Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Discussion about casualties

Bias in casualties

How come Israeli civilian casualties do not have a "range" and Lebanese do? So you accept the word of the Israeli government but not the Lebanese?

Blatant BIAS—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rm uk (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they are at least an order of magnitude smaller, and thus easier to account for. Isarig 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Order of magnitude smaller? Ok if you want to get into mathematics, a range of 700 to 1300 is still too much uncertainty. 1300 minus 700 is 600,approximatly 46% of 1300. 46% of 53 israelis killed is 24.46 round down to 24. THen the israeli casaulties should be 29 - 53 range. An uncertainty of 46% is FAR too much. Like I said BLATANT bias Rm uk 01:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh calm down. Israel's casualties have all been reported on by the press, they are verifiable. There are simply too many casualties in Lebanon, with differing accounts, and no absolute verifiability. It is this reason that there is a range. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with calling bullshit here, unfurtunately there is much bullshit in the reporting on the Lebanese side : see http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance and the firing by Reuters of Adnan Hajj. A section on the propaganda war defineately needs to be included
The Lebanese casaulties have all been reported in the press also. If we get israeli casaulty figures from the Israeli government then we should get Lebanese dead from the Lebanon government. You just want to twist the truth. "lets diminish the dead of lebanon so people less critical of israel" Rm uk 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with you about the range if it wasn't so large... 46% range? come on!

The international press agrees on the number of Israelis, while there is a wide range reported for the Lebanese (which doesn't even touch on the issue of distinguishing civilians), which is where the 1009 number came from. TewfikTalk 02:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The international press get their information from the israeli government Rm uk 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Rm uk 02:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) says Russian source given in article quote israeli casaulties at 43! Hence the range is 43 to 53! Seeing as we are being strict about this thing it is only fair i change Israeli range 43 to 53

I haven't seen the source, and you haven't provided a link. Be mindful of WP:Point. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering there is evidence that many of the bodies in Lebanon were used in multiple occasions no one will ever know how many there were. Also it is very hard to tell the difference between Hezbo guerrillas and civilians as they wear civilian dress. --Firebird2k6
you can tell if its hezbollah if he has a big gun in his hand. you are treating the israeli government figures as gospel, and the lebanese official figures as fuzzy. If israeli figures for their dead are used then lebanese figures for lebanon should be used. it's only fair Rm uk 08:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No you can't. They often fired a rocket and ran back into a house or apartment to take cover. They wouldn't have a weapon in their hand.--Firebird 19:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned with truth, only with verifiability. The Israeli numbers can be verified and are agreed on by the international media, and the Lebanese numbers are not, but rather there are several different numbers (hence the range). The fact that the official Israeli count concurs with the verifiable number doesn't make it less verifiable. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New lower limit to Lebanse casualty range per AP at 692(specifically says "civilians"); remember 727 was unqualified, though the 1009 was qualified as "civilian" by Lebanese government. 00:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for the lack of accuracy in Lebanese figures is that two Lebanese government branches were reporting different counts -- ~700 and ~1000. ehudshapira 00:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

I do not have time to check and re-check again, my israeli sources told me over 120 soldiers dead and 55 civilians, at least 5 commandos, today on the raid at least one soldier dead, this time no hezbolla, except 3 wounded, if somebody has more evidence check on the accuracy on casualties on boths sides. Remember, the first casualty in war is truth.

Uhm and "my Israeli sources" state that there were 118 soldier fatalities, including the officer of the commando (הי"ד) that died today, and 43 civilian fatalities - all names reported except the last officer's one. Also "my sources" tell me that Lebanon reports 3 Hizballah men dead in the recent Baalbek raid. Disguised taqiyya is not going to work here, buddy. --Aleverde 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It is 44 civilians - one person died later in a hospital. The name of the 118th soldier just published: Lieutenant-Colonel Emanuel Moreno ז"ל (probably major, promoted post mortem, as always). Flayer 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of 118 too. Perhaps mfa.gov.il will update their page Sunday (and fix the miscount in the title). ehudshapira 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese casualties

Right now the infobox says 954 but the ref doesn't agree. It says more than 900 Lebanese (and 159 Israeli, which would suggest the Lebanese figure is also including non-civilians). ehudshapira 00:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions

Earlier Discussions

Discussion about pictures

Older discussions:

  • Please do not edit these archived discussions

Discussions about article size and layout

Older discussions


General Discussion

Conclusions, Environmental consequences, Israeli Airstirke in Eastern Lebanon: Hezbollah Stronghold, News, Iran is listed as an Arab country, Seymour Hersh allegation, Temporal Scope of Article, 10 rockets fired in Southern Lebanon, Israel breaks cease fire, New yorker, Disputed casualty figures?, United Nations force, Israel, Malaysia and Indonesia, "Results of the conflict", New beginning: Lebanon Raid

Why the soldiers aren't "captured"

Hizballa's pretexts:

  • "Prisoners" held in Israel. Invalid pretext, of course. Why? First of all these guys, especially Kuntar, are not innocent lambs. They are all convicted criminals (yep, smashing Einat Haran's head against a rifle is a crime by all means). But even that thing is not the only cause. Kuntar was to be released according to the previous abduction deal, under one condition - that Nasrallah provides a reliable info on Ron Arad. This condition was not met, so this pretext is a blatant lie.
  • Shebaa farms. Invalid too. Shebaa farms are a part of Golan Heights. Whether it is Syrian or Israeli territory, is a matter of POV. According to UN it is Syrian territory. Let's assume it is. Who entitled Hizballa to attack Israel for Syrian territory? Of course Syria's spokesmen now say that it is "Lebanese territory", but they still haven't agreed to officially pass their sovereignity over this area to Lebanon. Also, Hizballa is not the state of Lebanon and is not entitled to start wars on its behalf. Hizballa is an organization representing one third of Lebanese population, but it is still not the state of Lebanon.
I find it interesting that you believe "Hizballa is not the state of Lebanon and is not entitled to start wars on its behalf. Hizballa is an organization representing one third of Lebanese population, but it is still not the state of Lebanon," but don't seem to have a problem with Israel starting wars with a non-state entity such as Hezbollah. This is a false dichotomy. Either Hezbollah is a non-state entity that cannot start a war and therefore Israel cannot go to war with a non-state entity or Hezbollah can as a non-state entity start a war and Israel can go to war with a non-state entity. Edward Lalone 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel, unlike its enemies, does distinguish between the two terms when it comes to facts. In Israeli press, Ron Arad is described as indeed POW ("captured"), and Mustafa Dirani as "abducted" by Israel in order to retrieve information on Arad (Dirani released in 2000 deal). But the soldiers in 2006 were clearly "abducted". Thus, the soldiers are abducted, and not "captured". Taken for future human ransom, taken to blackmail Israel, despite the fact that Kuntar's non-releasing was due to Nasrallah's, not Israel's, behaviour regarding the previous abduction treaty. This is fact, and not a point of view. The phrase that is "point of view", is "captured". Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'captured' is an emotively neutral term, which implies neither that the capturer was justified nor unjustified.
'abducted' and 'taken for ransom' imply that the person doing the abducting was unjustified... a POV --DakAD 17:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And, according to the facts that are listed, this abduction was indeed totally unjustified. Its pretexts are complete lies. And this is a fact. Wikipedia's aim is not being neutral for the sake of being neutral. Facts must be faced and not escaped. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Justification is a point of view. If the pretexts were by absolute fact, lies, than you probably would have produced some direct evidence, but alas what you say is all BS.--Paraphelion 23:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And methinks that you have yet to prove it's BS. Of course you won't because you cannot. Because I already produced direct proof that both pretexts are complete lies. Justification is not a point of view when it comes to facts. If the pretexts that are used by a warring side for the operation are false, the term "capture" also becomes false. Which it indeed is. Aleverde 12:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Where have you produced this direct proof? You're full of shit.--Paraphelion 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This comment applies to the previous four comments by DakAD, Aleverde, and Paraphelion. I agree that the term captured is a emotively neutral term which neither implies justification or lack of justification on the part of the people doing the capturing. I also agree that justification is a point of view, and that Aleverde is pushing a point of view that "this abduction was indeed totally unjustified," claiming that "its pretexts are complete lies" and then claiming that his view that the capture of these soldiers was unjustified and the pretexts based on lies. This is not a fact. It's an opinion and point of view especially when it comes to whether someone is lying. Edward Lalone 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While the proper term is certainly a matter of debate, that they were taken for ransom is stated by the Hezbollah, so while it may not be a good stylistic alternative, it is accurate and neutral. TewfikTalk 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, taken for ransom has a strong implication that monetary demands were made, and I'm not aware that was the case here. The phrase people might be looking for is taken hostage which implies demands are being made conditional to release but that they aren't necessarily monetary. Of course, civilians are taken hostage in a conflict, regular military are "captured", at least in my mind, since it's expected soldiers know what they are getting into (becoming a legitimate enemy target) when they don the uniform. -- Kendrick7 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ransom does not mean money, it means they were taken for something in return, which they were, to force a prisoner swap. I will stop putting for ransom however, it seemed to be the most factually non emotional term. However captured is POV as it implies legally and I contest the legality of it. Abducted sounds like aliens and children, however if neither kidnapped not for ransom will be used, abducted is third on my list. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Legitimate enemy target"? Of what legitimacy are you speaking right now? See the facts, again - the pretexts for the raid are false! The soldiers were on their sovereign territory so they were not "getting into" anything. It was Hizballa that was "getting into", not the soldiers. I say "taken for future human ransom" which is factually correct by all means, and it gets erased every time. No, again, they are NOT captured. They are abducted. Abducted because the pretexts of the raid are false, they are lies. This is the FACT, and you should face it. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean "legitimate" as opposed to a civilian, non-combatant walking down the street minding his own business. A soldier patrolling the edge of a war zone during a cease fire, when the enemy breaks the cease-fire by sneaking over the border and capturing him is in a much less surprising predicament. -- Kendrick7 18:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that the "soldiers were on their own sovereign territory so they were not 'getting into' anything" is contested. Israel claims that Hezbollah crossed into Israel killing 8 soldiers, and capturing 2 while the Lebanese claim that the two soldiers were in Lebanon, and that Israeli aircraft were flying over Lebanese airspace when the soldiers were arrested by local police officials. I agree with Kendrick7 that the mere status of being a soldier makes you a legitimate target. It seems that you Aleverde think its okay for Israel to capture and kill members of Hezbollah even though they are civilians but are still a legitimate target but that when Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers that they are not a legitimate target. In sum you claim, when Israel captures or kills civilian Lebanese who belong to Hezbollah they are killing or capturing a legitimate enemy target but when Hezbollah captures or kills Israeli soldiers they are not capturing or killing a legitimate enemy target. Again, this is a false dichotomy. And is a clear point of view violation. You also seem to have a predilection towards claiming that your point of view is fact as if "appealling to the authority" of fact will grant your point of view a superior position. Edward Lalone 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
To remind you, the soldiers were on their own territory, behind an internationally recognized border line. This wasn't an explicit war zone since 2001 as well. The soldiers in the Humvee weren't even carrying guns. But anyway, if two warring sides "capture" enemy's soldiers, it is never for a future blackmail like in this case. It is to take an enemy's soldier prisoner so he doesn't participate in fighting for a certain period. When a war ends or a ceasefire takes place, warring sides usually exchange their "captured" POWs, i.e. free them. Israel has some Hizballah's POWs, why doesn't Nasrallah exchange the 2 soldiers for his 21 men? Because that raid had a preset aim - to abduct soldiers and thus force Israel to release Samir Kuntar, in violation of the conditions of the previous 2000 treaty. In a war, capturing of ordinary soldiers is never planned and never is an aim by itself - it's just a collateral event in fighting. And that the 12 July raid most certainly wasn't - it was a preplanned, preset attack, whose aim was the seizure of soldiers. So it is an abduction by all means. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the ideal, but I'm sure there are numerous instances throughout martial history where enemy soldiers were captured with the explicit aim of exchanging them for soldiers on the other side even while combat operations were ongoing. I seem to recall learning is school that this kind of thing occured a lot during the French-Indian war and the American revolution. (I've never heard anyone try to argue that the rebel militias could only "abduct" but not "capture" Redcoats.)
Of course it may be that way, when your counterpart already has prisoners of war and you have to free them ASAP. But Samir Kuntar and Co. are not POWs at all, furthermore, their release was to be carried out under the conditions of the previous treaty, which Nasrallah clearly did not fulfill. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, who's release? Do we have an article for the previous treaty? -- Kendrick7 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well first Nasrallah said that they were abducted to release Kuntar and Co., as well as Palestinian prisoners (many of whom are criminals exactly as Kuntar is) - and that is to point out that this is indeed an abduction, not capturing. Then, when he understood that he has underestimated possible Israeli response (and Mahmoud Qomati indeed said they were "surprised"), he started to talk about the Lebanese prisoners only. But the fact is they were to be released according to the previous exchange deal (the one that followed the killing and kidnapping of 3 soldiers - Adi Avitan, Beni Avraham and Omar Sawayed, and subsequent kidnapping of Elchanan Tannenbaum) - under the condition that Nasrallah first provides a reliable info about Ron Arad, - a condition that Nasrallah did not fulfill. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a bizarre game of one-upmanship. I'll do the unthinkable, if you do the impossible, etc. Thanks for the info. -- Kendrick7 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Who told you that to retrieve info about Arad was impossible? It is very possible even now, when he is most probably not alive anymore. He was a POW at Hizballah, and believe me Nasrallah knows very well what happened to him and where he (or his body) is. If it were impossible to him he should n't have agreed to the deal with such a condition. Even more so that Kuntar is clearly not a POW. He is a criminal, a child killer. And to remind you, Israel under that same deal has freed 435 Hizballah men for Tannenbaum anyway. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The article on Ron Arad says is/was was a prisoner of Amal, not Hezbollah, who I am made to understand are rivals. It's like demanding Hannibal Lecktor cough up the location of the Lindbergh baby. No, yeah, maybe not impossible per se.... -- Kendrick7 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Weird... I had no idea when I wrote that, but both Hannibal Lecktor and the Lindbergh kidnapper were played in movies by Antony Hopkins. I guess than makes him Iran, but maybe that's stetching the analogy -- Kendrick7 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You must have missed the second half. In short, Israel suspected that he was "sold" to Hezbollah. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, because if he still were a POW of Amal, Israel would request info from Nabih Berri and not Nasrallah. Arad BECAME a Hizballah POW. Aleverde 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, first I've heard about Samir Kuntar. If his release is what Hezbollah is demanding, it should be in the article. -- Kendrick7 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
He is

. TewfikTalk 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How would people feel about using "seized" as an alternative to "captured", "kidnapped" or "abducted"? -- ChrisO 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine - the key point that the 'kidnap' people want to express seems to be that the goal was the taking into custody, versus the "incedental to combat" perception that 'capture' conveys. TewfikTalk 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Seized" is at least better than captured, and more neutral, and I have used it once - but it got erased as well. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
OOH Seized is good. seized I like. It has force, but not bias either way. Good work. HawkerTyphoon 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not heard "capture" used to mean "incedental to combat".--Paraphelion 23:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And I haven't heard that taking men prisoners for future blackmail (that is not related to releasing of POWs) while falsifying the causes of the operation is not an "abduction". Yes, in military sense it is incidental. When armies clash, no one of them has a preset aim to take prisoners for, apart from taking from the enemy's soldiers the ability to participate in future combat against them. So yes, it is in most cases incidental and not an aim by itself, like it is in this case. Aleverde 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
They fill libraries with the stuff you haven't heard about. Which is precisely where you might go if you were to produce some proof but predictably you will spout the bs.--Paraphelion 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Seized sounds good to me too, and I voted for "kidnapped" in the poll. Valtam 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I still think that "abducted" is the correct word, especially that Hizballah already had a POW for exchange - and for a very long time - it's Ron Arad; all Israel was asking in the previous deal for the release of the bastard Kuntar, was info about Arad, not even himself or his body - but they have taken two other soldiers instead. I think all evidence indicates that this is indeed a clear abduction, but let at least put "seized" there, because "captured" suggests a regular military event, which the kidnapping incident clearly wasn't. Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article from US News, just mentioning they use capture here where the goal seemed to be abduction: "On Tuesday [2 Aug], Israeli commandoes raided a Hezbollah hospital in Baalbek, Lebanon, apparently in an unsuccessful attempt to capture a high-ranking Hezbollah official to use as an alternative to dealing on Kuntar." -- Kendrick7 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Relevance? What US News writes is US News' business. Israeli media use the term "לחטוף" (to kidnap) regarding Baalbek raid. Even more so that this is the reaction and not proaction Aleverde 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Relevance is right. What does this US News story have to do with the way the events of July 12th are presented in the article? Valtam 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you must be translating "לחטוף" incorrectly; the nuance is different. In English kidnap means: "to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with a demand for ransom". Or are you saying Israeli media condemned the Baalbek raid?
To capture means, again from m-w.com, "to take captive", and captive means "taken and held as or as if a prisoner of war". Since these men are soldiers, it's perfect apt to say they being held as if they were prisoners of war. But, dang it, I had no intention of getting into this debate. -- Kendrick7 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am transtlating לחטוף very correctly, because I am a Hebrew speaker. It stands for "kidnap", period. To "capture" in its military sense is "לשבות" or "לקחת בשבי". Israeli media uses both terms in description of Baalbek raid. When it comes to the aim and planning of the raid, the first word is used - "to kidnap Hizballah's senior members". Regarding condemnation - you've really made me laugh! The raid, be it kidnapping or abduction, is completely justified because it is reaction and not proaction. Israeli media is not al-Guardian, to remind you. The media are critical of the government because of its lousy handling of the war, not because poor Hizballah men were kidnapped in Baalbek in a special operation. Aleverde 12:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I should have suspected that you spoke Hebrew by the way you have consistently pushed the Israeli POV in this article. Either you are Israeli, Jewish or sympathize with the Israeli or Jewish point of view. The point of the NPOV policy is to maintain neutrality across Wikipedia and to make sure that a POV is not included in Wikipedia as if it were fact. Whether we agree with Hezbollah or Lebanon or with Israel is not really relevent to the purpose of this article which is to present this conflict in a NPOV way which means that when reading it a person should be able to decide for themselves who they support. Wikipedia should not be used as a propaganda tool for Israel or for Hezbollah. Edward Lalone 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a specific edit that I made, please address it, but your broad accusations of bad faith based on knowledge of a language are completely out of place here, as well as just being nonsensical. And please don't take this the wrong way, but it is hard for me to take serious your concerns about NPOV when you make comments like those above, or suggest we give equal weight to a fringe belief (that an Israeli incursion originally started the conflict) which is totally absent from the mainstream media, including that not sympathetic to the Israeli POV (Al Jazeera). I hope that in the future we can collaborate with a focus purely on the material. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't read the article referred to, but it would mean "to kidnap," though it doesn't have to have critical connotations (not that the Israeli media hasn't been critical of the government). TewfikTalk 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "seize". If anyone wants to open another vote, let him/her do it, because I don't know how to do this (a bit new on Wikipedia). I've already done this before but it was erased of course. It's also not clear from the previous vote what term was to be used. And see FACTS first (at the top of the section) that clearly indicate that this was not an ordinary military capturing of counterpart's soldiers. --Aleverde 12:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip people. Seized means exactly the same as captured, it just sounds unusual in the context. This makes it a little meaningless and so supposedly non-offensive. In short, a weasel word. In addition to that, it violates the principle of least surprise. Who expects to see "seized" soldiers in casualty lists? How do you tabulate it and compare it to other wars? Were Polish soldiers in the first German attack in 1939 seized, kidnapped or captured (remember, it was an illegal attack by an airforce and tanks that weren't supposed to exist)?
Look, we all know that police arrests, military captures and criminals kidnap. This isn't about whether Hezbollah's action was legal or illegal, it's about whether Hezbollah's militia is a legitimate militia or a criminal gang, which is what the whole war is about. If we use "capture" to describe Israeli actions, and some non-standard term to describe Hezbollah's actions, we're siding with the side that claims Hezbollah is not a legitimate militia, i.e. writing the article from the narrow Israeli and American POV. Zocky | picture popups 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the facts presented previously? Have you read why it is not a regular military capture? Read it first, and if you can rebuke it with FACTS, and not fears that "whoa, whoa, poor Hizballah, we don't respect their POV", then post a rebuttal. German soldiers, when they invaded Poland, did not capture Polish counterparts for subsequent blackmail to release some German criminals held in Polish prison. Yes that was an illegal aggression but it differs from what Hizballah did in this aspect. Israeli actions are indeed captures because first of all they are done in response and in a real battlefield. If Hizballah would take some other soldiers during the war that this attack sparked, then yes, they would be "captured" as POWs in the battlefield. But the first attack, the casus belli, was a clear abduction. As to Hizballah's legitimacy, I don't know what legitimacy are you talking about. All militias in Lebanon have become "illegitimate" after the civil war ended and Israel withdrew, but Hizballah are somehow still legitimate? By what standards? The Cairo accords that have brought the civil war, the formation of all Lebanese militias and the Israeli incursions are illegitimate in the first place, because they were signed by a bunch of weak and pressured politicians that ceded their own country's territory to be used for aggression against another country by third-party militias. You cannot equate the casus belli kidnapping with taking POWs during the actual war (by either side), because they are not equal. You should not care about how Hizballah looks, you should care about facts. If Hizballah looks bad here, it's Hizballah's, not Wikipedia's, fault. And facts all testify that this action is indeed a clear abduction. To remind you, Hizballah is not even an army, it's a state within a state, that violates the rights of Lebanese auhtorities and holds two thirds of the population who do not side with it, hostages in their own country. If you could argue that it was due to Israeli incursion in 1982, then they've anyway lost this presumed "legitimacy" in 2000. As to your wondering whether Hizballah are criminals or not, then yes they are. Not even because they are a bunch of genocidal Islamist fanatics who air blood libels on their satellite TV, but because they control narcotics trade in Beqaa valley. That is pretty criminal I think. --Aleverde 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, as always on this topic, much talk about nothing. You are just repeating and reiterating one of the POVs and refusing to assuming that people who hold the opposite view are wrong. If people didn't insist on aggressively archiving this talk page, we wouldn't be discussing this for the twentieth time: There is no indication of legallity or illegallity in the word "capture". Indeed, dictionary definitions include descriptions of illegal captures. The point is that the word "seized" doesn't mean a thing in this context. We are using weasel words to placate the US-centric audience of the site, in a matter where its views are substantially different from those of the press and public opinion worldwide. Zocky | picture popups 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Quote: You are just repeating and reiterating one of the POVs. Really? Can you rebuke one thing of what I say logically? Go ahead, give a rebuttal based on facts. Just one thing? Of course there is no indication of legality or illegality in the word "capture". But I am not talking about that! For me, abduction of Mustafa Dirani is morally legal and justified, but it is still an abduction. I am talking of the sense that it implies - that this was just an ordinary military action. But it wasn't. Its preset aim, the identity of the men to be freed because of it, etc. etc. - all point to the fact that is is an abduction, a blackmail action and not an ordinary "capture" in its military sense of the word. Also a clear difference between the two cases is that Israel reports to the families that it holds its members captive while Hizballah doesn't. But that's secondary, anyway, and the word is not used to "placate" pro-Israeli (and not "US-centric") audience, it is used to "placate" the anti-Israeli one, who refuses to recognize factual difference between the two cases. It is also not clear what the consensus was, so please do not try to speak in the name of it. You so readily use the term "US-centric" (like it's about US and not Israel in the first place), but you don't realize that you, the "pro-Lebanese" (or pro-Hizballah) even don't account for Lebanon itself, since the majority of Lebanese (especially Maronite), if you ask them in private, will tell you they hate Hizballah as much as Israel does. "Public opinion" is also not relevant because public opinion cannot change facts. Public opinion always blames Israel when it reacts, as long as it is concerned, so it is not new at all. And as far as it goes for the majority of the press, again, it's hard to blame it in pro-Israeli tendencies, but every article I've read on the war so far, even in the Guardian, stated it as abduction. --Aleverde 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, picture popups, that "if we use 'capture' to describe Israeli actions, and some non-standard term to describe Hezbollah's actions, we're siding with the side that claims Hezbollah is not a legitimate militia, i.e. writing the article from the narrow Israeli and American POV." The reason I agree with you is simple. I see people trying to rationalize their POV as fact and to take sides. It's not the duty of Wikipedia to take sides in this conflict but to accurately represent the POV of those involved in this conflict and the facts as accepted by both sides and to present both sides claims of fact. An example of this is: Israel claims that Hezbollah crossed into Israel killing 8 soldiers and capturing two Israeli soldiers. The Lebanese claim that the soldiers were arrested in Lebanon. The middle ground to this conflict is to acknowledge that there is a conflict and that the soldiers were not kidnapped, abducted or arrested but were in fact captured. That we use this term consistently to describe the capture of one sides agents by the other sides agents is essential to the neutrality and NPOV policy of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is just going to promote the U.S. and Israel position on this conflict it cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Edward Lalone 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I read an article that the captured/abducted soldiers were actually in Lebanon/Gaza - true/not true? Sheeba Farms - when did it become Israel's? Syria and Lebanon have both claimed it at times - Israel has a UN resolution #? that says to leave - whose ever it is it isn't Israel's it seems. PS The Golan Heights article doesn't mention Sheeba Farms or the Litani River - if you want consistency then you had better edit that article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs).

According to all current reports, the soldiers were in Israel. Nowhere is it claimed that the Shebaa Farms are recognised as Israeli, but rather that they are not considered Lebanese according to the UN, and thus that their possession by Israel is not considered an occupation of Lebanon. And the Golan Heights article doesn't mention the Litani River because they are in different places, though the Shebaa Farms are mentioned. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Violation of the cease-fire

The cease-fire has just been violated, where do we put that. Do we put this in the Resolution article, or in the conflict article --Deenoe 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel says the operation in Baalbek is not a violation of the ceasefire since it's entitled to prevent weapon smuggling from Syria (which was the operation's declared aim). Anyway, minor shootouts have been reported even before this incident. If this is indeed a violation of a specific term of UN resolution 1701, this term should be specified. Anyway, I think this should be in the conflict article since it's part of it. --Aleverde 14:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section dedicated to the violation of the ceasefire. There is no doubt that it is a violation since there were no conditions attached to resolution 1701 for stopping hostilities related to "arms smuggling" or whatever else Israel claims.

Can someone please write the new section?

--Burgas00 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Israel "claimed" a lot of things about arms smuggling from Iran via Syria, and this has turned out to be very true (and deadly) during last month. I also remind you that continuing weapon traffic is also in violation of 1701, so Hizballah is the one who is doing it in the first place. --Aleverde 15:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a proof that Syria and Iran sent weapons to the Hizbollah after signing the cease-fire : No.
Is there a proof that Israel launched a raid in the east of Lebanon : Yes. --Deenoe 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there was also "no proof" that Hizballah is armed by these two states before the war started. After that, we got plenty of "proofs" with ball-bearings. Smuggling is a secret operation by its definition. Of course you will first hear of the raid itself because it makes more noise. Just wait and see what Israel will state in the coming days. Hey, it also may provide some proofs by then, like Kalashnikovs and machine guns in the "hospital" of Dar Al-Hikma in the previous raid. Even more so that it was a weapon supply interception raid, not a seizure or combat raid; it were the Hizballah men who opened fire first when they discovered the soldiers (just read it in the news). Anyway, it is not the first skirmish since the ceasefire. Put it in either section, but before that just wait a little bit till the evidence accumulates. It's still too early, that's my point. --Aleverde 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
let me ask you a single question then. if there is no smuggling taking place along the syrian lebanese border today what possible reason syria has for threatning closing the border as a response to the deployment of more effective lebanese military and international forces along the border? syria is threatning against lebanon having sovereignity and taking responsibility over its borders, its more than enough evidence on whats going on there.Nightybeta 1:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hum should Violations of current cease-fire should be under Cease fire Attempts, or a new section.. cause it's not really an attempt.. Cease fire has been achieved and then violated. --Deenoe 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Then put it under violations. But it is not the first skirmish, there were some encounters before it. --Aleverde 09:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To make this topic more NPOV, I suggest we change its name from "Violations of current ceasefire" to "Post-ceasefire violence." If nobody disagrees in 24 hours, I'm going to do it. --GHcool 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The u.n ceasefire resolution clearly calls on disarming hezbullah. Days after the cease fire took effect however the lebanese government and hezbullah agreed that the group would not be disarmed. simple as that. Isn't that a clear violation of the ceasefire? shouldn't that be mentioned above everything else despite the lack of violence? (BKAP23)

Economist characterisation

Could someone able to access the Economist's article on the outcome provide a copy of the relevant passages, as the title, "Hizbullah's shallow victory," seems to suggest that they aren't characterising the outcome as a "military and political victory," though of course not having read the article, I could be wrong . Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

An israeli image saying israel won should be on this article. If not the hezbollah one should be deleted. --Zonerocks 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist sometimes gives different titles for the same article depending on where/when you access it, at least when you're viewing the preview. The main leader article for this week (which is what the link takes you to) in the electronic copy is unambiguous. Here's the first paragraph:
Nasrallah wins the war
Aug 17th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Bad news all round, especially if more of Israel's neighbours come to believe in Hizbullah's methods
AFPHASSAN NASRALLAH and Ehud Olmert both say they won. But in asymmetrical warfare, the test of victory is asymmetrical too. Israel's prime minister set himself an absurd aim—the complete demolition of Hizbullah's power in Lebanon—and failed to achieve it. The shrewder Mr Nasrallah said victory would consist merely of surviving, and Hizbullah, however battered, did survive. On the last day it was not just standing, it also fired a record 246 rockets into Israel.
The rest of the article is slightly more nuanced, but not much. Kayman1uk 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I read The Economist secularly :) since age 10, and seldom are they wrong in this type of stuff. I know its a tought pill to swallow, but never forget the not irrelevant role The Economist played in British support for Zionism before you pull an Aleverde and start accusing everyone of being an anti-semite. The fact is that Olmert set hilariously impossible standards (destruction of Hezbollah) which are objectively impossible to meet. Hence Nasrallah, who is everything but stupid, is capitalizing on this. As I said, the IDF is but a shadow of its six-day war self, and this shows.--Cerejota 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of the British press has taken a similar line (today's Financial Times has an interesting op-ed calling the outcome a disaster for Israel and the US). -- ChrisO 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the opposing pov is this: that Hezbollah is no longer operating a state within a state and therefore is the loser in this conflict. The argument (put forward by GW Bush) is weak for two reasons. Firstly, there is little to suggest that Hezbollah will be weakened militarily after this conflict - even the Lebanese army say they aren't going to try to disarm them. And secondly, if you compare with other anti-imperialist struggles, eg the American Revolution, the British army was large and intact in 1783, while the army of the USA was disbanded and small, but no one would argue that the British had won the Revolutionary War. Andrew Riddles 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is wrong about who won the conflict militarily . Hezbollah suffered at least 5 times the casualties Israel suffered despite fighting on the defensive from state of the art fortifications..When Hezbollah engaged in firefights they were usually wiped out. Hezbollah only survived because they wore no uniforms and surrounded themselves with civilians and used the media especially the very biased British media to broadcast their propaganda.How can anyone rely on one article after all the fabrications that were exposed during this war. I heard a podcast of two recognized, objective military experts : Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay who felt the IDF was effective and it would only be a matter of time for Israel to totally eradicate Hizballoh. The IDF ,to minimize casaulties needed another six weeks to totally eradicate Hezbollah.It was due to political considerations that Hizbollah survived. If outside parties did not intervene Hezbollah would not exist as fighting force today.A comparison with the battle of Iwo Jima is accurate. Although, the Japanese managed to hold out much longer than expected and inflicted more casaulties than expected ,it was only a matter of time before they were totally destroyed. Israel decided it wasn't worth antagonizing their closest ally (USA) to finish off Hezbollah. Jim Dunnigan was the only military pundit who correctly predicted US battlefield deaths in first Gulf War as 100-200 rather than the 30,000-40,000 predicted by almost everyone including the US military (which had 30,000 body bags available ) Cerejota :the Israeli casaulty rate in this conflict was 1/10 of that in 1967 war. Despite what biased media report ,Hezbollah was the loser by any accepted definition of military victoryUser: Jaywhite06 September 2,2006.

Good run, but much still to do

First of all, its been a great 5 weeks so far on this page, but now that we've finally come off the Main Page, I'd like to suggest some focus on cleaning up the 40 sub (and subsub[!]) articles. I personally think that aside from lots of basic cleanup, many of them may be due for merging, as much of the detail seems to be either redundant to other pages, to consist of irrelevant minutiae, or both. And in all honesty, without minimising the human loss of this event, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of a conflict requiring this much documentation. Of course, that is just my opinion, and I'd like to hear everyone else's take on the problems and how we might go about fixing them. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That will be a huge undertaking, especially as long as there is no lasting period of quiet. That being said, I think we should attack this artcle first including:
    • removing redundant citations
    • re-writing the choppy prose that comes from 200 editors over a period of a few weeks
    • making sure that everything is updated (sentences that made sense on July 28 may not make sense now
    • using synopsis format and spinning off large-enough sections to daughter articles
Plenty of work, but over a matter of months it should be doable. -- Avi 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Could we make it a Project, or that is too formal? THis is because besides the inevitable edit disputes, we do need to have a place for the mundane non-controversial stuff to coordinate and generate consensus. I think WP:SNOWBALL should become our guiding light, bot pro-and-con.--Cerejota 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's going to take a very long time. I think there will be alot of different numbers. Let's till we get the same number from different sources and get a concensus.--Zonerocks 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:MIL, or Wikiproject Military History. A large-scale (the largest one, probably), quite powerful, and, actually, very helpful Wikiproject. Creation of Middle East task force can be considered, but isn't required to have it involved. I suggest people who work actively on Middle East wars consider approaching it when in need of suggestions. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Two sides only in a war

In any conflict there are only two sides (irrespective of the nations/factions/groups or any other factors within one side like in the world war). The warbox in this article shows there are three sides. See "Wars are usually a series of military campaigns between two opposing sides involving a dispute" as per the War article. Lebanon and Hezbollah were on one side with Israel on the other, so instead of trying to show the war as some kind of three way fight (this isn't the final standoff of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly).

What a strange thing to say! There's no logical or empirical reason why what you've said should be true. Read Bosnian War for a good example of why that's nonsense. Fig 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Every rule has an exception or two. Even the Bosnian War was a civil war with "an ongoing debate about whether the conflict was a civil war or an aggression" (from the article). I think you should stop saying "nonsense" and look into the reason why I made the comment. Either those pages are misleading with statements "two opposing sides" in the War article in which case it has to be changed, or that the majority of conflicts encompass largely two sides (where alliances may shift and the sides may only be loosely linked). This israeli conflict is also far different from the bosnian war, or for that matter any other conflict. It's like comparing apples to oranges. In this case hezbollah and lebanon can and should be grouped into one entity. That is the norm. Idleguy 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So I propose that Hezbollah and Lebanon section of strength, casualty and other information be shown in italics to differentiate or to draw a subbox within the box to group the two so as to show an uninformed user that these two were basically on one side and Israel on the other. I'm ready for any other suggestions. simply grouping lebanon and hezbollah's stats in one section will not be reader friendly but three sides of a conflict isn't correct as it is. --Idleguy 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Lebanon listed at all, they are not fighting anyone, did not fight anyone and was only attacked once, technically attacking a radar station that was believed to be aiding Hezbollah. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support moving their information into the civilian casualty section. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a hezbollah-Israel box only too.--TheFEARgod 11:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Someone had earlier added Fox News and the UN as a combattant in a 4 sided infobox... a bit too much. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I Strongly disagree. If you see the statistics, you will find out that Lebanon is not ignoreable in this conflict. Please read the UN resolution, and you will see that the resolution is between 3 sides, Israel, Lebanon, and Hizbollah(as a part of Lebanon). There were some prior discussions about this(changing the title). Please read the archives.
Hossein.ir 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats why we arent ignoring them, but they arent a combatant. They are going in the civilian section. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

The article is written in biassed way "The conflict began when a Hezbollah unit conducted a cross-border raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three. Israel responded with massive air strikes " This suggests that Hezbollah is the aggressor and the conflict is new. The conflict started June 6, 1982. This conflict should be renamed to 2006 escalation of Israel-Lebanon conflict."Israel began to withdraw some of its forces from the country. A full withdrawal is not expected until the enlarged UNIFIL force has arrived." This would be predicting the future and should be removed.

"Time line of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" Time lines should be removed. There have been bombardment across the boarder by both sides and taking of prisoners or kidnapping civilians before July 12 2006 also Israel has occupied Part of Lebanon for over 24 years. The time line makes this article biased in representing this conflict. --Mtjs0 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Hezbollah is the agressor. Two get your facts staright. 8 israeli's died not three. You forgot to mention how hezbollah were the first to fire missles into israel before israel did anything. --Zonerocks 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
From above "... get your facts straight. 8 israeli's died ..." is incorrect as above it is stated the "The conflict began ..." and when the conflict began 3 Israeli soldiers were killed, the additional five were killed in an attempted rescue. Guest 12:58, 30 August 2006 (EST)
Only true if you start counting from July 12 2006 if even then because Israel is an occupation force in Lebanon. If the time line is started June 24 2006 Israel defence force kidnapped two Lebanese civilians. The best place to start the time line is from the major military aggression on 13 July 2006 not these small scuffles which have been happening for over 20 years.--Mtjs0 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the Israel Lebanon conflict that started with the cross border raid in July and eneded with the cessation of hostilities (whenever that is). It isn't the history of conflict between Israel and Lebanon. That is covered in other articles. Iorek85 05:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is written in biased way where Israeli actions are been argued for and Hezbollah aren't ie. ("Israel responded with massive airstrikes" versus "Hezbollah unit conducted a cross-border raid"). there needs to be balance in the wordings.

I suggest changing this -"The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a military conflict in Lebanon and northern Israel, primarily between Hezbollah and Israel, which started on 12 July 2006. A United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on 14 August 2006. Since then, fighting has largely ceased.

The conflict began when a Hezbollah unit conducted a cross-border raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three. Israel responded with massive airstrikes across much of Lebanon, a ground invasion of southern Lebanon, and an air and naval blockade, while Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israeli Army on the ground by guerrilla warfare.

The conflict has killed over a thousand people, mostly Lebanese civilians, damaged infrastructure, displaced more than a million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and northern Israel. Attacks by both sides on civilian population centers and infrastructure have drawn sharp criticism internationally.

On 11 August, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, in an effort to end the hostilities. On 12 August, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah approved the resolution, and on 13 August the Israeli government did the same.

On 17 August, the Lebanese army began deploying its forces in southern Lebanon as part of the agreement, and Israel began to withdraw some of its forces from the country. A full withdrawal is not expected until the enlarged UNIFIL force has arrived."


->"The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict refers to hostilities in southern Lebanon and northern Israel, primarily between Hezbollah and Israel, which escalated on 13 July 2006 to a broad conflict. A United Nations-brokered ceasefire went into effect on 14 August 2006. Since then, fighting has mostly ceased.

On 11 August, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, in an effort to end the hostilities. On 12 August, the Lebanese government and Hezbollah approved the resolution, and on 13 August the Israeli government did the same."


If there is a rundown list of event it should be written in neutral manner and without causal connections

"The events before escalation of the conflict include on 12 July 2006 Hezbollah unit capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three." "13 July 2006 Israel airstrikes Lebanon" --Mtjs0 09:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Who and what started the conflict is crucial information. The information presented is what happened. I can't see how reporting the facts is not neutral; the Hezbollah strike DID start the conflict, and Israel DID respond with air raids. Are you trying to say that stating the facts of how the conflict started is POV because it shows Hezbollah started it? Iorek85 10:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not that simple. you are mixing pretext for Israelis attack for a reason. It's a big leap to say that the capturing of Israeli soldiers is the reason for the attack. That besides for now I am saying the wording is not neutral. Maybe If I change the wording you will see what I mean "The conflict began when a Hezbollah unit fighting for liberation and release of thousands civilian prisoners conducted a raid, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three. afterwards Israel made massive cross-boarder air strikes across much of Lebanon, a ground invasion of southern Lebanon, and an air and naval blockade (which is still being enforced by Israel[11]), while Hezbollah responded by launching thousands of rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israeli Army on the ground by guerrilla warfare." The excusing of one sides actions and not the others makes the text biassed.--Mtjs0 05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought the chain of events was: 1. Hezbollah bombards Israel with rockets. 2. Hezbollah crosses the border into Israel, attacks and kills Israeli troops, and kidnaps additional troops. 3. Israel responds with a campaign to resuce the troops, which escalates into broader fighting as thousands of non-guided missiles are fired into Israel by Hezbollah. Valtam 15:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
seriously lorek -- we go around in circles about "everyone" knowing this is actually an "ongoing" conflict, but at the same time there's nothing in the lead about it. Calling July 12th the "start" of the conflict is just disingenuous, and is very POV if you ask me. -- Kendrick7 10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There is plenty of background included, but it is not our place to revise the idea of casus belli. Israel has been involved in five wars with its neighbours until now, as well as much intermittent violence, but each war has its specific cause. While there is an article called "Arab-Israeli conflict," this article isn't about that discussion, or even about the years of conflict between Israel and Lebanon. It is about the latest round of intense conflict, and its immediate cause is very simple, even if the reasoning behind everything may not be. Cheers, TewfikTalk 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps this would be a better line: The escalated conflict began in earnest when Israel launched a large scale military campaign in response to a border incident with Hezbollah in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and three were killed. Dimensional dan 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"divine victory"

it appears that the Hezbollah currently gains enormous popular support by their professional rebuilding campaign. They also seem to know their PR, with multilingual announcements of "divine victory". It appears that the slogan is a play on the name of Nasrallah -- could somebody elucidate this aspect? The article seems to be concentrating on the military confrontation, but it seems evident that Hezbollah's dealing with the aftermath of the attack is much more decisive in turning the whole affair to their advantage. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

In reading through the infobox it creates an interesting problem, the number given for civilian deaths if I am understanding it right, is the number given by Lebanon for total deaths, not specifying civilian or not. Is this true? Perhaps a range should be used for this location excluding confirmed militants and IDF militant death numbers. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I have manupilated the data so it looks nicer (content (nubers etc) has not been changed). I furthermore added redundent commets to make the illegable comment readable. Furthermore, I recommend the citation to be moved outside of the infobox. --Cat out 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Israel bias: Removal of accusation of war crimes

Someone has removed the amnesty report that Israel committed war-crimes http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng. I think it is fair to include this. (158.143.133.54 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

If the article is accused of both pro- and anti-Israel bias, then it must be quite NPOV. ;-) But yes, I agree that that should go into the article somewhere. Perhaps under "Targets in civilian areas". // Liftarn
This report has been picked up by a number of news sources including one in Israel, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=753657.

It is not removed, it is footnote #73. No need to worry -- Avi 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As somebody mentioned yesterday, too many links are removed, there were war crimes in Lebanon and much more, it's important those links stay there, now, attack on hezbollah is ok, on civilians, never.

Hezbollah ONLY attacked civilians. 250 rockets per day on civilian cities. With rockets that are so inaccurate that they are unable to be used against a military. That should be mentioned in the first paragraph of any such description.

Clearly allegations of war crimes merits its own section. I've started one very tentatively. If others agree I'll make the rearrangementsTrachys 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Numbers

I put the number of Hezbollah fighters as 600-1000 according to the ISS report. But the figure seems to me to be a bit on the low side. If anybody has more accurate figures, please feel free to replace mine. Abu ali 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The ISS report (can't find the link) says something like '600-2000, capable of 3,000-6,000, and 10,000 reserves,' so we can't just pick one of the numbers. Ideally we should find an estimate that deals specifically with this conflict. Cheers, TewfikTalk 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV edits of "violations of ceasefire" section by Tewfik

Tewfik: Besides other unexplainable edits you have made of this section, please explain why you constantly erase part of the sentence referring to article 8 of the UN resolution. --Burgas00 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is totally out of context, and placed there merely to neutralise the Hezbollah statement that they do not intend to disarm, it is not NPOV. The resolution doesn't just call for Israel to leave, and the preceding statement has nothing to do with Israel leaving. If there are other "unexplainable edits," feel free to request explanation. Also, the violations are "alleged" until you can provide a source the definitively says they aren't - we aren't here to rule on international law. TewfikTalk 16:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution 1701, Article 8:

“8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

-- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

-- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;

-- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;

-- no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its Government;

-- no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;

-- provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel’s possession;


Mentioning the contents of article 8 are very relevant considering Israel is also in violation of this article (it does not have Lebanese consent for invading Lebanon). What is NPOV is attempting to hide this fact and attempting to give a sense of legality to the israeli violation of the ceasefire.

There is a clear bias in this section which you are spearheading. Some of the edits are actually quite juvenile, like claiming that it was the spokesman of Kofi Annan and not the Secretary General himself who stated that the Israelis were violating the ceasefire.

Considering that Israel (and to a much lesser extent, Hizbollah) has continued hostilities after the cease fire which called for: (article 1) “ a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;"

Considering Kofi Annan's statements that Israel was in violation of a security council resolution in bombing hizbollah positions,

The inclusion of the word "alleged" is tendentious and biased as well as baseless.

--Burgas00 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Burgas, you are missing the point. Pointing this out doesnt go in that sentence, it would go elsewhere. The sentence " Regev was referring to article 8 of the resolution which calls for an end to all weapons transfers to Hezbollah." is not meant to be a summary of article 8, but instead stating the relevant section in reference to his statement “[t]he cease-fire is based on (U.N. resolution) 1701 which calls for an international arms embargo against Hezbollah.” Your allegations against Tewfik have been done in bad faith and are unwelcome at Wikipedia. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rangely, it seems to me that it is you who is missing the point. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and to include rather than exclude information. There is nothing wrong in pointing out that neither hizbollah nor Israel have yet fulfilled all of the aims of resolution 1701 and particularly article 8:

Mark Regev claiming that it is in accordance with resolution 1701 to continue bombing Lebanon because of alleged arms transfers from Syria is equivalent to Hizbollah attacking Israel while claiming it is not violating the ceasefire because Israeli troops are still present in Lebanese soil.

There is clearly a bias in this article mantained by editors who want to argue for the legality of all of Israel's actions and the illegality of those of Hizbollah. It is this bias which is unwelcome on wikipedia, not me pointing it out.

This pro-Israeli POV pushing reached its zenith of inmorality a few weeks ago during a campaign to remove the picture of a Lebanese girl who had been killed by the Qana airstrike from the article. It seems they succeeded, no doubt through persistence rather than valid arguments.

--Burgas00 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you keep missing the point that the sentence is not about the resolution as a whole but the arms transfer portion specifically. Stating other information is not relevant, while it should be in the article, it should not be there. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah sinks Australian warship

Hezbollah sinks Australia warship 203.166.247.248 16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"capture of two soldiers in the Israeli occupied disputed area of Chebaa Farms"

Who knows where the Chebaa Farms area is? Now, how the hell Zar'it and Shtula got into Chebaa Farms area?? Flayer 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, noone is even trying to claim it was at Shebaa farms. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_27&oldid=1140183156"