likely to be disputed. You just mention make clear with every assertion that rather than being indisputed fact, it is coming from Debkafile. This is the same thing we do with the Drudge Report when they are sourced, or for that matter, any government, or the United Nations, etc... Many sources are often mistaken, or have their claims disputed. The real question is notability, and certainly within Israeli-Arab affairs, Debkafile has sufficient notability to mentioned. Bibigon 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with using it as a source per-se, but since it is a partisan publication, a bias-disclaimer might be in order. I think the way I currently edit is correct, providing space to those who describe Debka as pro-israeli and those who don't, plus a link to its wiki page. I think levaing it as is, with a quote to a news item no other major media outlet has picked up, is important to keep NPOV.--Cerejota 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below of this subject. Bibigon 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Debkafile biases commentary. I'd like to request that people stop adding "Pro-Israeli" or links to a small town library in Ohio saying "Pro-Israeli" before the Debkafile piece. We do not normally go into the various possible biases of the sources we cite when we cite them. While biases are important, space considerations prevent us from having a full debate of the various possible biases every time a source is listed. If we include "Pro-Israeli" we'd also have to add other notable points of view about their possible biases. A full discussion of their biases is simply not possible here, as it would take several paragraphs. Many, probably most sources that we use are alleged to have biases. Many people believe Reuters is anti-Israel, but we do not cite them as "The Anti-Israeli Reuters", or even cite sources calling them "anti-Israeli", because we would then have to get into a full discussion of that. Similarly, when we cite say, Fox News, we don't cite them as "Pro-Israeli." We cite the source, we link to it if they have a wiki page, and we move on. Commentary on the possible biases of thes sources is for the Wiki pages on the sources, not for every instance of a citation of that source.

I also wanted to add that so far, the only source given calling Debkafile "Pro-Israeli" is the completely non-notable Lakewood, Ohio Public Library. Even for the Debkafile page, that sort of citation falls below the standards of WP:NOTABLE. Bibigon 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DebkaFile is not Reuters, or the Associated Press, or the BBC. While this sources are not free of bias, they are well known, and hence people usually know their biases and styles. DebkaFile, on the other hand, is less well-known, hence a bief discussion of it bias is important. If the quotes from DebkaFile were idependently supported by other news media, then perhaps we would use those sources isntead of DebkaFile, and we wouldn't be discussing this. But by quoting DebkaFile, we make it our business, in order to keep encyclopedic standard, to allude to its possible bias.

If for example, DebkaFile where being mentioned only as a link, or as an information source, then perhaps such description of bias wouldnt be in order. But it is being extensively quoted with possibly POV views, and this requires a warning to the reader.

--Cerejota 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we then list it as a Jerusalem-based website, which is factually accurate, NPOV, and gives at least the same hint of possible bias that people have when they read AP, Reuters, or BBC articles. It establishes that they're working out of Israel, so a pro-Israel bias is possible.

I also don't believe that Wikipedia should operate on the presumption of our readers knowing the biases of the major sources that we cite. That's not just how Wikipedia operates.

A real discussion of biases is not possible here, not for Debkafile, not for anyone. Even ignoring the AP, Reuters, or BBC, not every source is that well known. Wikipedia cites a great many less known sources, and we don't describe the possible biases for any of them. For instance, not many people know about the possible biases of China Daily, The Irish Times, The News-Sentinel, or any of the dozen other less well known media outlets which this article cites. In none of those cases do we discuss their possible biases, again, because it would impossible to do these discussions justice in one or two sentences. Bibigon 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept the WP:NOTABLE argument for the Ohio library. I have added a republishing of a Washington Post article questioning the reliability of the DebkaFile. It is not about bias, but reliability, but it does do what I think should be done, which is qualify the quoted report from DebkaFile.--Cerejota 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is currently a 404. The citation you gave is to an e-mail that someone sent about the article, which does not meet our standards of reliability or notability. Bibigon 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, every source's accuracy has at one point or another been questioned. That's a pretty wierd disclaimer to put there, even if the Washington Post article were verifiable. Bibigon 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article link is dead, we can keep the citation as per Wikipedia:Citing sources, my attempt to link to that republishing was one to evade questions of veracity. In any case, "Jerusalem-based Israeli website" I think would be a good compromise, and are editing accordingly.--Cerejota 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Threat vs. promise

In the intro, the statement by Hezbollah's leader was described as "threat". That is the living definition of POV. Now, I have changed it into "promise" with quotes, as it is the direct quote, but i recognize this too is can be intepreted by those bilnd to quotes as POV. So my thing is how do we call the threat/promise in a NPOV way?--Cerejota 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

LINK? on Fox News Alert

Fox News just had an alert that said (something along the lines): Israe: Missle targeted at naval fleet, hits civilian boat. Sorry I can't remember the exact words, but essentially the alert said Israel said that a missle was aimed at their ship and it hit a civilian ship. Is there any links or other sites, tv, etc reporting and confirming this. I also question the merits of course, because Israel is reporting this....and there is nothing to confirm it...sorry I couldn't offer more--Jerluvsthecubs 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Too add on Fox has said they have confirmed that 4 Israeli Soilders are missing and they say they have confirmed a civilian vessel was hit. I'll search to confirm.--Jerluvsthecubs 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I confirmed it through Rueters [3]. There isn't enough info though, but should there be any mention of this or should we wait until additional information comes out on this?

• I would wait. As an additional source, this AP story hosted on Yahoo News. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for the link. I've found only one article from a local news source in Bangore, Maine on the 4 missing sailors: [4]. Fox says they confirm the missing soilders, but again...you are right we should probably wait for more stories and stories that are objective.

Israel says Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship

Infiltration attempt reference?

IDF supposedly foiled a Hezbollah infiltration attempt. The reference given is

Title: IDF forces foil infiltration attempt on northern border. Jerusalem Post: (2006-07-14). Link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994586&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The link does not mention anything about this, nor did a search on the website for "infiltration" yield anything.

Anyone know about this?

--srostami 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed.

--srostami 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it. Apparently the page was reused for a more recent article, but I found a copy of it on some kind of a news board (as well as having read it at the time ;-]), and reposted with the new link. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new to this so maybe you can explain something to me. Now the link goes to the site you put down, which in turn references the same irrelevant article as before. I don't understand how this is different than the way it was to begin with. I could have a "story" on my personal homepage that says "UN members unanimously agree to blow up the Moon" and then link to a CNN article about breast cancer. This Lucianne thing doesn't strike me as a "reliable, verifiable" anything. At the very least, doesn't the original article exist somewhere at Jerusalem Post? It seems pretty shady to me that a news site doesn't store day-old articles.

--srostami 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct; I reposted it without the URL until it appears in the archives according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

72h Ultimatum

We need a better source than [5] for that statement, especially when it's mentioned in the lead paragraph. The current source is (1) Ynet that reports about a news message of the (2) Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat that in turn has unreleased information of the (3) Pentagon that in turn gained information from (4) Israel. Quite some interpretations, translations and uncertainities accumulated. Sijo Ripa 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Its very important news. Yes, the source could be better, but its definately worth mentioning in the lead. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find a source for the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??

[6] ~Rangeley (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not much of a source for that information - it's second hand. But, with help from users in our Arabic IRC channel, I found the report Al-Hayat story that Ynet is qouting. Here's a Google translation. In short, the relevant part says "the source refused to confirm or deny rumors of an ultimatum". Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also kindly provided with a better translation of the first two paragraphs:

An authorized source in the US Defence Ministery warned yesterday that if Arab and international efforts failed to persuade Syria to put pressure on Hizbollah to release the two israeli soldiers and end the current escalation, that it would push Israel to strike vital goals in the Syrian territories.

The source refused to deny or confirm rumours in Washington yesterday saying that Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to accept what Israel requied to stop the activity of Hezbollah on the Israeli borders and to obtian release of the two israeli soldiers , or it will face serious consequences.

Hope that helps. Zocky | picture popups 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim of an ultimatum has been removed from the lead, but it's now in a lower section, referencing the second-hand Ynet story, which makes the claim soumd much more credible than the original Al-Hayat story. We can change the reference to go directly to the Al-Hayat story, but since that is in Arabic, we should probably provide a more accurate citation than we have now. Zocky | picture popups 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now done this. Zocky | picture popups 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation of Expatriates and Tourists

With the ongoing operations by countries to get their citizens out of Lebanon, I feel we should either put in this article or write a seperate one about each countries efforts. I don't know if this is happening or has happened as I'm new to the talk pages on wikipedia. Njjones 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It should perhaps be mentioned somewhere, since the UK are sending warships to the area for a possible evacuation (source for this = BBC News 24), as to where it should be mentioned I have no idea... Cryomaniac 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the US is considering an airborne operation out of Larnaca,Cyrpus using helos or planes. The closest carrier with helos (USS Iwo Jima) is in the Red Sea and days away due to Marines off shore in Jordan. I know some governments are moving their citizens from Beirut to Damascus and will fly them out from there, such as Spain. I doubt this would be allowed for the US due to harsh rhetoric being tossed around by both countries. Njjones 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that could be written in a section where something is written about refugees in general? I read that about 60,000 refugees from southern Lebanon hs came to Beirut. And at the same time the evacuation of foreigners is proceeding of course, for example yesterday 800 swedes arrived in Aleppo with a convoy of buses carrying citizens of various EU countries. --Battra 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created an article about the ship that has been hired to evacuate U.S. citizens, the Orient Queen. A link to this could be included in a section discussing the evacuation. Rest 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now there is a section about Evacuation under "International reactions". I also added a section on Sweden. Though I feel that maybe this section is taking too much space. The evacuation is of course one of the things that our newspapers write a lot about, though I'm not that sure if it is relevant to this article to describe the evacuation with so much details. --Battra 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the section; I hoped it would be expanded and always expected it would be broken out at the appropriate point. Do keep in mind that this is notable, as in my memory there has been no similar situation where ~250,000 foreign nationals have been trapped in a blockaded war zone with no way out. (And bombs don't check passports, as Canada found.) For people with a friend or relative in the region, this is the most important aspect, which is why it's in the headlines. --Dhartung | Talk 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A section called "Foreign Nationals in Lebanon" has started to grow, though I feel it is redundant when we have another section about evacuation. --Battra 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran attempting to distract?

People in the media keep saying that Iran is directly responsible for starting this recent mess in order to create a distraction from its nuclear ambitions. Is this true? Or is it pure speculation? Where are they getting this from? Is there anything about it in the article? If so, please point me to it. If not, somebody put it in there. -Amit 67.22.216.150 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More like Israel is interested in conflict. Jews populace wants militaristic pose leaders like Sharon was, so the current Olmert-duo, who have almost nil military background (and consequently considered second class authority in Israel), want to show muscle power to gain domestic support. To meet the initial militants' demands and prisoner swap free the 300 women and 100 children younger than 15 years old, long held in israeli prisons without charge or trial, would have been easy and so the current conflict wouldn't even start. It has been done before several times to prisoner swap just a few jewish soldiers and spies for hundreds of imprisoned arabs. Why this way was not implemented now by Israel?

Foreigners cannot understand how much hatred the arabs and muslims have for the jews because of the palestinian prisoner problem. Besides the above mentioned females and youngsters, there are circa 8500 arab and muslim males long held in Israel without any charge or trial. Some of them have been held for 15 to 20 (twenty!) years now without any rights. The arabs want their many many prisoners back just as bad as jews want their 3 captured soldiers back.

Considering this, you need no Syria or Iran to explain why palestinians and other arabs are fighting. However, Israel has declared intention to make unilateral border drawing, so they hope to benefit from this war due to their huge us-funded military might. But they should know the only way to remove popular support for Hezbollah is to return to the pre-1967 borders and let the refugees come back. Current bombing only recruits more people to hezbollah. Even the moderate Lebanese PM Seinora is now calling on TV for ordinary arab people to become suicide bombers and never surrender!

It would be worth noting a great many people think that Iran is using this as a distraction. The fact that this began on the very same day that the deadline on Iran occured that the UNSC gave them does lend credence to the idea, and the fact that Iranian weaponry is being used, and 100 Iranian troops are said to be in South Lebanon only helps that out. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also we now know from the overheard Bush/Blair conversation that Tony thinks this is Iran.Hypnosadist 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Threat on Central Israel

Israeli Home Front Command says that cities southern then Haifa (for example Tel Aviv) should be ready for an attack. [7] Máfiàg 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to AP, Rockets are landing farther south of Haifa, in the town of Atlit, which is 35 miles inland. Frinkahedr0n 13:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First abduction by Israel?

I was reading the interview with Noam Chomsky, and he said the following: "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately." Is there any validity to Chomsky's claim? I haven't read anything at all about this doctor and his brother. Erik 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I haven't heard of this and Noam Chomsky's credibility has been questioned many times, but in any event, it would belong on Operation Summer Rains, and not here. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas I agree this is not the place. Yet while Noam Chomsky's credibility has been called into question, so has that of his critics. You see, one person's freedom fighter is the other's terrorist.--Cerejota 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, and it is in Operation Summer Rains. The source is http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1805354,00.html --Jobrahms 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah responsibility for Haifa attacks

The article currently says that Hezbollah denied responsibility for the attacks on Haifa. However several sources are now reporting (e.g. [8]) that Hezbollah broadcast statements on their station, Al-Manar, claiming responsibility for rocket attacks on Haifa and threatening more. What's unclear is whether these are the same attacks they denied responsibility for initially, or if they still deny responsibility for those but now claim resonsibility for new ones. --Delirium 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo News is not a source

Pleas enotice that Yahoo just publishes news from other sources, but is not a source itself. So please when using an article from Yahoo News, look who is the source first, usually AP or Reuters. --Cerejota 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did.--Jerluvsthecubs 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response from Lebanese Army?

Is there any response of the attakes on Lebanon? There was a report of an air raid on army baraks.[9] In an Interview with a German person in Lebanon it was stated that their is anti aircraft artillery is firing in Beirut. Self defence would be legal against bombing the capital. The army and the non existing air force are not good against the by far strongest army in the region, but small AA fire is easy to do.--Stone 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to the Israeli attacks."(BBC [10]). given this and the absense of any source reporting retaliatory action by lebanese troops, the listing of lebanon as a combatant in the infobox must be removed. Doldrums 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

but also "However, the only action Lebanon's army has taken during seven days of Israeli strikes has been to fire anti-aircraft guns at Israeli warplanes attacking infrastructure targets."(Lebanon's Daily Star, [11]) Doldrums 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

and "The Lebanese army has largely stayed out of the fighting, confining itself to firing anti-aircraft guns at Israeli planes. But Israeli jets have struck Lebanese army positions." (AP on SF chronicle, [12])

More news reporting on TV

We will wait for more reporting on the web and confirmation BUT
MSNBC reports that witnesses in Tel Aviv saw an Israeli soilder forced into a suspicious vehicle
FOX NEWS reports Israeli Radio says that a car bomb exploded near Tel Aviv after the Israelis gave a bomber is on the lose warning
FOX NEWS reports that special forces for the IDF are in Lebanon and two Israeli soilders were killed in combat bringing the Israeli death toll to 27.--Jerluvsthecubs 10:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)