Jump to content

Talk:2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Zar'it-Shtula incident)


Merge

[edit]

I say "resulted in 2006 Lebanon war" because that is NPOV. Israel had NOT itself respected Lebanese sovereignty-so the Lebanese could claim harassing overflights as "acts of war".70.190.102.49 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The incident section in Ayta ash-Shab is redundant, as it was already included in this article. Fuzzy 22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather not. The Ayta ash-Shab is actually a location stub and information about the location should be added. The other article describes in first row the event which started the conflict. --213.155.224.232 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly (probably an unsatisfactory assumption), we have no disagreements about whether Ayta ash-Shab is a stub and should remain till more information about the location is added (you can start by including the transcripts). I was referring to the incident section that includes partial information, which was later extended in Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident. Now, there are two alternatives – duplicating all the info to the Ayta ash-Shab stub, or removing that section in Ayta ash-Shab while leaving a link to the article.
According to the wikipedia standards, the second alternative is usually preferred. Fuzzy 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to keep the location section as a stub and to move/remove all about the incident into the "incident" article and refer to it like that: "Near the town the incident took place, which started the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict." Sorry for not being clear.--213.155.224.232 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Where did the information about injuring 5 civilians come from? The link [1] in "injuring 5 civilians[1]" does not work. It seems that other articles cited in the text do not mention it. R.R.S. 7 August, 2006

Wierd... when I search for the missing Haaretz reference I found that reterence. It appears Haaretz has a few ways to link an article. I'll replace the link.

Jumblatt's statement

[edit]

from the figaro article

  • [Jumblatt] In view of the Israeli military offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza and the issue of the Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah's logic could justify these kidnappings. The Arabs are exasperated by the intensity of the Israeli repression in Gaza. Their initial response is to support Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is playing a very dangerous game by kidnapping these two soldiers. We are no longer where we were 10 years ago. Israel has evacuated Lebanon. These kidnappings extend beyond our country's borders. Hezbollah is raising the stakes, supported by Iran and Syria, which has during the past year become a satellite state of Teheran. Because of the lack of Arab or Western initiative in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian question, Iran and Syria have taken over, and within this context Lebanon is a natural battlefield.

what is meant by "these kidnappings extend beyond our country's borders" is that they are influenced by Syria, Teheran, and events in Gaza. He is not offering an opinion whether it is a "cross-border" raid. Will314159 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhm, I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless, this quote is more suitable to the Lebanese responds to the Hezbollah attack. Somebody has time to write this section? Here's a start. Fuzzy 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A MEMRI interpretation? Get Real. Best Wishes. Will314159 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You ask about "prisoners." I have tried investigating this issue online. So far, it appears that Israel has 3 or 4 Lebanese in custody. The Lebanese call them "detainees" and are particularly interested in getting one of them back. They describe him as being unfairly detained by Israel. But, if you look him up, he was arrested inside Israel, tried and convicted. He is in jail because he took a father and child down to the beach at gunpoint, shot dead the father, beat the child to death and killed two police officers before he was arrested.


There are actually many, many people in Israel's jails awaiting trial. Some of them are Lebanese. If I have more time later I'll come back with a source. --Jonmedeiros 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident

[edit]

This page should be also protected. Flayer 09:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the you need Guards for propoganda.Yousaf465

Incident is disputed about the crossing of border by any side so pl check.Yousaf465

Funny... Dozens of international journalists were near those burt jeeps inside Israel. I would not "check" anything, if you have reliable references about your claim, so add them as well! And yes, I need gourds to protect this article from YOUR propoganda. Flayer 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have you ever visited jewish virtual libaray then you may know how to convince Dozens of international "journalists" abut you point of view.HAHAHAHa funny guards o.k i will sent mine Two guards if you can't rely on yours.HAhAHAAYousaf465

This article also claims to true in that a serving officer in PAF runs a website which prove IAF claims what a pity thing that PAF is they let a oficier do propoganda against his own country then how can you trust these sources.[1] i don't understand how then they run this PAF

nonsense... Flayer 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Yousaf465, or his friend's IP, shall violate the WP:3RR rule once again, I'll press an official complaint (As it seems he doesn't understand clues). Fuzzy 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a pov element in the text and editing. Personally i found that every historically interesting or relevant case bears these pov elements in wikipedia.

To give a simple example, what turns these forces of hezbollah into irregulars?? (so pov descriptions and depictions of hezbollah infiltrate already the first chapter.) Without going into more detail (although the landmine inssue can be concerned likewise, and the prisoner- ase for killing at he beeach, is obscuring and very possibly obscurant, what does it have to do here anyway??)

Back to irregulars, The idf ofcourse describes hezbollah as irregulars.. who else would do that?? In fact these were among the most organised , best guided units of hezbollah, very probably with a full time job or function in lebanon. So irregulars is a derogatory here. Ofcourse you can make the point that for israelians hezbollah is illegal. Well that is POV. Becus is it illegal for lebanese? no. so here s your answer .. good luck 'neatening up' this relevant contribution. 80.57.242.54 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah border-line fighters mastered Hebrew

[edit]

Haaretz.com Any logical place to put this information ? imi2 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims not backed by source

[edit]

The source, Hezbollah kills 8 soldiers, kidnaps two in offensive on northern border, does not say the incident started at 9:05. It says about 9:00. It also doesn't mention the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat. It doesn't mention any "Humvees" either. It says "The fighting began at about 9:00 A.M., when a group of reserve soldiers in two armored jeeps was conducting a routine patrol of the border. As the jeeps passed between Moshav Zarit and Moshav Shtula, Hezbollah attacked."

Hmmm... Well, there are plenty of sources that mention and even got photos of those humvees ([2]), that's for sure. There are also plenty of sources that mention "about 9:00". Even Menachem and Mattat not mentioned, but it says "Simultaneously with this ambush, Hezbollah also launched a diversionary attack: a barrage of mortar shells and Katyusha rockets on communities and IDF outposts in the western part of the border area." As far as I remember that date, nobody was telling about specifically Even Menachem and Mattat, but the whole area (Rosh HaNikra, Shlomi, Shtula, Zar'it, Nurit....). so I have no idea why only Even Menachem and Mattat were mentioned here. Flayer 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! [3]
It seems it was the attack on the humvees that started 9:05, not the diversionary rocket attack: [4]: "Hezbollah said it carried out the attack about 9:05 a.m., when its fighters managed to cross the heavily fortified border near Shtula, an Israeli farming town of about 350 people. Hezbollah guerrillas fired on two Israeli army Humvees, killing three soldiers and capturing two others." I don't think the Washinton Post article mentions the rocket attack July 12 (just a rocket attack on July 13). 83.252.255.145 15:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources regarding the initial [diversionary?] rocket attacks on civilian locations in Israel by Hezbollah. I recall that there is a more detailed discussion buried in one of the page archives (perhaps around October 5-6), but I couldn't find it after searching for some time.

הדיווח על החטיפה הגיע זמן קצר לאחר מטח של קטיושות ופצצות מרגמה שירו אנשי החיזבאללה לעבר הצפון. מעט אחרי השעה 9:00 בבוקר החל החיזבאללה בירי מאסיבי של קטיושות, פצצות מרגמה ונשק קל לעבר מוצבים ויישובים בגבול הצפון ובהם: שתולה, נורית, זרעית, אבן מנחם, מתת ומרגליות. Translation: "The kidnaping was reported shortly after a barrage of katyushas and mortars fired by Hezbollah into northern Israel. A little after 9:00 am, the Hezbollah commenced massive fire of katyushas, mortars, and light weapons at [IDF] positions and towns on the northern border, among them: Shetula, Nurit, Zar'it, Even Menahem, Mattat, and Margaliot"

Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lebanese police story

[edit]

From the start, there have been some editors who question the accepted story that the incident happened on the Israeli side of the border, stating instead that it happened on the Lebanese side. However, the only source for this claim is a DPA news flash, written by a DPA correspondent in Lebanon a few hours after it happened. The content of the piece makes it obvious that it was despatched very early, as the Israeli's didn't yet want to confirm the capture, and as there is no mentioning of any dead Israelis - so this piece may very well have been the first story about the incident.

Nobody outside of DPA knows who the correspondent was, but, considering the size of DPA, it's doubtful that they keep employed staff in Lebanon, so it was probably a stringer with good local contacts; and he/she can either have been misinformed by someone or have misunderstood something. Stringers are paid per story, so they are always in a hurry to get a good story quickly to their client, especially if they think they have a scoop - and mistakes easily happen in a rushed situation.

What is clear, is that no other news agencies, newspapers or TV/radio channels seem to have ever mentioned any police statement or any claim by Hezbollah that it should have happened on the Israeli side (except those who published the DPA story). And when Nasrallah announced the capture on 13 July he also didn't say that it happened in Lebanon - and he definitely would have if that had been the case. Also, the Lebanese government has never questioned that it happened on the Israeli side, even though the DPA story claims that the government's own police force has said so. So, I think we can let that issue rest and assume that it was a mistake by a rushed stringer - unless, of course, someone can find any reliable references which aren't just a re-write of the DPA story . Thomas Blomberg 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe Yousaf465 can enlighten us. Fuzzy 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember where I read it. But apparently the Hezbollah website initially claimed that the capture took place on the Lebanon side of the border. Then after UNIFIL stated the opposite, the website changed to the UN version. The incident is described in the UNIFIL report here. CiaPolitica 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

To anyone who can edit the main article page, i think its fair to state in the Box that the result was a ( Hezbollah success), they have managed to capture israeli soldiers which was the main purpose behind the raid, they killed 3 israeli soldiers in the process, & they killed another 5 soldiers & destroyed an israeli tank while retreating with their prisoners, if that is not a success i don't know what is.

That's a fair point. I've noted it as a Hezbollah tactical victory. -- ChrisO 10:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to note that Israel won officially. Not only that, but Israel killed more Hezbollah troops. IronCrow 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Won officially? How's that? So might suggest they won 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict but that's kind of irrelevant. Also, according to this page there are reported casulties on the Hezbollah side. In any case, number of deaths does not determine victory. The Soviet Union lost a lot of troops in the Eastern Front, far more then the Axis, during WW2 but no one is going to say they lost. Errors were made but arguably the primary reason for such a great number of deaths was because Stalin simply didn't care provided he won Nil Einne 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

I took the liberty to sort up this talk page a bit.

The article re/naming issue should be resolved. After the previous mix-up –

Due to the mix-up done by Yousaf465 and Flayer, I've placed a WP:SPLICE request. Please make changes only to this version, and don't update the Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident artible until this mix-up is resolved. Thanks, Fuzzy 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, main article is back in old name. Talk page will follow in a few days. Cheers, Fuzzy 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

– the page was {{moveprotected}} by Bobet:

This page has already been moved 8 times with very little discussion. If you feel the page needs to be moved, please take it to WP:RM, since it obviously isn't uncontroversial. Thanks. - Bobet 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there are at least two purposed alternative names:

Is there any opposition to renaming this Zar'it incident or Zar'it attack? Keeping the Ayta a-Shaab part is just confusing, and could inspire more of the conspiracy theories. Let me know... TewfikTalk 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab should be put as the most NPOV name.--TheFEARgod 12:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't really care about the article name. Still, I purpose to place a vote on the main article talk page rather than here.
Meanwhile, let the young men now arise, and play before us. Fuzzy 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Landmine

[edit]

Do we know something about the landmine the tank ran onto? Was it a Hezbollah trap, or did the tank run into an old Israeli mine left from previous occupations? Is the Israeli landmines powerful enough to damage a Merkava II?? CiaPolitica 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diferent b/ related point. A board of inquiry has found that a bulldozer should have preceded the tank to turn over mines with its blades. Cheers. Will314159 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think recently added Washington post article source makes fairly clear the divistion commander was well aware Lebanon had defenses on their side of the border along the path he sent the tank down, though border defences were probably maintained by the Hezbollah militia. The tank hit the mine after it veered off the path. -- Kendrick7 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a source but some newsitems (presumably al jazeera's but i am not sure), mentioned a 400 or 500 kg ied.80.57.242.54 13:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyusha?

[edit]

Is there a source beyond the Israeli paper that claims Hezbollah used this particular type of rocket? This would have been a violation of the Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding, and therefore Israel's justification for war; thus is should be better sourced. I'm asking the same question on the main article. -- Kendrick7 02:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

capture vs kidnap

[edit]

Kendrik7 seems to be having a edit war with a bunch of us over whether it is considered "kidnapping" or "capturing". I think it would only be capturing if they were in Lebanon. The fact is, the terrorists crossed the border into the State of Israel and abducted Israeli soldiers. These weren't Prisoners of War, these were people kidnapped on their own soil. Valley2city 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally changed "kidnap" to "capture" as well; the second term seemed both more neutral and more technically correct in a military context. However, further research showed that every individual involved, including the man who ordered the action, refers to it as kidnapping. Given that fact, I reverted all reference of "capture" to either "kidnap" or "abduct". I was going to bring it up here anyway, butValley2city has beat me to it. Let's talk this out rather than revert any more, shall we? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't off duty, or civilians, or children. They were soldiers captured in an ambush, which was itself was an act of war. Of course, Hezbollah would probably prefer the word "kidnap" to portray the IDF as weak, and others perhaps prefer the word "kidnap" to over-portray these soldiers as victims, or to ignore that Israel lost the first battle of the larger conflict, or maybe all these parties are simply ignorant of the correct term. Many sources use the word "capture" and I don't any reason to deviate from correct military terminology in this case. -- Kendrick7talk 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While many of your points are technically correct, I think there is an issue of self-identification/self-reference. If all parties involved refer to it as "kidnapping", then that is how we should report it. Anything else would seem to be verging on OR. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you are refering to Nasrallah's backpedaling as your primary source for justifying the word kidnapping, realize that he is try to portray the ambush as not at all an "act of war" but merely a minor kidnapping of some people who just happened to be soldiers, and Israel's response as completely disproportionate. Note that the journalist's intro calls uses the neutral word "capture" instead. -- Kendrick7talk 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as capture vs kidnap is concerned, it really doesn't matter if lots of other people refer to it as a kidnap; it is NEVERTHELESS an editorial position; capture is neutral, in that it indicates a military action, which BOTH SIDES acknowledge it was. If you write kidnap you are explicitly taking the Israeli view, which (whatever our political sympathies) we can't do in an encyclopedia article. jackbrown 10:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but I will stand by my first two statements. It seems that we've clearly described the issue, our respective postions, and what we feel to be the merits of each case. What would really help now would be some participation from other editors. If no one else responds here in a reasonable time, perhaps we should post a link at the Pump (assitance) requesting further comments. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was a ridiculously long edit war in the parent article over this, considering it is one word. Of course, when you say "every individual involved" you are leaving out the Israeli soldiers themselves. God willing, they will soon have the freedom to describe the event in their own words. How they would judge the portrayal of the event by politicians on both sides would certaintly be informative. -- Kendrick7talk 23:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I'm sure we all hope/wish/pray for their swift, safe release. Regarding a post to invite comment, do you think this would be appropriate:
"There is a discussion here regarding an issue of terminology related to a current event. We are soliciting outside comments from interested editors and invite you to review the issue."
Is that neutral? Does it convey enough info, too much, or not enough? Let me know what you think. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair and a correct assessment of the situation. I agree that both "capture" and "kidnap" are both valid terms to describe what happened to the soldiers, and perhaps kidnap does increase the "shock value" but it has been used more often than not by both sides, perhaps, again, for propaganda uses of both sides. Is there an existing template or perhaps one that should be created for this? I think this situation is duplicated in many other articles in wikipedia and it would be great for many of these situations. Valley2city 02:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the pump didn't do much, maybe a WP:RfC would be in order? -- Kendrick7talk 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Valley2city. As for seeking further comments, should we try a WP:3 request first? RfC seems a bit drastic, almost like there's a stigma attached to it. Of course, while we discuss this so politely, the slow revert war between Anon IPs seems to continue, So I guess I'm open to anything. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I honestly think there are very few people in the world without an opinion on this issue so bias is going to be pretty automatic. It's going to basically go to a partisan vote no matter what we do. Meanwhile I think an semi-protect is in order to at least keep the Anon IPs at bay and let it remain between us seasoned contributors. At least we can be reasonable. Any agreement as a semi-protect as a first step? I'll pursue this if there is consent. Valley2city 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really vandalism though. I find the back and forth drivebys kinda interesting. It's like watching tennis. -- Kendrick7talk 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I could see that. We should make teams. Valley2city 06:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's that and the flypaper effect; you never know if some of those editors will stick around. Besides my team's winning! Go team!

-- Kendrick7talk 06:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you're winning, I haven't been paying attention to the numbers. Still, it is an edit war mainly propogated by anons. Now it's just a word, maybe soon it will escalate to something bigger. Valley2city 07:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I wouldn't object to Sprotection, in fact I almost suggested it. It might not be granted because this is a very slow-motion revert war. Lacking further input on our question, perhaps a compromise would be possible? What if we use "captured" in reference to the military action, but use "kidnapped" when refering to the aftermath? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sprotection was requested for this page, but declined. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

[edit]

This has been discussed at enormous length at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict as well. Most reputable sources use the term kidnap. Also, all wiki articles on these events should be consistent, which is why I changed it back to "kidnap", per 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. -- Avi 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People keep saying that, but it seems to me most WP:RS's we have here use "capture." Haaretz, CNN, and UPI use kidnap, Washington Post, Yahoo News India, Al-Jazeera, CBS, and the BBC use capture. (n.b. I just fixed Yahoo News India's title). I know that's not scientific, but I don't know where people are getting their numbers. -- Kendrick7talk 07:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have removed myself from it, the edit-warring continues... Valley2city 07:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching it, but I'm not willing to get involved in the reverts. Given how much time has passed, an RFC might be in order. Is anyone interested in writing one up? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007 debate at Hezbollah

[edit]

There's currently a discussion about this at Talk:Hezbollah#"Capture" vs. "Kidnap" -- Kendrick7talk 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Hizballah forces involved here referred to as irregulars?

[edit]

I'm not sure why the article refers to the Hizballah troops involved in the incident as "irregulars." Hizballah indeed has village irregulars, but they have 7K regular troops, who seem likely to have been the guys involved in this incident, given the fire-and-maneuver tactics involved. I vote we eliminate the irregular adjective. For a pretty good description of the Hizballah force structure, see <A HREF="Hizballah at War: A Military Assessment">http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=260</A> at the Wash. Inst. for Near East Studies; I think anyone would be convinced we should drop irregular from this article. --jackbrown 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline is bogus?

[edit]

This article has the timeline of infiltration happening on the day of the attack on the patrol. The latest article on border post 105 (that im aware of) has the infiltration happening a week prior to the attack, with a go signal on july 12 and the fence being disturbed to provoke a patrol. The attack on the patrol then being the signal for the rockets to provide covering fire and not a feint at all. How reliable/authoratative this account is I dont know as it may just be a case of whoever briefed him fitting the facts to a timeline of their choosing. Although it would make more sense than the account given in the article currently.

On or about July 5, a group of between 20 and 30 Hezbollah fighters infiltrated the Israeli border near the village of Aita Al-Shaab, barely 800 metres from the border fences. They set up camp on a thickly wooded slope above the Israeli patrol road. They pitched a small tent. They set up firing positions for two rocket-propelled grenade launchers. And then they waited.

On the morning of July 12, 2006, the infiltrators received the "go" signal. They touched the security fence at several points, triggering several Israeli patrols. Two Israeli Humvees were sent to border point 105. At 9.05am, as the first Humvee slowed to negotiate a turn in the road just below the firing positions, it was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades.

The firing of the grenades was the signal for a co-ordinated response by Hezbollah along the border. Waves of rocket and mortar fire were sent across into Israel to confuse their defence and buy time for the infiltrators. When the Israelis realised where its patrol had been attacked, the Hezbollah team had already left the scene. A heavy tank was dispatched to border post 105. etc[5]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.226.213 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is wrong with balance, symmetry and a counterbalancing quote

[edit]

Just tell me on the merits, how you can have one leader give his pre-war expectations and not have the other leader's prewar expectation and plan. Delete one, then delete both. Or keep both in. I just don't get it. Unless the point is that only one POV is allowed?

"On 27 August the Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the abduction of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war. "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.[16] On the other side, however; Israeli P.M. Olmeret testified before the Winograd Comission that he had fully planned for an intensive war upon a kidnapping as early as March.1"

00:11, 9 May 2007 Tewfik (Talk | contribs) (13,709 bytes) (I included a more accurate representation of the source, but I still disagree that it should be included since it isn't really "aftermath")

  • The above is "Tewfik's" discussion in the edit line on this topic. He doesn't explain why he had previously deleted symmetry of pre-war expectations of leaders or why Olmert's troubles with Winograd C. is not "aftermath." Godspeed John Glenn! Will 01:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

Now obviously this was a Hizbollah victory, they managed to capture Israeli's wich means they acchieved their objective, they killed 8 Israeli's and had no casualties themselfes but the Israeli members of wikipedia keep changing it for some reason. The Honorable Kermanshahi 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so Kerman, but this is Wikipedia, it"ll go back & forth maybe a few times, then a partial admin will protect the page in a favored version.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reasons for reverting Kermanshahis edits (in no particular order):
  • It is my (recently formed) opinion that infoboxes (of the non-navigational type) should be used for, and only for, quick facts. This means that POVs, even widely accepted POVs, shouldn't be in the infobox. Just facts.
  • The claim that the operation was successful can be disputed as Nasrallah stated "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it,"[6].
  • I initially believed that operations, incidents and (to a lesser extent) battles typically end with "success" or "failure" (hence my claim in the edit summery that "victory is the result of a war"). However after researching this I conclude that I was wrong.
  • Also worth noting: tanks aren't casualties.
Rami R 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In almost all battles the victory is noted. Hizbollah won this fight although Israels respons wasn't as they had expected it to be. Maybe you should put Hizbollah military victory and strategic defeat or something like that. And I have seen tanks and planes used as casualties many times. The Honorable Kermanshahi 08:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev

[edit]

As per previous discussion on Talk:Ehud Goldwasser, the articles Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are virtually identical (aside from the one-paragraph bios) and they heavily overlap with the content here. Splitting the info in three parts serves no purpose: it would be better to cover the incident and move the bios into new section here. Jpatokal (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hizbollah3.tif Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Hizbollah3.tif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Terrorism

[edit]

This article's 2nd paragraph starts with the following "Using rockets fired on several Israeli towns as a diversion" - it should be self explanatory why this would be terrorism. Since you have already been given this explanation on a different article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Terrorist_attacks_against_Israelis_in_the_2000s&diff=prev&oldid=531164813) less than a week ago, I find it extremely hard to believe you are not aware of the explanation as to why this is terrorism. Thus, the next time you do this I am taking you straight to Arbitration enforcement. There will be no more warnings. They think it's all over (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cross-border raid itself was a legitimate attack on military targets. The cover fire that hit Israeli towns perhaps was not. In any case the Civilian casualties were very slight: five lightly wounded or "shocked". I would be surprised if you accepted applying your "definition" of terrorism to actions taken by the IDF, who killed dozens of Lebanese civilians in retaliatory shelling and air strikes in this incident.
The fact that Israeli towns were hit by rocket fire does not per se constitute terrorism or war crimes. It depends on whether the attacks were aimed at legitimate military targets in or near these towns and if any collateral damage was proportional to the military gain. Neither does the Israeli shelling or bombing of Lebanese towns automatically constitute war crimes or terrorism.
In fact even the Israeli prime minister denied that the attack was a terrorist act: "The murderous attack this morning was not a terrorist act, it was an act of war," Olmert said. [7]
I see no reason why Wikipedia should be more Catholic than the Pope.
Please read: Template_talk:Terrorist_attacks_against_Israelis_in_the_2000s#2006_cross_border_raid
Perhaps arbitration would be a good idea.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is unsupported by the article or the sources. Self explanatory is not a valid reason on Wikipedia. nableezy - 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location controversy section change

[edit]

The Location section mistakenly said the raid was an 'act of war', but Hezbollah is not a government and therefor its deeds are not acts of war. I've deleted the mistake.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footage released

[edit]

Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV has recently released extended video footage of the capture of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Moonswimmer Mooonswimmer 13:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 6 (Haaretz)

[edit]

Source 6 is used to claim that the UN has confirmed Shebaa Farms as Lebanese. However, the source sits behind a registration wall and the only other contemporaneous article specifying something similar that I can find is from the same website. That author later seems to counter this narrative in Sept of the same year. It should be noted that Haaretz, though Israeli, is considered broadly 'anti-settlement' which may influence its representation of the facts in this case.

An alternative contemporaneous article (Reuters) suggests the UN cartogrophers were defining the area in 2007; this is distinct from defining who owns it.

Given that multiple articles in 2013/14 and 2023/24 seem to make no mention of a UN statement on the matter (and I've found no such UN statement), it may be better to rephrase this paragraph to be more in line with other Wikipedia pages on the subject (Shebaa Farms) which express the unresolved contested claims on the area. Recognize All (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Hezbollah_cross-border_raid&oldid=1252581506"