Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Discussion about the name of the article

"War" Poll

It seems out last poll helped us reach a clear concensus about including Hezbollah in the article title, but now having read some responses it appears many people believe it should be renamed as a war (some very passionately). Lets put this one to a vote. Criptofcorbin 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Opppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Oppose. Our grounds for deciding whether or not to call it a war cannot be what media outlets call it. Surely, there is some fairly standard definition of the word "war," and we should attempt to apply this definition. If it fits, then it's a war; if not, then it's something else.--128.186.13.112 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Can only be called a war ex post facto. Not Wikipedia's role to label events before a consensus arises first. 16:43 18 July 2006
3. Oppose as the Libanon army is not (yet) involved 195.85.146.234 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose war as there has neither been a declaration of war nor a concensus on it. If the 50-year Arab-Israeli situation is only a "conflict," this can be no more only on the basis of the amount of destruction or by a definition of the word war. Also, someone has already changed words in the article to "war" - I will now change back, as there is no concensus, and should match title. -65.35.57.80 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - Sorry-that was me before I logged in. -Preposterous 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
5. OpposeI would say they have been at a 'cold war' state for years and this incident may be considered to be possibly the first political/military actions leading up to an active, 'hot' war, whether deliberately or not. So this is an incident, or some other such term, to be seen as part of a broader, 'cold' state of war.
6. Oppose Until we start seeing it constantly being called a war in a varaity of major media sources, we shouldn't jump the gun. Frinkahedr0n 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose As above, we need everyone to start calling it a war before we do. Fine for wikinews to be sensationalist and jump the gun a bit, but not the pedia. The primary conflict isn't even with a sovereign state but an organisation. And yes, while it is current hyperbole to call things like that wars (war on drugs, war on terror, war on sesame street) they arn't acctually wars. Inaccurate language use in the wider world does not make it ok. Until such time as Israel starts handing out declerations of war or there are actual meaningful clashes on the ground between sovereign nations, its still a crisis or a conflict. --Narson 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. In wikipedia it seems the standard is to call ongoing military engagements with no declarations of war a "conflict". For example Arab-Israeli conflict. "War" is used usually post-facto or if an official declaration of war, for example, Six Days War and World War II.--Cerejota 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. In response to the dictionary arguments, the fact that a war is a "state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties" does not mean that every open armed conflict between parties is a war. A knife fight between myself and another person would fit that definition. Sure, the distinction between war and conflict is blurred, but as an encyclopedia, it makes sense to reflect consensus rather than rush to judgement when history might judge differently.--Kanmalachoa
10. Oppose wikipedians that have the need to make history instead of writing about history. --TheYmode 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Why should wikipedia be the first place calling it a war when the majority of this entry's citations are from sources that have not called this thing a war. However, if we can find stuff about why everyone is avoiding calling it a war, that is notable and could be mentioned.--Paraphelion 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    If sources and people since this poll started have started calling it a war, please provide links. Previously they were saying everything short of "this is a war".--Paraphelion 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose This should only be renamed when a consensus emerges in popular parlance. Wikipedia needs to reflect, not determine. Fishhead64 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose A war in my books is only when there is a military conflict between two or more states.--86.130.89.70 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
14. OpposeHad Israel counterattacked and bombed Iran (the real culprit, the ones we all know who finance "Hezbullocks" in the first place), then of course it would be war. At the moment, this is just a needle in a haystack kind of randomness on Israel's part without the concern as to who the ultimate casualties (even American civilians unlucky to be living in Lebanon are fair game to this Israeli assault) are or the new set of enemies that Israel may develop as a result of this. The only war is among the stock trading bulls and bears who are considering how this event will affect the stock prices of oil companies. (many apologies if I did not use Wilkpedia etiquette, this is my first such response; this conflict has me annoyed in general) sydbarrettcares 22:30, 21 July 2006
15. Oppose: I repeat: Let us not forget that we are not here to analyse current events - the title of this article should reflect what it is known as in the wider world. Period. We mustn't forget the basics: No original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Tewfik^Talk 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    But everyone is calling it a war! Calling it a war is hardly original! A few examples:

    Reuters: “Marines help Americans flee Israel's war in Lebanon”, Israeli support for Lebanon war overwhelming-poll

    CNN: Mention of the term “World War III” every five minutes, using term “war-torn” (not “conflict-ridden”) to refer to Lebanon.

    Ynetnews: Olmert: War Israel’s stamina test

    Haaretz: Lexicon of Lebanon War II OzLawyer 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    Some of those are a tad dubious and clearly attempts to beef up a headline. Over here ITN (The Independent Television company news) refers to it as being war'like, but not a war itself, and the BBC has yet to call it a war from what I've seen. Beyond that, I'm not sure wikipedia should weight into the 'declaring war on -isms' debate, which admitting that you can have a war against hezbollah is. Well, unless you will all let me declare war on post-modernism. Ironically of course. --Narson 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose. No formal declaration of war. Simple.Rob.derosa 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, but this is an idiotic reason; as explained below, the U.S. hasn't formally declared war since WWII. Do you really think that it should be called the Vietnam Conflict? The Korean Disagreement over Principles? The Iraq Crisis? Not calling something by its proper name doesn't change the fact of its existence. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

17. Weak Oppose Not yet, give it time. Maybe after we have significant ground forces accross the border. ObsidianOrder 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. So far it's only the Israelian government trying to fight against what they recognize as a "terrorist organisation". Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon official, therefore it is a conflict, not a War. --Deenoe 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. The headline above sums it up "...Israel's war in Lebanon.." A war, preferably declared, is prolonged fighting between two states. Attacks in the North of Lebanon are collective punishment, airstrikes against civilians and infrastructure in retaliation for a border provocation by a private stateless militia. Most of those killed and harmed by the airstrikes are not combatants. The Lebanese army has generally not participated. It is comparable to the Pancho Villa Expedition when the US army entered Mexico in responsse to a cross-border attack by Villa in 1916. US tv networks today are calling it "Israeli airstrikes" "Israeli ground incursion" "Hezbolllah attacks" and "fierce fighting" between Hezbollah and Israel. That does not make it a war between Lebanon and Israel, in which Israle would be justified in continued devastation of Lebanon until they ask for armistice or they surrender. Lebanon is basically a noncombatant. If the Lebanese army were equipped with US weapons like Israel is, then a war would be possible.Edison 16:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support "War" (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Support.War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.Dudtz 7/20/06 6:47 PM EST
2. Support. I see it as a war. It has been discribed my many as a war, and has been dubbed a war by both parties. some even go as far as to dub it as the third world war. I see much reason to name it as a war.--70.39.205.84 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. To use the word "war" in this situation -- then refer as to what a war traditionally is called. "War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups." See War Also, from Dictionary.com: "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war By definition, this current event is indeed a war. KyuuA4 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I believe this is a war. The amount of destruction and miliary operations merits that this should be called a war. Hello32020 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Although this conflict may seem like a war, it has not escalated enough to be a war. This is a one-sided conflict that needs to be stopped immedeately. Until the conflict drags in other nations, which it most likely will, this should not be considered a war nor a conflict. This is an unfair and unjust fight...this is one step away from being a genocide. Whilst older news outlets are refraininmg from calling this a war due the conutations for international law and the Geneva Convention, it sure looks like a war to me--Manc ill kid 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - I see the media everywhere calling it war. See this video which shows Dan Gillerman, Israel Ambassador to the UN, declaring it war, as well as the media themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_ykNverhQ&search=gillerman --aishel 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. How hard is it to identify a war when you see one? Obviously a war, and it reaches much farther than Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. Kyleberk 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. How hard do those cautious souls who dicker and prevaricate about whether this should be called a war or a "conflict" need to be beaten over the head before they realize that this is a real live shooting war? The only interests served by not calling it by its proper name are those of the aggressors (I'll leave it to you to figure out just who that is in this case), who don't want that particular blot on their national reputatation. Besides, I heard my local Fox "news" affiliate call it a war as a matter of course in a report just last night.::Actually, to temper my own vote, the term "war" may be a little grotesque here because of the incredible disporportionality of the conflict, with virtually all the firepower and destruction coming from one side. Still, I think it should be called war. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. This is a full-fledged war with many casualties. The world oil price went up to a record amount on the start of this war, and many countries are on the verge of becoming militarily involved. It should be renamed to "war". ArmanJan 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Ground operations with air support with one army entering another country is war, because an opposing side is striking back. There is no doubt this is a combat. Not to mention the fact that the Lebanese Defense Minister announced that if Israel went with a full ground evasion. The Lebanese army would have to fight the IDF. This is war. Lebanon is ready to go to war with Israel along with Hizbullah. Hizbullah has a stranglehold over Lebanon if Lebanon cannot control a militant wing in a political power this is war. Hizbullah says it is open war, Omert says it is war. IT IS WAR.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. In response to Cerejota's comments above about undeclared ongoing conflicts not being wars, the US hasn't declared war since, I believe, WWII. The Iraq War is both ongoing and undeclared, but it is a war. So is this. OzLawyer 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    You are wrong my friend. Article I Section 8 states that congress may declare war, it does not state the manner they have to do it. As we look earlier in the Legislative Article we see that Congress sets their own rules and since they can set their own rules they can pass legislation that the constitution permits in any way they please. Article I Section 8 does not state Congress has the power to give a declaration of war, but declare war. The Framers didn't want to limit the congress in the MANNER they can pass a war resolution. A declaration of war was simply the way they use to do it, now Congress does it in the paticular manner they want. The AUMF does delcare war as it authorizes force to the President giving him full power over MILITARY operations. AG Gonzales tried to make it both ways in his hearing, he knew the Article II claim on wire tapping is a load so that is why he said we aren't at war after he said we were....so don't try using that example on me.--Jerluvsthecubs 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    What the heck do you know about the intentions of the Framers? Talked to them, have you? Sounds like original research, to me. Traditionally, when countries were at war, they would declare it. My point was simply that the US has not declared war since WWII. No comment on whether war can be officially initiated without a declaration, no comment on whether forgoing a declaration is a good or a bad thing. OzLawyer 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

12. Support - Everyone in the world (except a few very POVed) is already calling it a war. ActiveSelective 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - All the WP:RS presents ironclad, indisputable evidence for "war", and has done so for almost a week now. Using "war" as a summary adds absolutely nothing new (ie, it can't possibly be OR). mdf 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - A war is a conflict where more than 1000 people get killed per year. Extrapolating about 300 people in 10 days to one year, makes it absolutely a war (even though I hope it will end right now). - Mårten Berglund.
15. Support Ofcourse a war Reaper7 01:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Support If this isn't a war what will it take to call something a war? -jdevries 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. jdevries - it will take a couple of US casualties then everyone will start calling it a war... apparently 400 civilian deaths don't mean anything because they're not American casualties. ugen64 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. The Lebanese media in constantly using the term "war", but different names are used: "War on Lebanon", "July 2006 War"... CG 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Support- Looking at the facts, this is plain agression against Lebanon, not against Hizbullah. Plus the media won't say this is a "war" but they would include it in the "war on terror"...so the meaning is quite confusing. But it shouldn't be. Anyone of basic common sense knows that is war..--Radufan 23:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Support-If this is not war, then what the bloody hell is? More POV pushing to deny war!MelForbes 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support war (wôr) n. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties Sysrpl 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support- an Order 8 (emergency reserve call-up) was issued today so the IDF is moving for war, the IDF is rolling ground forces into S. Lebanon, and the US has been called on to speed new delivery of bombs to Israel. --Anonymous
23. Weak Support- The transcript of the interview with Nassrallah is available here. http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/mosaic/mosaic.php?id=294&con=256
24. Support- This is a war. People are dying on both sides, it's open fighting. As the others have said before what will it take for this to be called a war? If it has all the characteristics of a war then the term must be applied.--69.89.32.22 20:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. This is by all means was. Hundreds of people dead and wounded, hundreds of thousands made internal refugees, incipient humanitarian disaster as a consequence, thousands of soldiers mobilised, the great powers involved. The current word - "conflict" is more appropriate to describe a civil, non-military issue, and is thus gravely misleading in this context. --Lipothymia 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Poll

To avoid another chaotic debate, I suggest that we have a poll (which is in itself not binding), which could also avoid a repetition of the same discussion and the same arguments. It would also give a clear view on how many people support and oppose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict". Sijo Ripa 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support (please add your name and your arguments for "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments against the current or another article name.)

1. Support This is not generally seen as a war against Lebanon, but a war against the people who kidnapped the soldiers. The Lebanese Prime Minister has repeatedly called for a peace treaty. Despite the attacks on bridges and airports, the Israelis have been concentrating their fire power on Hezbollah targets only. Israel has not officially declared war on Lebanon, but have said they want to destroy Hezbollah's military capabilities. The Lebanese are simply the people stuck in the middle.
2. Support The Lebanese government has been doing all it can to end this conflict. However, they are a very weak force within their own country, and very little control over Hezbollah. I believe putting their name in the title implies they are the main combatants of Israel. They are clearly not, nor do they want to be. Hezbollah on the other hand is the clear adversary of Israel. They are the ones holding the Israeli soliders hostage. Yes, Israel is holding the Lebanese responsible for the return of their soldiers but this is clearly just a political tactic meant to create pressure. The Israeli military has struck almost exclusively Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. They did strike the Beiruit Airport and Highways leading out of the country, but these attacks seem to have been meant to prevent Hezbollah from moving the kidnapped soldiers to countries where they would be harder to reclaim. I agree this is not the very best way to title this situation but anything regarding Kidnapping or abduction sounds too clumsy. Criptofcorbin 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Hezbollah commited the first act in this conflict, has fired rockets at the Israeli's, and has been targeted by the Israeli's. They should be included. Hello32020 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Hezbollah is waging the war against Israel. Hezbollah doesn't have a country (except Iran or Syria, but it's so much better to risk someone else's back yard than your own). Lebanon is a victim. Kyleberk 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support--Elatanatari 19:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Hezbollah is the only known successful government in Lebanon. The capture of the 2 israeli soldiers can be negotiated but the israelis use this as an advantage to invade Lebanon as a form of revenge for its invasion during the invasion of lebanon. I urge Iran, Russia, Libya and Syria to take action against this. How can a developed country bully a 3rd world country?

   I have recently been authorized by Iran, Russia, Libya and Syria to speak on their behalf and they would like to let you know that they have taken notice of your pleas here on wikipedia and do not take them lightly. Expect a response from our collective governments within the next few days.--Paraphelion 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Strong Support If Israel wanted to attack Lebanon proper, Israel could and would certainly do things which were much more damaging to all of Lebanon. Everything they have done so far has been directed at either killing Hezbollah personnel, destroying Hezbollah weapons and bases, or destroying infrastrcuture that Hezbollah depends on for logistical support (such as bridges into Syria). Facilities of the Lebanese government have been attacked only when used by Hezbollah. If Hezbollah did not exist or did not attack Israel first, there would be no basis for the conflict. Israel's stated goal is the destruction or dismantlement of Hezbollah. How is this a conflict with Lebanon (the nation-state) then? ObsidianOrder 02:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support per above, in the war poll. So far, it is a conflict because it opposed the Israelian army to a terrorist organization. --Deenoe 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support The Lebanese government isn't really favoring this war. Although their citizens are victims, they are not necessarily involved in it with their own army. The only fighting is between Hezbollah and the Isreali army.--Znitrx 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose (please add your name and your arguments against "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments for the current or another article name.)

1. Oppose While Lebanon isn't really a direct combatant, you certainly can't ignore them in the title (Bearing in mind that Israel not only holds Lebanon responsible but seems to see this as a wider Middle East situation). The arab nations also seem to see that as a wider thing than just Hizbollah. If we could only come up with a suitable word for 'capture' or 'abduct' we could have the 2006 Soldier Abduction Crisis (Middle East) or something less clumsy. But again, this is short sighted by me as any escalation woudl require a total renaming. I say we wait 2 or 3 days, see if any other parties show up as a party to this. Its the encyclopedia not the news, snappy up to date titles are not a must. --Narson 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lebanon needs to be mentioned as they are a major factor in this, whether they want to be or not Frinkahedr0n 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Takes place in Lebanon. Name of a country in the name of a war/crisis/whatever doesn't always mean it has anything to do with the government and should not imply that government's position one way or another.--Paraphelion 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose the "Hezbollah" part, Support the "Conflict" part. In fact, I think I'm going to be bold ... Cyde↔Weys 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose; total fucking weasel words. The article should be titled "2006 Israel-Lebanon War". This is as outrageous as the continual use, here as elsewhere, of the euphemism "enter": IDF soldiers apparently "enter" Lebanon, with the same kind of ease one enters a room in one's house, as another commentator has pointed out. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   Until the rest of the world calls it a war or if war is actually declared, we can't go that far, as much as I agree with you. Frinkahedr0n 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   So far as that goes, both Israel and Hezbollah have virtually declared all-out war. As you know, no state (or even other non-state entity) now bothers with the formality of "declaring war", a musty, dusty, quaint pre-20th century ritual that apparently gets in the way of a modern state's bloodlust. So I think we must judge for ourselves in this case, as a formal declaration of war may never happen. (Judiciously, of course.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   I pretty much agree with the sentiment, but that is not our job. If there is an article about why this war is not being called a war, that might be appropriate for inclusion in this entry.--Paraphelion 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   Shit or get off the pot. We are supposed to come up with "our" concensus, not parrot whatever consensus was achieved at Israel or Hezbollah's Ministry of Agitprop, as mangled^H^H^H^H reported by CNN. Given the scale, ferocity, and the results, war is the only honest characterization of the event. Do the missiles land softer in a "conflict"? Is the RDX more powerful in a "war"? mdf 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   Please remember WP:RS and WP:OR. We are not in the business of making the news, only reporting on it and summarizing it. Until it is commonly being referred to as a war I think we should defer to conflict. --Cyde↔Weys 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   Hm. And here I was recently reading Qana shelling, where the most common external reference to the event is the "Qana massacre" -- for blindingly obvious reasons -- but somehow, against all of the assumed reliable and previously published sources, the official Wikipedia moniker of the event was watered down to "shelling" for reasons of "concensus". Or was that political propriety? I guess it doesn't matter. While I am a huge believer in common sense -- to the point that it trumps even Wikipedia policy -- I'll switch my "vote" from "war" to whatever Israel or Hezbollah say this business is at the current time. "Operation Change of Direction" was it? mdf 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   'massacre' is POV. That aside, the Qana article mentions in the text that it is commonly called a massacre. UOSSReiska 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

   106 dead civilians is also a POV. The central issue to these debates is which POV gets to be called "neutral" and thus expressed at Wikipedia. mdf 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

   Well, if the two POVs both have significantly differing information, we mention both and note that it's disputed? UOSSReiska 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose: Israel attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah is the causus belli, but Israel is in Lebanon. (I have no opinion of conflict vs. crisis). TheronJ 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

   We are supposed to come up with "our" concensus based on all reputable sources out there that we can find. Coming up with a concensus that is not expressed by any reputable source is where original research and op-ed begins. We are closer to parrots than anything else, and if that does not sit well with you, you might do well to start a blog.--Paraphelion 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

   Yet all reputable sources and reports strongly suggest that the word "war" is an accurate one-word summary of the events in Lebanon and Israel. mdf 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

   Good, then you should have no trouble finding at least a half dozen reputable sources calling this conflict a war, verbatim.--Paraphelion 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose: Let us not forget that we are not here to analyse current events - the title of this article should reflect what it is known as in the wider world. Period. We mustn't forget the basics: No original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Tewfik^Talk 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Hezbollah are a militant group that exist in Lebanon. All attacks on civilian, military, Hezbollah targets are therefore on Lebanese territory and hence the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty is instrumental to Israel's aims. This is surely the more significant aspect of the conflict which is why its too narrow to restrict the title to just Hezbollah. 16:32 18 July 2006 (BA)
9. Oppose Hezbollah and support most of the comments above. Had Hezbollah and southern Lebanon been Israel's only target, then I could see this as a conflict solely with them. However, Lebanon as a whole has been a target, including the airport, major roads, ports, and other infrastructure not directly owned or controlled by Hezbollah (regardless of the possibiliity that Hezbollah might use these locations for its own purposes). --petes5266 10:25pm, 18 July 2006
10. Oppose Lebanon is under constant attack and there are barely any Hezbollah casualties. This is a war against the Lebanese people. ArmanJan 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Total Fucking X-Treme Penetrative Oppose, Obscene Edition it's edgy to curse when you're voting. My reasons are given in above discussion.--Paraphelion 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose "Lebanon" describes the locality, and Hezbollah is a component of Lebanese society and the Lebanese government. Fishhead64 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose. It's clearly not an offensive against Hezbollah or against muslims since many christian areas have been hit (Jounieh, Jbeil, Amsheet, Sannine, Marjayoun, Ras Baalbeck and more...) CG 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Hexbollah is not a state. Lebanon is a sovereign state, although a poor one. Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers, and Israeli attacked Lebanese civilians, and is in the process of destroying much of the Lebanese infrastructure of roads, bridges, airports, electric plants, and comunications faclities, whwich are not controlled by Hezbollah. The cast majority of Lebanese killed do not appear to be Hezbollah. Edison 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose, on the basis that it is taking place in Lebanon and Israel. Things like this are named where they take place, not for who is fighting in them, for instance the Afghanistan War was never against the UN recognized government of Afghanistan, but instead against the Taliban, recognied as a group of rebels. Nonetheless, it was the Aghan war, not Taliban war. Likewise, this should hold the name of where it is - Israel-Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Why has my vote and explanation, and those of others been deleted??!?!?!? ActiveSelective 14:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Israel's attacks are primarily hitting Lebanese civilians and infrastructure.

Does anybody else think the title is preposterous?

The first sentence says The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of ongoing military actions and clashes in northern Israel and Lebanon involving Hezbollah's armed wing and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).. So, a conflict between Hezbollah's armed wing and the Israel Defense Forces is a Israel-Lebanon conflict? How's that again? ObsidianOrder 06:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Israel is bombing all parts of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, eg Bridges, roads, other infastructure even a bloody dairy farm (thats smart) and Hezbollah is targeting as much of Israel as it can. Enlil Ninlil 06:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, bridges like the one between the Bekaa valley (a Hezbollah stronghold) and Syria (one of the main arms suppliers to Hezbollah). Cutting enemy lines of supply and communication is a basic war strategy. Do you gave the problem with that? ObsidianOrder 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wait until Israel invades and Lebanese troops fight back. Then the article will he accurate,

Well, the conflict is in Israel and Lebanon... Israel has hit civilian and Lebanon Army targets. I think it's the consensus at the moment.

Other suggestions have included, but are not limited to -

• Israel-Hezbollah conflict
• Israel-Heabollah war
• Israel-Lebanon war
• 2006 Arab-Israeli war
• World War III
• World War IV
• ??? --Karldoh 07:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO the article should be renamed and first sentence revised to heavily stress that Hezbollah is not Lebanon and that Lebanon has repeated disavowed Hezbollah's actions. ObsidianOrder is correct, this is a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel which just happens to include the civilians of Lebanon and Israel. FightCancer 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Once the war has ended, then I think we can have an official name. I don't think that is the most important issue right now. --68.1.182.215 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the titles World War III or even classify this has a World War because, so far, it's only between Lebanon/Hezbollah and Israel. Syria and Iran might become part of it but so far this is not a war, it's a conflict and it's not a World War *yet*. --Deenoe 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if I'm not wrong, a few Lebanon soldiers fought. Does that qualify? --Terrancommander 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict

This page should be renamed to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict to clarify the parties involved . A title stating 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is misleading as it implies that the conflict is between Israel and Lebanon , whereas the conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has explicetly stated that they have no conflict with the country of Lebanon itself or its people.--CltFn 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)--CltFn 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion above, this has already been looked at and rejected. --Cyde↔Weys 14:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we should rediscuss it and today is not then. There is no finality to anything in Wikipedia, the issue can be brought up again. --CltFn 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was just discussed a few days ago. I know there's no binding decisions, but bringing it up every few days is just wasting time. --Cyde↔Weys 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if it keeps coming up , then it is not a resolved issue now is it.--CltFn 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't keep coming up. You're the first person who's brought it up since the old discussion stagnated, and you did it in a terrible way, by trying to do thrice over before even starting to discuss. --Cyde↔Weys 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Since the brunt of the Israeli airstrikes are falling on civilians and civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and not in Hezbollah militants. When the Lindbergh kidnapping occurred, and Charles Lindbergh got a ransom note postmarked Brooklyn, he did not fly over Brooklyn bombing powerplants, dairy farms, bridges, and apartment buildings to try and get the kidnapper to return his son. If he had, it would have been the "Charles Linbergh-Brooklyn conflict".Edison 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support I strongly support the move, for the reasons I gave earlier. ObsidianOrder 18:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the Combatants

Iran a Combatant?

We have been debating this already, but today there was a big development in this story. Ehud Olmert himself proclaimed that Iran had organized the kidnapping of the two Iraeli soldiers.[1]. I have moved the old debate about Iran up to this section. Let the debate begin.

Olmert claims Hezbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers was timed by Iran to deflect attention from its nuclear program. Bush says Syria is to blame, they're trying to get back into Lebanon.[2] On the current evidence we should add neither nation as combatants, unless we create a new category for proxies, and add the US to that as well.Karldoh 04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Karldoh makes a good point. I agree at this point that we should refrain from adding Iran to the article. A reader who is persuing the root causes of the current conflict will undoubtably read articles that outline the connections between the various actors in the Arab - Israeli conflict. Speculating, which is what I believe it is at this point, in not in best interest of readers. I believe that stating in the article that Iran stands accused by Israel, Syria by the United States, and the US by Hezbollah (and others) of being involved (either directly or by proxy) may be a good neutral stance until there are more developments in this area. This is an area that could see rapid change so I think that keeping the discussion regarding this issue going is benificial. rex 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On the current evidence, Iran should definately be added as a combatant, although not Syria. Hizbollah is Iranian proxy in the conflict, receiving funding and weapons, and many Hizbollah fighters are Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops. There is strong circumstantial evidence that Olmert was right that it is an Iranian diversion during the G8 summit which had Iran at the top of its agenda. This is a tactic used very often by Hamas and Islamic Jihad during the peace process -- whenever a high profile peace meeting was held, the day before or morning of the meeting it would be guaranteed there would be a suicide bombing in Israel, and the meeting would be defocused and the lose condusive atmosphere for peace.Darianb

Unless Iran is directly involved in the conflict, it should not be considered a combatant. Yes, Iran does sponsor and support Hizbollah very much, but that goes for the United States supporting Israel as well. Israel is given weapons and money by America just as Hizbollah is given weapons and money by Iran. If Iran is to be considered a combatant, so should America.

I do not see any reason not to include Iran as a combatant. It is well known that Iran supplies Hezbollah with weaponry and training. Also, several sources have stated that upwards of 300 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Troops are actively involved in the conflict. The only debate should be whether Syria is listed.

By that logic should we not also add the United States? Israel is a Major non-NATO ally, receives funding, and receives weapons from the United States. I believe there is strong circumstantial evidence that the United States and Israel have shared intelligence information. And there is evidence that the United States has influenced Israeli policy. rex 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that iran should be added as a combatant. After all the conflict they have encountered, they have no reason to intervene with palastanian/israili/lebanese affairs. The kidnappings dont correlate with iranian interests, therefore iran could possibly not have anything to do with the kidnapped israili soldiers. AR

• Iran should be added. Hasan Nasrallah received some of his education in Qom, Iran, in 1989 and receives money therefrom to pay his militants.--Patchouli 07:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Iran nor Syria should be added, since there is no evidence that they are combatants. When they say that they declare war, or when an Iranian officer in Lebanon is interviewed on TV, then we could add them. Before that happens, adding them would just make Wikipedia seem unprofessional.--Battra 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Iran should be added, at least not directly. For guidance, see Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where the "Combatants" are the rebels, though it informs the reader that the U.S. supplied them. Perhaps a similar compromise? Zenosparadox 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll support that compromise. Good example. -Preposterous 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I too will support that compromise. Tewfik^Talk 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support this compromise. I have seen sources that directly say Iran/Syria is supporting Hammas, but also sources that merely say that US/Israel claim that Iran/Syria support Hamas. If you can express that they are just claims rather than present them as absolute fact, that would be fine, but I doubt the infobox will fit all that. Alternatively if one can find a source citing credible evidence about US/Israel's claims, that would be good too. I myself am "pretty sure" that Hezbollah is supplied by Iran and Syria, not having seen a piece of direct evidence or even a statement about direct evidence - i.e., someone capturing Iran smuggling arms to Hezbollah. There used to be mentioned in the Hezbollah section of this page, however it has since been removed. I would be for adding this back. I do not know the circumstances of the US support for rebels in Afghanistan, but I did notice that there is no citation for it. Consider also who gives aid to Israel in direct arms or money used directly for arms, yet somehow no one wants to see those countries named?--Paraphelion 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If we were to add Iran, we might as well add every country supporting Israel. If Iran actually gets involved with their own current troops, then we can add them. - 216.106.107.43 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, add Iran and Syria for Hezbollah, and add the United States for Israel. Following precedent set by soviet_invasion_of_afghanistan, except have "supported by nations such as" clause on both sides. -Preposterous 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is NOT a combatant. Iran only stated that they would support Syria if Syria would get attacked by Israel. --Deenoe 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

According to some sources Iran has 100 military advisors in Libanon to help Hezbollah. Having boots on the ground makes you a combatant. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2195665

If Iran was a combatant, you'd be sure to see hundreds of Israeli's die every day. ArmanJan 21:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Until Iran actually sends some of its own troops instead of supplies, it is not a combatant. Although, it may happen soon. I mean the US has sent supplies in all sorts of conflicts but that doesn't mean it has been a combatant. --Znitrx 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

Destruction of Israel?

I think the 'destruction of Israel' thing is, as long as it remains unverified, too perjorative and biased a claim to include in an NPOV article. At least, you should balance it by stating the fact that Israel has repeatedly called for the destruction of Hezbollah, a claim that can easily be backed up by a plethora of DIRECT quotes from Ehud Olmert to Dan Gillermann. So, once again, the bias of wikipedia on this issue is simply glaring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.166.77 (talk • contribs).

• And the US has sought al-Qaida's destruction. Do you see some equation? Tewfik^Talk 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the statement about Hezbollah's political platform calling for the destruction of Israel has been removed. Isn't that true? I thought the mini-Hezbollah bio reached a good compromise, stating Hezbollah's own view of why it was formed, but also mentioning that it seeks the destruction of Israel, which I think is noteworthy given that they are in a conflict with them. We did have a source for that statement and I gather it would not be hard to find more sources, but they have been removed along with the statement.--Paraphelion 04:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have found a sources with a more direct statements about Hezbollah's call for the destruction of Israel :

[3] : "Both organizations' charters call for the destruction of Israel." Both in this case is Hamas and Hezbollah. This is an op-ed piece.

[4] : "...Hamas and Hezbollah, terror gangs whose charters call for the destruction of Israel, acting as proxies for Iran..."

It would be nice to be able to link to an English version of the charter itself.--Paraphelion 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that this should be included, and I think I will be WP:Bold and insert "According to the BBC, Hezbollah's political doctrine has consistently called for the destruction of Israel." The sources you have presented will not fly as they are both op-ed style pieces, so the BBC analysis will have to suffice for now. There should be other sources on teh Hezbollah page, though I haven't time to look them up now. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive I might have removed this myself. I think they are worthy of mention in the Hezbollah page, not here. In terms of balance, we would have to discuss the exclusionary Jewish-only establishment of Israel, go into explanations of Zionism, Arabism, etc etc etc. If we star filling out this page with all background information, even relevant one, we will end up with a page about the whole Arab-Israeli Conflict. There are not one, but two templates to deal with the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, with multitudes of links to background information.

For this same reason I removed Hezbollah's flag, which I had originally placed, and are trying to shorten it to a bare intro to point into its main page. Likewise "historical background", or why I suggested and then moved the bulk of the battle info into Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Do you get my point? I belive the quality of the page is greatly increased if we provide quick info points, lots and lots of internal and external links, and continue to edit the othe 3 directly related page, timeline, military operations, and international reactions.

I think in our preocupation with NPOV, factuality, and all those other concerns, we lost light of quality. I have been guilty of this too, but it doesnt change the fact at all. I think that with the consensus removal of the POV tags, we must move in the direction of quality and viligance, and stop trying to make this article about what it isn't but about what it is...

--Cerejota 05:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Being an exclusionary ethno-state is a long way from calling for the destruction of a state, which, and perhaps this is just my opinion, is, among other things, tantamount to calling for the killing of innocent civilians. Israel has called for the destruction of Hezbollah, and that should be in the article too, and would correspond to that statement. And BTW - the article already does have a good amount about the Arab-Israeli conflict in the historical background section. I understand that you removed it to save room, but I think one sentence, as Tewfik has restored is all that is needed, however, I do think it would be optimal to be able to cite the charter directly.--Paraphelion 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik: Explain why do we need an extensive discussion of Hezbollah and its political ideas here, when we have the Hezbollah page for that?--Cerejota 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about limiting the size, and we do not need extensive discussion. I reinserted one line: "Hezbollah's political doctrine has consistently called for the destruction of Israel." This is among the most pertinent pieces of information about Hezbollah. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have discussed with Tewfik on our talk pages I will try to re-word the other part of the mini Hezbollah bio. We can probably combine the whole thing into 1 sentence :

"Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shi’a Muslim organization primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation and has consistently called for the destruction of Israel.[41]"

Of course anyone else is invited to come up with whatever they like.--Paraphelion 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas, all you can come up with is an unverifiable, probably POV BBC article when there must be a primary source, namely Hezbollah itself. If this is so central to their political doctrine, theny would obviously be proud of this. As such I am qualifying the statement as a quote from a BBC report, as a compromise until we can get an english version of Hezbollah's charter. If not it remain unverifiable as a true statement.--Cerejota 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There are other articles that say basically the same thing. I am looking for something with direct quotes. Your logic that Hezbollah would be proud of this does not make any sense since one could argue there should be something in their charter that they are proud of, yet their charter is not available online, as one would imagine it would be if Hezbollah would publish something online out of pride. We of course do not have source documents for everything; I'm willing to bet 90% of this article is written off of secondary sources like the BBC and those are probably most of the sources you have used, no?--Paraphelion 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are usually a voice of reason even when we differ, but your logic here escapes me. The very reason why one puts something in a Charter is to make it know that this is what one is about.

I cannot phantom how someone would have a Charter they are not proud of, simply because you can ammend it later, if you so wish to, even if with corssed fingers behind your back.

The PLO charter, which DID include the destruction of Israel (or more correctly quoted "the destruction of the Zionist Entity", which was understood by the PLO left-wing as meaning the theocratic Israel, not a secular state with recognition of all religions as equals), was ammended accordingly when the PLO ceased to believe in that after the Oslo Accords.

Its your charter and you do with it as you please. So please, think again about what you just said and admit it doesnt make sense! :D I mean, why would you have a charter in the first place. Makes no sense at all!

One of the things that fascinates me is that not even MEMRI, which does great work translating primary sources from arabic and farsi (albeit unfortunatelly with a heavy POV slant), has this charter translated. Again, since I havent read I cant say, but its lack of existence seems suspect to me.

This "whole destruction of Israel" thing reeks of confusion, and for such a central fact (as Tewik correctly describes it), too little verifiability is available. Yes, precisely because its importance and relevancy, its standard of verifiability should be better than just an analysis (which is a form of op-ed!) in a press organ.

--Cerejota 06:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it's really true, but thanks for the compliment. Actually you are right, I didn't consider that there might not be a charter at all. There aren't whole lot of articles that talk about the charter, and I think all of them are op-ed. The BBC article we are using does not refer to the charter, but rather to general statements made by Hezbollah leaders/figures - and that we should be able to get more direct quotes. I do suspect that if there is a charter, it is worded not as directly as we would like for simplicity of this article, and that whatever is said, in the charter or quotes by Hezbollah leaders, is open to interpretation. I think looking for a quote by a Hezbollah leader is the best solution, until the charter surfaces, if it exists. A quote will be better because we can quote it instead of relying on interpretation. It would be good if others comment on all of thise please.--Paraphelion 06:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a direct quote from a current Hezbollah leader would be great and would moot questions about charter or anything.--Cerejota 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This definitely sounds relevant ... in fact, if you had to trim down the entire Hezbollah section of this article to just two sentences, I'd still put the whole "destruction of Israel" thing in there. That, and them not being the official government of Lebanon, are the two most important facts about them in relation to this conflict. --Cyde↔Weys 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a POV article, of course those are the only to two things that matter. But we want an NPOV article.

1) their having the destruction of Israel as central to their politics is not a fact or at least it is a disputed non verifiable fact. Yet I agree that by virtue of it being mentioned in the BBC should be included in a qualified way. Until we dont find the primary source, we cant say for sure.

2) Cant have it both ways. First you dont want this named the Hizbollah-Israel-Lebanon conflict, then Hezbollah is illegitimate and not part of Lebanon. Make up your mind people!

3) The fact that Hezbollah has two wings, that the armed wing has a name, and that it has the explicit support of nearly 30% of the electorate in Lebanon are also relevant facts to this conflict. Also relevant is that they are part of the current Lebanese government.

Other than that, there is a Hezbollah page, where further information can and is made available.

--Cerejota 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. All I was saying is that it's important to note that Hezbollah is not Lebanon. The conflict is between Hezbollah and Israel, but the fighting is taking place in Lebanon and the majority of the casualties are Lebanese. Wars are typically named by the countries involved, not the names of the factions involved. I'm not trying to have it both ways by saying that Hezbollah is not the same as Lebanon but that the article should also be named Lebanon rather than Hezbollah. --Cyde↔Weys 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, maybe a short note in the introduction? Something like "The conflcit has mainly enaged the military forces of Hezbollah and Israel, but has been fought by both sides in Lebanese territory." Or something like that? But this is beyond the discussion on Hezbollah itself...--Cerejota 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas all calling for Israel to be destroyed. Israel call for terrorist to be destroyed, its acceptable, terrorists are a group without civilians. But not for a terrorist to call for the destruction of a country, this will mean many civilian casualties, and terrorist don't care. There is no bias, it is a fact. 69.109.166.77 is taking Hezbollah to be a country? For heaven's sake, its a banned terrorist organisation under the UN charter! --Terrancommander 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

POV emendations

The following passages are either continually removed or added, as specified, and lend to an extremely POV presentation.

• Hezbollah has concurrently engaged in extensive rocket attacks on Israel's northern cities, including areas like Haifa which thus far have been out of range, as well as a number of attempted infiltrations. This is continually removed from the intro. Without it, the reader would have no knowledge of the Hezbollah rocket campaigns which so dominate the hostilities both in media coverage and as one of Israel's stated motivations.

• The "Hezbollah rocket campaign" subsection after "Israeli response" is continually removed under the same reasoning and that it is covered in the "military operations" subarticle, which creates the same effect. Subarticles are meant for expansion of information in the main, not in place of them.

• Note: this section got renamed to a misleading "Hezbollah counter-response". Rename it back to what it is: daily rocket assault of Israeli civilian areas.

• The Juan Cole observation/accusation/speculation on Israeli motives which discusses war crimes and some grand scheme of manipulating the MidEast is extremely POV when presented in the "Civilian casualties" section, especially in light of how controversial the man and his belief's are.

Please discuss if you disagree that these actions lead to non neutral POV, and form some compromise. In the meantime, please try to preserve balance here. Cheers Tewfik^Talk 23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some general things that I would like to see changed Infobox -

When you say "displaced", do you mean those whose houses were ruined, or also those who fled their houses in fear? Because if it is the latter, then we can safely had tens of thousands of Israelis who fled their houses in the north to cities, hotels and campsites in the south. Need a quote? I'm here and I can see it for myself.

Hezbollah Raid -

"Possibly transporting them to Lebanon" what does that mean? Where else could they have been taken? Alaska? Of course, their journey hasn't necessarily ended in Lebanon, but could have continued to Syria and/or Iran....

Israeli Response -

"following several days of Israeli bombing raids" - How about "following several days of Israeli bombing raids and Hezbollah rocket attacks"??? Sounds more NPOV....

There is a whole part of a paragraph which deals with Hezbollah attacks on Israel and should be moved to the correct section.

Hezbollah rocket campaign -

The map is missing many sites of targeting such as Tiv'on, Afula, Nazareth etc., as well as the entire northern border towns locations

Civilian Targets -

Qana shelling belongs in History and not here

The whole "Israeli bombing campaign of Lebanese civilian infrastructure" paragraph is bogus. Thew writer is obviously bias and I could find a hundred examples that would state the opposite and make worse allegations against hezbollah - which, BTW, IS targeting civilian targets in order to harm citizens, while Israel is at worst attacking any infrastructure which could be used to transport militia supplies for the Hezbollah, who are famous for using civilians as a shield....

In History - Israeli-Lebanon conflict -

There is no mention that while Israel held the Security Zone strip in Southern Lebanon, northern Israel was continually attacked by Hezbollah rockets and infiltration attempts targeting civilian targets.

in Hezbollah -

Wow, sure sounds like Hezbollah is legitimate political party, and not a terrorist organization. Seems like there should be some kind of mention here of its terrorist activities and inclination.

Previous prisoner exchange - No mention that HEZBOLLAH carried out the attack on Israeli soil and kidnapped the soldiers (or their remains) to Lebanon. People could think that the attack was an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Again, it was another ordinary border patrol just like the one who was attacked at the beginning of the current conflict.

Tweekerd 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your quote of 10,000 fleeing - Are you using one of those hand held click counters? Because if you are, can you please take a picture of it and put it on your photoblog and release the image? We can just replace the infobox with that photo.--Paraphelion 07:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Position of Lebanon and Chris Matthews

I would rather see a direct quote from the PM about this. Also I cannot find this statement elsewhere. I have found a few links. One

He said the intensifying aggression "in this barbaric way proves that Israel has decided to push Lebanon back 50 years." [5]

"Continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon could set its development back 50 years, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said Tuesday" - [6]

"Lebanon for years has been trying to build itself back up and come back after many years of civil war," Shalhoub said. "This has set us back 50 years. All of us are affected. People are running out of supplies and food and there's no way to get anything in from the outside. We're going to do our best to help." - [7]

Shaloub is the Rev. Elia Shalhoub of St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church in West Palm Beach. Unless Lebanon has a West Palm Beach I think this guy is from Florida.--Paraphelion 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Democracy Now!" ??????

Can a left-wing news program be considered an NPOV source???? If not, I suggest removal of all its quotes and the paragraphs in the article based on them immediately. Tweekerd 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you don't suggest removal of sources coming from arab countries or israel.--fs 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that might be a good idea. I'm from Israel, and I know for a fact some of our papers have extreme left-wing orientation, and others extreme right-wing. Those should be avoided. I don't know much about the Arab countries' papers, except for my personal view that most of them are filled with anti-Israeli propoganda (unless proven otherwise)....In Israel, Ha'aretz IMO should be avoided. Tweekerd 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All sources are biased. Regardless, bias does not disqualify a source. Please read Wiki's policy on sources. FYI, Democracy Now harshly criticizes the Democratic party, so I don't see how it's biased. FightCancer 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please review Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. If you believe we need the tag, please note specific reasons why below (ie, dispute): Tewfik^Talk 07:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Cerejota's reply went, but here's my response:

Read the policies. These tags are applied based on specific problems, not IP vandalism. I'm removing. If you feel we need either NPOV or POV check tag, please discuss specific reasons why here. Tewfik^Talk 08:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

where did my comments here about NPOV problems go? Is it your new policy to delete comemnts from talk pages? M. Butterfly 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am removing an unjustified NPOV tag again. Please justify with discussion per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute if you feel we must brand the article in that manner. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am re-posting what I wrote in the top of this talk page about POV. please read it before removing the tag.

This article is only getting more and more POV. I am getting really tired of adding comments in the talk page and cited addition in the article, only to see my addition reverted and my comments either unanswered or deleted. The big reason is that for some reason, Israel's attacks are under the neading "attacks on civilian ares", while Hiz' attacks are under "Hezbullah Rocket Campaign", while in reality, Hezbullah attacks are on civilian areas (you can't really refute that) and actually almost everyone in Israel and many Americans claim that they are deliberate attacks on civilians. In addition, while the section on the Hezbullah attack is written in clean, 'military' language, and no mention is made of tragedies such as the two Arab children killed in Nazareth, the section on the attacks made by Israel goes into detail, telling of specific events and using words like "mass grave" and "massacre". Also, while unsubstantiated claims by Lebanese sources as to the use of illrgal weapons are in the article and even get highlighted, the following (cited) claim, added by me, was reverted without explanation:

Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav told VOA that among the rockets that have hit Haifa are some clearly designed to cause massive civilian casualties. "The specialty of these rockets is that they contain thousands of metal bullets which are going to be spread around when the rocket hits the ground," he said. "In this respect, it has the same effect as the belt of a suicide bomber." [8]

This is exactly the same kind of claim, made by one of the fighting forces. Either both this and Lahoud's comments are relevant, or not; any other option is blatant POV. M. Butterfly 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The Slant is ridiculous. I acknowledge my bias as an Israeli and yet STILL the slant is ridiculous and I deem myself absolutely objective in saying that. --AceMyth 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Pretty please

I'm not sure where that section went exactly, but this is my response:

I try to. That said, there are extremely basic pieces of information that you have removed. Subpages don't mean that nothing on that topic is included in the main page. Rather a few paragraphs summarising the most important parts of the subpage should be included under the section title. Tewfik^Talk 08:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

UN Security Council resolution issue

On Saturday [July 15, 2006] the United Nations Security Council again rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon.

The above statement statement from the article seems to me to be inaccurate and misleading. Based on the following article [9], it seems to me that Democracy Now's website (from which the statement is a direct quote of), may be inaccurately describing the situation. The statements seems to imply that the council voted in to reject a call for a ceasefire when reality it seems that the issue was really a disagreement over the text of the call for a ceasefire. It appears the U.S. is the only security council member rejecting a call for a ceasefire at this time. It should be corrected to more accurately reflect what really happened at the UN Security Council meeting that day. --Cab88 11:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support the use of the map per above. --Deenoe 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is what really happened. According to your source above, "The United Nations Security Council held closed-door consultations late Saturday on the mounting violence in Lebanon but failed to reach agreement on a statement that would have called for a ceasefire." By that quote, how is the DN quote inaccurate or misleading? FightCancer 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah raid and ensuing border clash

Why is it called a "raid" when Hezbollah enters Israel and a "border clash" when Israel enters Lebanon with "a force of tanks and armored personnel carriers" (according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz)? Invading another country is not a "border clash". I suggest renaming this section title to "Hezbollah and Israeli raids", "Hezbollah raid and Israeli invasion", "Beginning of conflict", or something else to avoid the obvious violation of neutrality, IMO. FightCancer 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged targeting of civilians"

I've noticed that all mentions of the continued bombing on Israel - which are still taking place - were removed (except for half-a-sentence in the Casualties section), while on the other hand the section Alleged Targeting of civilians was added. To balance the article, I believe that the bombings on both sides should be noted, as they are unquestionably an integral part of the conflict. Tamuz ^(Talk) 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. also, no mention of the shelling of Israel is mentioned in the intro, making it look like the only offnesive move by Hezbullah was the initial attack. 217.132.255.161 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And now my short edition, adding a little about Hez' attacks was removed! What is this???? 217.132.255.161 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it's returned. I think this should be elaborated. 217.132.255.161 16:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" targeting of civilians. Why "alleged" Israel DID kill 300 civilians and DID target civilian infrastructure. Robin Hood 1212 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they claim it was because Hezbollah placed its facilities in population centers. This is a known tactic, not just something made-up from thin air, so as long as this claim isn't proven-beyond-doubt to be a lie, we should keep stating that it is unclear whether or not they intended to hit civilians. Tamuz ^(Talk) 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged targeting of civilians" I feel that parts of this section is aimed at making Israel look bad. While I agree with most of the points made, and i think that Israel indeed is looking very bad, this section is not NPOV. Sentences like this, which states that Israel is purposefully targeting civilians, using weasel words "It has been suggested that the intent of Israel's purposeful strategy of targeting civilians is to simultaneously weaken structural and political support with Lebanon for Hezbollah", or this one, "In one example characterized to be a striking violation of the Geneva conventions" is certainly not improving the article. Rewrite! Mlrts 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for thinking along, but please make some suggestions for rewording.

I just zapped the last few sentences of that paragraph for failure to cite. Reading the remainder makes me think the whole paragraph should be dumped in the crapper, but perhaps someone can rearrange it better than I. mdf 13:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire section is problematic, both from a POV point of view and from an encyclopedic point of view. First of all, it should be divided into two section, onw detailing (alleged) attacks on civilians by Israel and one - (alleged) attacks by Hezbullah. Also, as most of the section is quotes, we should see which of them add anything to the understanding of the allegations, and delete the rest, which are just plain repetition. Also, Israel's claims for the reasons for the attacks on civilian infrastructure, and other civilian targets must be included. I am willing to do so, if needed. 217.132.255.161 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comments is mine M. Butterfly 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since my edits got reverted, I will try to do it another way. Here is the section in question, and I will add my comments and questions on it:

"...because Hezbollah placed its facilities in population centers". Yes of course. Hizballah fighters were hiding on the runway of Beirut airport, under bridges, and inside oil tanks..... Israel has been using collective punishment for 50 years, why think this is any different? 86.17.246.75 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged targeting of civilians

/// I believe this should be divided into two sections, according to each side/// Strikes on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are alleged to include Beirut airport, ports, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait. In one instance, according to Lebanese reports, families evacuating the village of Marwahin in South Lebanon were struck on an open road by an Israeli missile attack; 13 or 18 were killed, some of them women and children. Human Rights Watch called for an investigation into this incident: “The IDF needs to investigate this attack on a civilian convoy and provide more details about the circumstances … Having warned civilians to evacuate their village, Israeli forces should have been aware that civilians would be using this road and should have taken great care to avoid harming them.” /// The IDF actually apologized for this incident - we should note this///

///This section is about Hezbollah attacks, but instead of starting with the attacks themselves, it starts with Nassrallahh's apologetics, and the first phrase is completely POV and misleading. And all this when there is not one Israeli response to the allegations in the entire section!!!/// After widespread attacks on Lebanon by Israeli forces, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said "In the beginning, we started to act calmly, we focused on "Israel" (sic) military bases and we didn't attack any settlement, However, since the first day, the enemy attacked Lebanese towns and murdered civilians... Hizbullah militants had destroyed military bases, while the "Israelis" killed civilians and targeted Lebanon's infrastructure." Artillery rockets by Hezbollah were fired at civilian targets throughout the conflict, landing in all major cities of northern Israel including Haifa, Nazareth, Tiberias, Nahariya and Safed.

Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights, expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory." She called for Israel to obey a "principle of proportionality." She also suggested that actions on both sides may be war crimes, telling the BBC that "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians … Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable." [10][11] [12] The UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland has said that one third of the dead are children. ///I think there were UN official condemning the Hezbullah - why are they not here?///

On 16 July Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said Israeli forces have used "phosphorus incendiary bombs, which are a blatant violation of international laws, ...against Lebanese civilians." Information Minister Ghazi Aridi also said, "Israel is using internationally prohibited weapons against civilians." The use of incendiary weapons on civilians is prohibited by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. ///These claims have been unsubstatiated by anyone, and are coming from people who are obviously biased. yet no mention is made of that, and we are left to assume this as fact///

Some military analysts ///Weasel Words/// have said that Israel is intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure. James Dobbins, head military analyst for the Rand Corporation said he believes: "The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," [13] ///He says that on targeting civilian *infrastructure* and not on "intentionally targeting civilians". There is a difference, so Dobbins is not saying what is claimed in the first sentence////

Human Rights Watch stated on 18 July that "Hezbollah's attacks [on Haifa] were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." ///This should be added to the part about Hezbullah attacks///

Amnesty International condemned both parties and called for UN intervention, stating: "The past few days has seen a horrendous escalation in attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. Yet the G8 leaders have failed conspicuously to uphold their moral and legal obligation to address such blatant breaches of international humanitarian law, which in some cases have amounted to war crimes."

It is preposterous to think that attacking ~1500 targets which results in ~200 civilian casualties is targetting of civilians. A better description would be extreme care in avoiding civilian casualties. Please bear in mind that each attack typically destroys everything within a few hundred feet radius. Also please bear in mind that Hezbollah has situated most of their facilities right in the middle of residential areas as a deliberate strategy. Israel has done a lot better than might be expected, mainly because they warn civilian populations to leave the areas they are about to attack well ahead of time. ObsidianOrder 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Extreme care in avoiding civilian casualties" sounds much like an assumption. Though, it is obvious that, if the goal of Israel was to kill civilians, they could have killed millions of them by now. The plain fact is that Israel is killing far more civilians than Hezbollah did. The number of civilians that both Israeli army and Hezbollah are actually trying to kill can be just a matter of conjecture; on the contrary, it is rather obviuos that both sides can approximately foresee how many civilians casualties will be caused by their attacks. So, if you can't say that Israel is targetting at civilians, you can say that Israel founds perfectly acceptable to kill hundreds of civilians (not to mention the destrutcion of civil infrastructures) to stop terrorist attacks which have caused less than one tenth of those victims.[[82.50.169.166 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)]]

It's also preposterous that one side using state of the art equipment has killed an order of magnitude more civilians than the other side which has poor equipment firing randomly at towns and cities. Also others have said Hezbollah have fired 1500 or so rockets. Please bear in mind firing into a crowd of people, killing 20, to terminate one person that you are after doesn't excuse you for murder in most civilized nations.--Paraphelion 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Israel hasn't been using state-of-the-art equipment, they're still using the older model M109 Howitzers, compared to the latest model developed by the U.S., the Paladin, which actually has guided artillery rounds. And you need to understand ... these casualty numbers aren't unreasonable. Bombs and artillery are made for killing people and destroying targets, not minimizing casualties. I don't think there's any evidence that Israel is intentionally trying to kill civilians. Saying something like that just betrays an ideological demonization of Israel. --Cyde↔Weys 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Parahelion - did you get anything of what I said? Most Israeli attacks kill no (zero, 0) civilians. If, as you claim, they were deliberately targetting civilians, they are doing a very poor job of it. There are many places they could target in which a single similar attack would kill a few hundred. True, Israel is targetting some Hezbollah instalations in the middle of civilian residential areas. But they try to get everyone to leave first, hence the low casualties. The target is not the civilians, it is Hezbollah, which is a legitimate military target considering they have fired thousands of rounds into Israel before this. ObsidianOrder 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the section title change at least. I have not read anything saying that most Israeli attacks kill no civilians, but if that is so and there is some credible source, it should go in the article. I'm not saying I believe Israel is targetting civilians, but at this point I haven't seem much to rule it out, considering that officials have threatened to put Lebanon 20 years back, which is only slightly more civil than Hezbollah's call for the destruction of Israel.--Paraphelion 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IDF attacked 1500 targets as of 07/20 [14]. There were ~300 civilian casualties reported by the Lebanese government as of that date. If each casualty resulted from a different attack (and it doesn't), there still must be at least 1200 attacks which had zero casualties. That can reaonably be described as "most attacks kill no civilians". ObsidianOrder 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that is an understandable way to look at it. I am not totally convinced it is true because I don't think most of these numbers are accurate, given how many people are supposedly displaced and damage to infrastructure. I'm not sure if such a calculation is original research or not, but I think the numbers are reliable enough to suggest that 1200 attacks have zero casualties, rather than saying for sure that is true. I admit I am getting a little mixed up with debating the issue rather than the sources.. but basically what I think we have is a good number of sources saying that Hezbollah is targeting civilians or probably targeting civilians, and on the Israeli side, it is more of the issue that there is enough doubt that it should not be ruled out. Actually I now am not sure what you and others here are arguing should be done - if it's for a subsection for each side's targets in civilian areas or however it is going to be phrased, I don't see anything wrong with that.--Paraphelion 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me first state what I beleieve best describes the current situation, and then make a proposal for what to do in the article. Isreal is trying to avoid hitting civilians, as much as possible; they have hit legitimate targets situated in largely civilian areas, as well as some infrastructure which has dual (civilian and military) uses, such as bridges. They are not "deliberately targetting civilians". Hezbollah is trying to hit civilians, the more the better (well, actually they're just trying to hit anything at all, considering how bad their aim is, but most attacks seem to be just aimed at cities as area targets). They are "deliberately targetting civilians". The difference here is in intent. However Israel has much greater firepower, and Hezbollah has used a strategy of using civilians as shields, therefore the reality is that there are going to be a number of civilian casualties on the Lebanese side. By any measure of comparison, that number is extremely low (for example: compared with Beirut 1982 or Grozny 1995).

What I propose to do with the article is this: first, get rid of the "deliberate" bit, that is somewhat speculative in any case unless it can be sourced from the side which is supposed to be doing the attack. Describe what is going on: Israel has hit what they claim is Hezbollah targets situated in residential areas, as well as various pieces of infrastructure that they claim is used by Hezbollah; they are dropping leaflets in some areas warning people to leave ahead of an attack. Hezbollah has fired at Israeli cities, as well as industrial complexes and military bases. Any discussion about "deliberately targetting civilians" is bound to dissolve into a POV debate of what exactly that means, but the above description is strictly factual and I think anyone could endorse it regardless of their views. ObsidianOrder 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse NPOV with "must make both sides look equal on everything"

Yes, the English Wikipedia is not neutral. It has a decided Israeli slant. The French wikipedia says the attack on the Israeli Humvee took place at Aita al Chaab, which is clearly in Lebanon. The English wikipedia omits this information. This was not a mistake, as it allows the false claim that the attack took place in Israel. If the English wikipedia makes this claim, then it should provide facts to support this assertion, which is a VERY VERY important detail. I have already posed this question in the main article. I expect to have it omited. Secondly, ONLY on wikipedia have I heard the claim that Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel BEFORE the soldiers were captured, an astonishing and also false claim that has not been made anywhere else. These two facts leave me with my doubts.

I notice many comments in these discussion pages in the end mean things like "by saying that you make X look worse than Y" or "Y looks worse than X and that's POV".. No. Who says neutral point of view means forced equality? Neutral point of view is closer to being cool and reporting the facts, rather than an operation of making everyone look as bad (or as good) as everyone else. --fs 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but when it comes to an ongoing issue, and one that is controversial worldwide and upon which there is no unanimously-agreed opinion in the international community, then - in my opinion - the only way to keep the article NPOV is by keeping it balanced as well. Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Only thing is... nothing in the world will ever be NPOV as long as humans are on it. We cause wars starting with conflicting opinions. At least here, we should try to make everything NPOV. If, and only if, it requires balancing then do so.--Znitrx 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Targets in civilian areas" vs. "Civilian targets" and "Targeting of civilians"

I think "targets in civilian areas" is a more NPOV discription. Reasons: (1) Israel denies it is deliberately targeting civilians. Rather it claims that it is targeting Hezbollah targets, which are hidden in civilian areas. This can be the case or not, but assuming Israel deliberately aims at hitting civilians without any military purpose is POV and OR. "Targets in civilian areas" leaves it to the reader or the future to decide what the purpose of these attacks was. At the same time this proposed title emphasizes that most casualties are civilians (including civilian infrastructure). (2) Hezbollah attacks are on civilian areas, though there seems to be at least some doubt whether Hezbollah (only) wants to hit civilian targets. Therefore "Targets in civilian areas" is also a better term for this conflict party. Sijo Ripa 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of those titles are useful or appropriate. Think about it this way: any title that includes the word "target" in it assumes a certain amount of mind-reading, or special knowledge of (Israeli) military operations which, I'm guessing, no contributor here has. After the fact, of course, it may be revealed that Israel did or did not target civilians or non-military assets, but there's really no way to know that with certainty now.

What I'd propose is simply using the rubric "Civilian casualties"; verified deaths, injuries or destruction of buildings, etc., can be included under this heading. It may be boring and canonical, but it's still useful. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Civilian casualties" is fine for me. Thank you for pointing that out, ILike2BeAnonymous. Sijo Ripa 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've written that and looked back at the article, I'm not so sure: after all, the bombing of grain silos, civilian fuel storage depots, hospitals for chrissakes, does look a lot like targeting to me, and one doesn't need a crystal ball or IDF security clearance to call this particular spade a fucking shovel. So I'm now agnostic on the issue. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Israel denies it and that there is no media consensus about Hezbollah's intentions. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to make own conclusions. I'm also fine with "targeting of civilians?" (the emphasis on the "?"). We just cannot claim to be sure. Sijo Ripa 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We should leave Hezbollah out of this particular equation, simply because they're not capable of "targeting" anything (cf. the discussion of missiles, w/guidance systems, vs. rockets, with none.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The section title "Targeting of Civilian Areas" is NPOV. I might prefer "Targeting of Civilians", since that is what the section is really about and thoroughly documented with cited news reports and eyewitness accounts. However, there are also well documented attacks on the infrastructure as well, and this is covered by adding "Areas." The change to "Civilian Casualties" whitewashes the content and is POV. And anyone reading the news reports and says that we cannot claim to be sure is using the fallacy Argument from ignorance. AdamKesher 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward your arguments. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, AdamKesher. The title "Civilian casualties" was based on ILike2BeAnonymous's suggestions. The news reports don't say Israel/Hezbollah target civilian areas, they say Israel/Hezbollah hit civilian areas for whatever reason. Targeting implies that Israel/Hezbollah wants to hit as many civilians as possible, which is not the same as Israel/Hezbollah kills and injures many civilians. I can live with the title "Hitting civilian areas" or "Targeting of civilian areas?". Sijo Ripa 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Or re-formulated: "Targeting" seems to imply that Israel/Hezbollah hit these areas because these areas are civilian, while there are possibly ulterior motives for these attacks. "Hitting" does not state the reason for the result of the damaged infrastructure and killed/injured civilians. Sijo Ripa 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(I was editing while you were replying:) see the above difference between targeting and hitting. A subtle but important difference. E.g., Israel denies it is hitting civilian infrastructure because it is civilian - it claims to target hidden Hezbollah militants/infrastructure. So we are not sure what they are targeting - civilians or Hezbollah's? We do know what they hit however. Sijo Ripa 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. That is what the section includes: an analysis of why each side would want to target, thereby hit and kill, civilians. Hezbollah wants to terrorize Israel and assert its military capability in the region at a time Israel is dealing with problems in Gaza. Israel, it is said, would like to targets civilians to both weaken Hezbollah and to force a conflict between Lebanon and Hezbollah, the result of which would either eliminate or weaken Hezbollah—just like they did so successfully between Jordan and the PLO. If anyone has alternative, reasonable, and cited analysis, they should post it to strengthen the article. But the the targeting of civilians is an undisputed and central part of the conflict, for both sides. AdamKesher 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the content of the section, I merely think that the title is inappropriate/misleading as it seems to suggest what the targets are, something that the section doesn't claim to know. The hitting of civilians is undisputed, but it is not undisputed that the conflict actors deliberately want to hit civilians. Sijo Ripa 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, so the section should include a cited assertion from the IDF that they're not targeting civilians—those are easy enough to find. But both sides are most definitely targeting civilian areas, hence the natural choice of the title Targeting of Civilian Areas for a section describing the targeting of civilian areas. AdamKesher 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but I'd like to get to the good logic part. Hezbollah launches hundreds of rockets at Israeli cities. How could anyone say, categorically, that they're not targetting civilians or civilian areas(!) Likewise for Israel: fleeing families of civilians on open roads are being hit directly with missile fire from the air. Hospitals, factories, and aid convoys have likewise been hit. Who will say that this is not the targeting of civilians? Are you saying that you're unsure about this? AdamKesher 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I was going to boldly strike out and change this heading, when I looked at the article and found it currently says "Attacks on civilian areas". Seems like a good compromise that doesn't weasel out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The original proposal was better, I will implement it. ObsidianOrder 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing about this: I repeat my suggestions to splitting this section into a part about attacks by Israel and into a part about attacks by Hizbullah. each part should include, in this order: 1. A summary of the attacks themselves, and their effects (in the Hezbullah attacks part, it should include the section now titled "Hezbullah rocket campaign"); 2. commentary about how these attacks are targeting civilians, 3. Claims of use of illegal weapons 4. apologetics by the attackers (Israeli army saying they shoot at Hiz, Nasrallah's claim that he is shooting at infrastructure). Anything that does not fall under these headings should be removed somewhere else (like the UN post that was hit, which is *not* civilians). This would make it both more organised and less POV M. Butterfly 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

POV article

This article is only getting more and more POV. I am getting really tired of adding comments in the talk page and cited addition in the article, only to see my addition reverted and my comments either unanswered or deleted. The big reason is that for some reason, Israel's attacks are under the neading "attacks on civilian ares", while Hiz' attacks are under "Hezbullah Rocket Campaign", while in reality, Hezbullah attacks are on civilian areas (you can't really refute that) and actually almost everyone in Israel and many Americans claim that they are deliberate attacks on civilians. In addition, while the section on the Hezbullah attack is written in clean, 'military' language, and no mention is made of tragedies such as the two Arab children killed in Nazareth, the section on the attacks made by Israel goes into detail, telling of specific events and using words like "mass grave" and "massacre". Also, while unsubstantiated claims by Lebanese sources as to the use of illrgal weapons are in the article and even get highlighted, the following (cited) claim, added by me, was reverted without explanation:

Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav told VOA that among the rockets that have hit Haifa are some clearly designed to cause massive civilian casualties. "The specialty of these rockets is that they contain thousands of metal bullets which are going to be spread around when the rocket hits the ground," he said. "In this respect, it has the same effect as the belt of a suicide bomber." [15]

This is exactly the same kind of claim, made by one od the fighting forces. Wither both this and Lahoud's comments are relevant, or not; any other option is blatant POV. M. Butterfly 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The Slant is ridiculous. I acknowledge my bias as an Israeli and yet STILL the slant is ridiculous and I deem myself absolutely objective in saying that. --AceMyth 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... but the writers/editors of this article usually have a POV and will use it while writing the article. One time the article might read Hezbollah was worse than Israel and vice versa--Znitrx 04:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the Best Way to Report What Happened, NOT what a reporter thinks on wikipedia

I don't understand why this conflict is do debatable on wikipedia. We should all put aside our emotional feelings and forget about our support to whatever belief we have. Let's just look at the facts. Israel left Lebanon in the year 2000. And six years later, Hezbollah launches an attack against Israel (Israel had NOT done anything to Hezbollah or Lebanon provoke such an attack). Therefore, the fact is simply that Hezbollah is a terror organization that seeks the destruction of Israel. Another point to be made is that each time Israel withdraws for a territory, the area becomes a stronger base for terrorist organizations as we see in southern Lebanon and Gaza. Why don't Hezbollah and Hamas seek peace? READ THEIR CHARTERS! They seek Israel's complete destruction. So my point is...please LOOK AT THE FACTS and stop trying to twist everything to meet one's own view. I only want a FAIR and HONEST view of the conflict. And if someone disagrees, I welcome any challenge --68.1.182.215 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your first challenge is to produce an english version of the Hezbollah charter. Actually I would just like to see it and be able to cite it on the page.. I am sure it's pretty ugly. Additionally, I don't know all the details, but I'm sure you can find people who would argue about what went on in those 6 years and whether or not Israel left Lebanon amicably. It is difficult to believe you want a fair and honest view if you don't even acknowledge or try to address any possible issues regarding this.--Paraphelion 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This conflict is not being debated. The article in Wikipedia is being debated. Really different. I don't think that you bring a NPOV either by the way. --Deenoe 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deenoe, I agree that debating is important. But it is hard for us to debate, if you keep deleting people's comments. Deleting our comments indicate that there is a truth you want to suppress since you are unwilling to discuss it. --68.1.182.215 06:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I never deleted someone's comment upon purpose, because I believe in free speech. I checked all my history in this talk page and I don't see when and where I erased comments. Sorry if by accident I did. I find it very offending that you jump to conclusions like that. Erasing comments would be plain censorship and I don't play this game. --Deenoe 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, this is not a forum on the conflict only the reporting of it. Israel, Lebanon and Palestine all have there good and bad people/point's. And the U.S.A attacked Iraq, so what does that make the U.S.A a terrorist country?. Enlil Ninlil 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is the use of violence and force for a political, religious, and economic agenda. Islamic fundamentalists preach hate and desire the destruction of Israel and the United States. Our entry into Iraq can be looked upon at multiple levels. Even though WMDS were not found, thousands of terrorists that seek to continue more attacks against the US have been killed. Furthermore, it is widely known that Saddam Hussein funded the terror organizations that seek Israel's destruction. The USA did not enter the country with an intent to destroy Iraq and murder its citizens, but fundamentalists seek to kill Americans and much of Western society. The USA does not seek to kill innocent Iraqis, as a matter of fact, we have trials for those who abuse prisoners. Iraq and every fundamentalists seek the deaths of civilians. That is terrorism.

Also, reporting shouldn't be debated. Reporting is telling exactly what happened without twisting statements because of a bias or belief. The fact is that Hezbollah attacked Israel. That is what happened. Don't change it and say well, Israel escalated its operations and displaced many Lebanese citizens. That's wrong. That's being biased against Israel. Something honest and fair would be: Hezbollah attacked Israel and initiated this conflict which resulted in the displacement of Lebanese citizens. This is accurate reporting because if Hezbollah had not attacked Israel, these citizens and Israeli citizens would not have been displaced. Please be accurate and logical! --68.1.182.215 06:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not trying to kill Civilians either, I know because I'm part of the organization. They're trying to force israel to release the thousands upon thousands of Arab Civilian prisoners inside the State of Zionisim.

This is all, of course, very WP:POV and WP:OR, to point out the obvious. What WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS sources report is exactly what Wikipedia should be stating, not some internal notion of 'truth'. Nysin 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to list the number of rockets fired into Israel? Please read the casualties and notice that tons of Israelis have killed and injured. Thousands more have been displaced. The question is, why did Hezbollah attack Israel first? Israel left Lebanon in the year 2000. And nearly a million Arab-Israeli citizens live in Israel and many are happy there. They have more freedom and rights than any other country in the Middle East. Just so you know, a survey in the year 2000 indicated that Arab-Israelis would much rather be a minority in the State of Israel rather than be a majority in a future Palestinian state. What does that tell you? Arab-Israelis love Israel and the freedoms offered there. Israel holds trials and imprisons those seek its destruction. Perhaps if Hezbollah recognized Israel and sought peace, perhaps there could have been negotiations. And Israel is not Zionism because there are plenty of Chrisitians and Muslims who live happily in Israel. --68.1.182.215 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, it tells me what WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS sources say it tells me. Nysin 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of this part is very POV and not really on the article, more on the conflict itself... I wonder why... And a note to every one not all news reports are authentic. Even the free speech ones in the U.S. So I don't think that any citations from news organizations without credibility should be cited. Just a little note. --Znitrx 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz as a source

i think this news source is not reiable.

Why? It's often cited in major world newspapers and is considered Israel's best daily. Editorially, it leans leftwards. nadav nadav 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please explain why it's unreliable. FightCancer 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Me three. I think it's especially useful to have it as a source, since it's both an Israeli newspaper and critical (editorially speaking, not in slanted news articles) of Israel's actions and policies. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO all news articles are slanted. That's why I want the original poster to state why Haaretz "is not reliable." FightCancer 16:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow you listed the reasons and continue to ask... Either side will boast about their military wins and forget their losses. Simple enough.--Znitrx 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

my crucial timeline paragraph unjustly deleted

my paragraph was deleted by Sanguinalis under the pretext that it was 'commentary' - 'this is a timeline, a summary of events, not a place for commentary' he said. I was trying to neutralise the implicit POV the timeline endorses by listing hizbollah's actions first with no mention of the events that took place very close beforehand, which, one side would argue, constituted the first provocation. so please add my paragraph back in, make it snappier if you think it reads too much like 'commentary' (I stressed chomsky so nobody would delete it on spec as unreferenced weasel-words). the fact is that only the majority opinion of americans and israelis (and as such wikipedians) is being represented - making it a popular piece of POV, but POV nonetheless - in the most crucial part of the article; the part which concerns the root cause. here is what I added to the timeline at the beginning:

---

Debate as to which party made the initial provocation

Political commentators largely agree Hezbollah started the conflict but a minority of experts disagree. Noam Chomsky contends that this "latest phase" of Arab-Israeli conflict began with an Israeli abduction of civilians in Gaza:[16]

It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately.

Chomsky's opinion is that the subsequent Hezbollah raid was instigated in reaction to Israel's actions and in 'solidarity' with militants in Gaza.

---

so let's improve this para and reinsert it please. --86.143.171.239 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

«[It is] correct that hundreds of rockets have been fired, and naturally that has to be stopped. But [what is not mentioned is] that the rockets were fired after the heavy Israeli attacks against Lebanon, which killed -- well, latest reports, maybe 60 or so people and destroyed a lot of infrastructure. As always, things have precedents, and you have to decide which was the inciting event. In my view, the inciting event in the present case, events, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions; plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine; the abduction on June 24 of the two Gaza civilians; and then the reaction to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. And there's a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction.» --Chomsky 15 July 2006

I admire Chomsky tremendously, but he is not a journalist, and he is in fact acting in the role of commentator here. If this material is allowed in the article, then some right-winger is going to put an "expert" of their own who will say the whole thing is caused by Hezbollah's supposed "pledge to destroy Israel" and the edit wars will never end. Also, there is a separate article on the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and yet another (2006 Middle East conflict) that deals with Gaza and Lebanon together. The June 24 IDF raid would be appropriate for either of those articles (if it's not there already). This article is strictly about Lebanon, and if we bring in events in Gaza into the timeline of this article, then some pro-Israel editors will wonder (with some justification) why we are not also mentioning the Qassem rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. We have to start somewhere, and honestly I think Hezbollah knew its July 12 raid was going to start a new front in the fighing. Sanguinalis 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel like "unprovoked" (which I removed) is too broad a word. Israel does many things that Hezbollah doesn't like, and any of them could be claimed as "provocation". I think it would be better to say something like "following an X month period of calm on the Israeli-Lebanese border, blah blah blah". Where X is the correct value, of course. That might also be more informative.

Page quality, NPOV, etc

This page as it stands right now is nothing but a mixture of POV from all sides, rather than a collection of facts presented in a NPOV, it is really a collection of POV presente

I predicted this, and its spiraling. For example, rather than putting information on miliary operations in the page for that purpose, editors continue to put it here, making people who dont agree for POV reasons to then add more stuff which they think supports their POV, then others respond, then someone reverts, etc. Provocative edits serve no purpose but to hide the facts of the conflict from emerging, and only serve to push a POV or the other.

Lastly, a section dedicated to "Hezbollah's Rocket Campaing" but no section for "Israel's Air Bombing Campaing" is a flagrant violation of NPOV balance.

Not only does the page currently deserve a NPOV (not POV check, NPOV) tag, but it also must be rewritten, data moved to the several subpages available, and its quality and NPOV presentation restored.

I have no time today, but will in the next days focus on this, and call on other editors to think about this and to help make this page a good one. I know it can be done as it has reached that level on the past.

Lastly, please use the subpages whenever possible, thats why they are there!!! Think before editing if what you are going to put in belongs here or on the subpages. With the existence of subpages, this page is not about ALL information, but only about a general background and introduction, plus a running tally of casualties and major events not covered by the subpages.

--Cerejota 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Isreali admins

There are several pictures from several sources that I have added today for this article, but everytime they have been removed. Even when I gave clear source and licensing they would sometimes even be completely deleted within minutes. One was even a private picture of Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah. Anyway, what do I see there? There is an Israeli picture with (AP/Yahoo) source, and that is even allowed, wtf? Example: Image:Idftroops.jpg. Not only have there not been many Israeli anons editting like crazy since day one, but even some admins try to help these people any way they can. ArmanJan 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your frustration. What evidence is there that these edits are being made by pro-Israeli posters or pro-Israeli admins? FightCancer 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of "Hizbollah's Rocket Campaign" ghastly lacking

Or at least, compared to the coverage of what's going on in Lebanon it is. The section on "attacks on civilian targets" goes into extensive detail about exactly what the IAF has caused in Lebanon, cites various tragic incidents, includes photos and even goes as far as to cite analysts who are implying that the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the death of civilians is actually Israel's goal in this campaign. Meanwhile, nothing on the barrage of almost a thousand exploding things that has displaced one sixth of the population of Israel, or that one man who had a Katyusha hit him directly in Nahariyya and barely anything was left of him, or any detailed explanation of the Israeli position except for some bland paragraph by an unnamed Israeli officer, or anything about the people who have been spending a week and a half living miserably inside shelters, or any picture, or anything at all, come to think of it, except a vague acknowledgement that these missiles might - just might - have been deliberately targeting civilians (gasp!). One could almost think that "Katyusha" is just a codename for particularly bad weather. --AceMyth

Clarification on NPOV

Perhaps some editors are not clear what NPOV means, and why it exists. Perhaps they havent had time to visit WP:NPOV, or perhaps they think they do know. Drawing upon the edits of the last day or so I can say a lot of editors seem to have no idea. So please visit WP:NPOV to have an understanding. This rule is non-negotiable and stands as it is written now. So it is not your views on what is NPOV that count, but the objective comparisons with the policy.

As such, to any reasonable person the article as it stands is not NPOV. The policy itself does provide a guide on how this can be achieved:

"Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."

That is, get out of the soapbox. Wikipedia is not a sopabox.--Cerejota 11:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

History of US aid to Israel

I have spent a lot of time and effort detailing the history of US aid to Israel. Some users write, "I'm not sure why this detailed analysis of US aid is relevant; the vetoes and bombs are included elsewhere". The post I made explained why this section is relevant--because the US is bankrolling Israel. Let's take a hypothetical example. If there were a Wiki article on a war between 2 competing drug lords in some Central American nation, I think it would be particularly relevant to mention if one of the cartels were bankrolled by the Colombian government. Same logic applies to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, IMO. If you disagree, please say why. FightCancer 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, the section wasn't very detailed at all - That topic is huge and could have its own article. You may wish to look into that if you're so interested in that subject. Moreover, the section did not establish the connection between US aid and the current conflict in Lebanon which clearly arose due to much larger socio-political issues. US aid does not have an overt role in the conflict and any connection you attempt to make to prove such a role is simply origional research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR.--Strothra 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note, however, that I did reintegrate the inclusion of the Jul 22 article regarding precision-guided weapons being expedited to Israel. I placed it under the International response section where it was better suited. --Strothra 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether the section was detailed is your opinion and should not be the basis for inclusion of information in this highly controversial article. In your opinion, is it relevant to consider communist Soviet support for Cuba in the 1960's? What about Chinese support for North Korea today? What about Syrian support for Hezbollah now? Why is the historical US support for Israel not worthy for the section "Historical Background" in this Wiki article? FightCancer 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not my opinion, it's fact. The topic is huge and there's a great deal of scholarly historical research regarding it and deserves more than simply a few quotations regarding it. What's more important is that you are interrupting Wikipedia to make a point. See WP:POINT. Your examples are completely irrelevant. If you choose to make the point that the US is "bankrolling" Israel then it would be better off in the Israel article than here. There is no direct connection between US funding of Israel and this conflict that would make for reasoning to include a section concerning the entire history of US funding to Israel. You are expanding the article beyond its topic and conducting origional research to make the dubious connection. --Strothra 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is your opinion--and your pretense of objectivity is impossible. Let me ask you, why does the first paragraph of the "Israeli-Lebanon conflict" subsection deal exclusively with Palestine? Why is Palestine included in this article? Where's your outrage for that context? IMO, context IS important. Palestinian history and the US historical bankrolling of Israel are both relevant to the "Historical background" of the "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". No? FightCancer 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you attempting to deny that's there's a long and intricate history behind US aid to Israel? It's not as simple as a timeline. That paragraph deals with Palestine in the context that it is establishing for the foundation Hezbollah - apparently you don't understand that history very well or you would see why it is neccesary to bring up Palestine. That is more reason for concern that you may be attempting to pursue a political agenda and not editing your article due to interest in the conflict itself. If you are attempting to establish and economic link between Israel and the United States then put it in the Israel article. Once again, including such a section would be expanding the article into political and economic realms not concerning the conflict in Lebanon. It is origional research and a disruption of Wikipedia. I agree with your other edits, just not this one. --Strothra 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. I'm merely posting a summary from the US Congressional Research Service which is not "original research" as you keep claiming. Please see WP:NOR which states "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources…." Are you contending that the US Congressional Research Service and CATO Institute are not reliable sources? If you're going to argue that the paragraph dealing with Palestine establishing the Palestinian foundation of Hezbollah, then it's only fair to mention that massive economic, political, and military support established the current state of Israel. FightCancer 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah, no - I used to work for CRS. You misunderstood what I was contending as OR. Your attempt to directly connect the Lebanon conflict with US funding in a way which would substantiate an entire article section was OR. You didn't even make the attempt in the section to establish relevance for including and entire history of US aid to Israel. --Strothra 17:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

False. I attempted to explain how massive US funding influences Israeli policy by quoting the US Congressional Research Service and CATO Institute. Why you keep censoring them is a mystery. FightCancer 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the difference being that we don't also include who is funding Lebanon etc., because if it is at all relevant, the relevance is to the greater Arab-Israeli conflict. Hezbollah's funding is relevant because that funding is for arms which directly contradicts an SC resolution calling for its disarmament, as well as numerous states considering it a terrorist entity. This information is not included, so there is no question that the US funding is hardly relevant to the Israel-Lebanon hostilities. Tewfik^Talk 17:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point, I didn't even realize that. --Strothra 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please see the section titled "Position of Lebanon" which discusses "the support [Lebanon] gets from Syria and Iran". Furthermore, the US is justifying its support for Israel based on the argument that other nations are supporting anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah. FightCancer 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cease edit warring now. You are in violation of concensus and WP:POINT. --Strothra 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop censoring the article, and please read WP:POINT. It has nothing to do with this topic. FightCancer 17:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am citing [[WP:POINT] because you are disrupting Wikipedia with your ceaseless reverts eventhough you have no other editors who even remotely agree with you on this point. You are working against concensus to make a point. --Strothra 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

False. I have not made a single revert. If you would read WP:POINT you would see this excerpt: "If somebody suggests that Wikipedia should become a majority-rule democratic community... do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once." FightCancer 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. This article is discussing the ongoing conflict between a guerilla faction within Lebanon and the State of Israel. Hezbollah’s supporters are awarded an amazing one line in the article, which you cited, whereas you’ve repeatedly attempted to introduce a whole section for an already well documented support of Israel by the United States. In fact, Wikipedia already has an article that said relationship, which is now linked at the bottom in see also. Regardless of your opinion on the United States’ support for Israel, unless you’re planning to make a similar section on Hezbollah’s backers it is a clear breach of NPOV and therefore should be removed on those grounds. --Comrade438 23 July, 2006

What's "wrong"? If "this article is discussing the ongoing conflict between a guerilla faction within Lebanon and the State of Israel", then why is there a paragraph about Palestinians? How can I make a "similar section on Hezbollah’s backers" when there's no available evidence to support the claim? Even if there were evidence, could it possibly compare to the mountain of support rendered to Israel over the last 40 years? FightCancer 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Iranian-copies of advance Chinese anti-ship missiles are so easy to manufacture locally in Lebanon. Please, Hezbollah it self has admitted it’s a proxy for the Iranian state, even going so far as to mold its’ organization in the image of their benefactor, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini. --Comrade438 23 July, 2006

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Effects on oil price

It seems this crisis/war is driving up the price of oil. According to Radio NZ at least.

¿Why? Neither Israel or Lebanon have oil to speak of.Cameron Nedland 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's OR, but I'd imagine that it'd be affecting oil prices because: 1) International uncertainty tends to do it, and 2) Oil companies in the region are probably nervous about their tankers being messed with by Israeli or Hezbollah forces? UOSSReiska 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for oil prices being driven up is not from Lebanon and Israel having any substantial oil reserves, but rather from investors being nervous about another war the USA could be dragged into, bringing the economy and consumer confidence down with it. If the Middle East destabilizes, the world's primary source of oil is then in jeopardy. If it is cut OFF, we're back in 1979, with oil past $120 per barrel (adjusted to 2006 dollars and inflation), long line-ups, queuing, even rationing. The main underlying fears are that Syria, Iraq, the USA, and Iran are pulled into this, making it an international and regional affair. Most people agree that this may very well happen, if Hezbollah does not stand down. Of course, destroying Beirut's port and airport so people can't flee isn't exactly logical if Israel "is not at war with Lebanon, its people, or its army". Now, there are already concerns that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad may target oil tankers, either to further destabilize the region in copycat attacks, or to divert attention from Lebanon, in more coordinated attacks. For this reason, i wonder... who would send an oil tanker(s) through a war-zone? and since this conflict began, i saw oil rise from 0.92 Canadian Dollars per litre (2.87 US Per gallon), to roughly 1.08 Canadian Dollars per Litre (3.09 US per gallon).

If you thought the constant suicide bombings from 2000 to 2003 were horrible, this may be preparing us for "World War Three", as Newt Gingrich told NBC News this evening (Courtesy: WDIV Detroit). In a way, he's right. We have a war on several fronts: The Phillippines, Indonesia (The Bali bombings), Afghanistan (War on Terrorism), Iraq, a potential crisis with Iran over nuclear fuel (and now, about funding and aiding Hezbollah, and Syria, for threatening Israel with "severe punishments and retaliations" should they continue their assaults on Lebanon, or even attempt a direct invasion of Syrian Territory. These six fronts can easily merge into one large war, "involving The West, and The Islamic world" (Gingrich, NBC News), as they are not only long-lasting in duration, btu they are relatively close togehter, related in causes for disputes, and even with many of the same "players" in each dispute.

Times like this make me wonder where people like Lester B. Pearson are when we need them... Depending on how things go, it could be a repeat of the 1975 war that lasted 15 years, the 1982 crisis that threatened to bring Syria and Israel to direct confrontation, or possibly even 1939, the spark that set off World War Two.

While i feel that Israel has every right and duty as a sovereign nation to defend itself agianst any agressors or threats, i feel it has crossed the line from self-defense to aggression by the indescriminate killing of Hezbollah terrorists and civilians trying to flee the renewed chaos. Israel needs to show restraint if it wishes to maintain the respect and credibility to the world that it needs. Greece has already condemned Israel's actions of unrequired strength and shows-of-force in the christian neighbourhoods of Beirut, and much of the world is disgusted from Israel's actions, as well as Hezbollah's. The kidnapping of two troops in Northern Israel IS justification to bomb known Hezbollah hideouts, but not to attack civilians. I do not pick sides in this, and i am trying to remain as neutral as possible.

However, i welcome opposing viewpoints and opinions. Let me hear from you on this. (Sources: WDIV, CBC Newsworld, NBC News, BBC News.) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the effect on oil prices should go in the 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict article (which by the way I think should be renamed), which has space for this sort of thing. Sanguinalis 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

First shots

According to a leading intellectual: "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately." [17] Anybody else see any sources for this version? The source is impeccable, but Im sure people here would want to see "official" "proof." -Ste|vertigo 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly would want "proof" in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The archive will reflect that this statement was presented in the name of Noam Chomsky. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What more proof could there be? It's published on a reliable web page. Here's more proof: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidnapped_by_israel.php FightCancer 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it belong in the article about 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict? Tamuz ^(Talk) 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, yes. FightCancer 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Israeli casualties

There were no Israeli wounded? I find that hard to believe. -71.156.37.218 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reality is that there is NO NEWS AT ALL from Israel that doesn't have to go through 100% Israeli Defense Forces censorship. My understanding that Israel has declared martial law and nobody can release any info at all on Israel. Why Israel is different from every other country on the globe is that there are ZERO international relief or humanitarian agencies in the country, including The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and The International Committee of The Red Cross. So ANY 'news' out of Israel has to be accepted for what it is, an IDF press release, for what that is worth.

Government censors tell the media to omit facts that could be used by the enemy. This is not remarkable. Everything else you write is wrong. nadav 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Israelis injured. Where have the hundreds of Israeli injured civilians gone? They were mentioned in the table not many hours ago. --Joffeloff 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They were miraculously healed. Just kidding.. there's discussion about it elsewhere here. Some people don't want to show any injury statistics at all, some only want to show one side, some want to show both. I've replied last in the discussion and will add back the Israeli injury stat later today if no one else has done so.--Paraphelion 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously both are relevant, I don't know exactly what the stat stands at so I can't re-add it myself, but you should go ahead and do it. --Cyde↔Weys 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, please do not re-add it. See discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has already put it back, and I see no reason not to based on my last response in the discussion above, which no one has yet responded to.--Paraphelion 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The solution is to find better sources, not just omit it from one side only. --Cyde↔Weys 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to remove the injured of one side, remove the other aswell. Anything else would be unbalanced. --Joffeloff 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as was said also in the discussion above, the best is to remove the number of injured on both sides in the infobox, and keep them in the casualties section. --213.65.178.172 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth these figures are always going to be iffy because it's in the interests of each side to inflate the numbers as a justification for their continuing fighting. I have no doubt that Israel is using a very loose definition of "injured" (probably everyone who ends up going to the hospital), but their death count is probably at least accurate. On the Lebanese side I bet the death count is probably inflated, as they don't have the right kind of media infrastructure in place to keep those kinds of numbers honest. Of course, all of this is just my own personal opinion, so it shouldn't go into the article unless we can find a verifiable source. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are different issues here. Some people are saying injuries are not part of the "most important information". If you want to argue that, fine. Others doubt the numbers; however, we have used some of them as sources for fatalities or their numbers of fatalities agree with other articles we are citing for fatalities. If we are going take fatality figures, I do not understand why we won't take injury figured from same or similar sources.--Paraphelion 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above: ..."injured" means different things for the different sides. "Killed" can mean only one thing.--213.65.178.172 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to be consistent, please include the name of the newpaper for each entry on casualities. As it is, there is no reference to Ynetnews in the article itself. Further, can we find a better source for this reported data (500 Israelis injured). I find the wording in the Ynetnews article quite ambiguous; all it says is that 500 people were treated at the hospital during the given time frame. First, we want to make sure that only people whose injuries were caused by the fights are counted; and secondly, we need to know what criteria are being used to defined "injured". The last remark is general and is relevant to the entire section on casualties. PJ 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The real number of Casualties?. According to [18] and [19] the real number of Israeli casualties is more than what is officially announced. How should we correct the casualties table?--Sa.vakilian 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties. Please look at the table at the above of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The soldier Casualties is declared 17 by israel but the nomber of is casualties is more in independent media like al jazeere. Is there any agreement that we only write official number of casualties. The independent American or Arab media aren't trustworthy. As you know the government tries to cover the real number of casualties.--Sa.vakilian 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any agreement that we only write official number of casualties. The independent American or Arab media aren't trustworthy[20]. As you know the government tries to cover the real number of casualties.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

All numbers must be cited from WP:Reliable sources. Tewfik^Talk 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about casualties
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about casualties
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about casualties
  • Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc. / Hezbollah casualties / Lebanese casualties

Displaced Israelis

(my comment was removed probably by mistake)

Why is there no estimate of the number of displaced Israelis? I'm from Haifa, and for almost a week now I've left my city and the northen region and moved to central Israel. So have a lot of other Israelis (tens of thousands? maybe more) that live in northen israel. Eranb 06:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There was something there that said 10,000 displaced Israelis, however there was no source but I did try to find one. If you can find one post it. If you post it here I will be happy to read it and edit the infobox. Actually I did find one source, Debka - [21], but I think people had some issue with this as a source. I don't know much about it. I found a vague source and put that up there. It's not exact but I think it's worth noting something rather than nothing.--Paraphelion 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From a random article, 220,000 in shelters. Sorry, I don't have the source, it was on google news. ObsidianOrder 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz quotes an estimate local officials estimates of 30% - 50% of the northerners[22]. I'm not sure what the term "northeners" covers (north of the Akko - Amihood road? maybe also south of that line, like Haifa and Tiberias?). The official number of "people under rocket/missile threat" that the media here states is 1.5 milion. I don't think that 300K people have left, but the number may certainly be over 100K. I'll try to find more sources. Eranb 06:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The estimate of displaced people in Lebanon is from UN/UNICEF, and they probably haven't made any estumates of how many people is getting away from Haifa. I don't think this is because of some big conspiracy, but because the situation in Lebanon is likely to be "a bit" more serious. --Battra 18:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Other

Civilian vs Military casualities

Honestly, there is no way to say if there are X civilians casualities and based on media reports. We have to admit that either Hezbollah either Israël's special forces may be fighting with civilian clothers, and most probably does. One part of the psychologic part of the ware is to play down your losses and to "improve" your civilian losses. Of course, no doubt for a 11 years old girl: she is a civilian. But what about a man blasted with his truck: civilian, or bringing supply for Hezbollah's fighters, or trying to spot target for Israël. Only a invastigation could make it for sure, and due to war time this is not always possible and media people are not crime scene invastigator and led by local people. So even such account has to be very cautious and should have a warning. Specially in such a war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.13.150.106 (talk • contribs).

Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed

If this logic was applied to a rapist who raped both children and adults, and if one source cited 10 children raped, and then later another source cited 20 unspecified raped, you savages would omit any mention that 10 children were raped. But I suppose it's useless trying to argue this point with people who don't understand what's wrong with this and have consistently made edits only in Israel's favor, barring complete vandalism.--Paraphelion 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Report of Attack on Canadians Unconfirmed"

We should add this. Not sure what section though... [23] Hello32020 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Added it to the International Reactions page. --Deenoe 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

possible solution to the "civilians" edit war

This israeli source talks about "370, mainly civilians": http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279504,00.html. You could add "mainly civilians" up there since also, it can't be seriously said that the "500,000 displaced" can be something else other than mainly civilians anyway. --fs 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Captured soldiers weren't on Israel territory?

According to the French wikipedia, the soldiers were arrested in Aita al Chaab. Where is Aita al Chaab located? Why is NOBODY apparently answering this very important question? Again, UNLESS wikipedia is an Israeli front, this vital information should at least be MENTIONED in any discussion of this event.

http://66.218.71.231/language/translation/translatedPage2.php?lp=fr_en&urltext=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCrise_isra%25C3%25A9lo-libanaise_de_2006 http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers

The second paragraph states that a claim has been made that the soldiers were on Lebanon's side when they were captured, and cites one source. Does anyone know of any other source where this claim is written? I've never heard it before, and if such a thing has only one source, I don't think it should be put on the article's opening. Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten it to be more NPOV, but I think it should stay. Asia Times meets WP:RS and well, however unlikely, the claim is sourced correctly. It belongs to the intro because the into is explaining that. Dunno, maybe move it into "Initial..." section?--Cerejota 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite :-). I agree that the claim should remain in the article, but since it has only one source and this source doesn't even say exactly who made the claim (except that they were on the Hezbollah's side), I believe it should only be briefly mentioned in the detailed description of the events, i.e. under Hezbollah raid. Tamuz ^(Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember It has been argued on Iranian television and some other Arab media. I think it should be included for this reason. --Paradoxic 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the cynicism, but of course they're gonna say that. I notice that it took them a week to think that up. It sounds more like an attempt at retroactively excusing Hezbollah's behavior than actually discovering the truth. If that really was the truth from the get-go, why did it take until now to start making that claim? Sounds like it was just made up. --Cyde↔Weys 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, its about Verifiability. But of course you know this.--Cerejota 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I do, hence why I'm just speculating on the talk page and not actually inserting my POV into the article. --Cyde↔Weys 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read newsweek's report on the conflict - Newsweek claims (pp. 27) that the abducted soldiers were at a military post in Shebaa Farms, which explains the controversy - Hezbollah considers Shebaa Farms to be part of Lebanon. Thus, we as an encyclopedia can safely say that the soldiers were taken from within israeli territory. -Preposterous 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually acording to the United Nation's the Shebaa Farms are in Syrian territory UN Document S/2000/460 and as Syrian has the right to ceed territory to Lebanon which it seems it has at this point, so then Hizbollah was only attacking enemy forces, this is onlt if the attack took place there. Anyway when are they all going to grow up ge. Enlil Ninlil 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Syria has not ceded the territory. -Preposterous

This important claim seems to have disappeared. It appeared in a Bahrain News Agency report [24] and in an IANS item reported on New Kerala [25]. The claim is that at least two of the Israeli soldiers were in Lebanese territory when they were captured. These articles mention "Aitaa al-Chaab" which I'm guessing might be the same place as "Aaita ech Chaab" which I understand to be in Lebanon (see [26]). In these reports the claim is attributed to the Lebanese police and not Hezbollah. It is possible that some fighting took place on the Israeli side of the border after the abduction. David O'C 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to add some text to the "Beginning of conflict" section to say that early reports stated that Israeli soldiers were captured while in Lebanese territory, with references to http://in.news.yahoo.com/060712/43/65tzi.html, which seems to be the original IANS news wire story. I think that this doubt about the start of the conflict is important: if the soldiers were captured where they shouldn't have been it really changes the meaning of the entire conflict. David O'C 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that posession of this territory is a grey area--Manc ill kid 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily - if all sources agree that the attack took place in the Sheba Farms, then it is - as a fact - Israeli territory, though Israel's right for that territory may be questionable. In that case, we should state that the soldiers were captured on Israeli territory, but that the Hezbollah consider this area as Lebanese territory. I see that the claim has been completely removed from the article by now, but I think we should probably state the the Hezbollah consider that area as Lebanon's (If we can source that claim). Tamuz ^(Talk) 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont belive Lebanese, Syrian or Israeli claim's to the territory, the report from the United nations establishes that the territory was somewhat disputed by Lebanon and Syria between 1946-1967, even though Lebanon didn't bother much with the area, only after 1967 did Israel claim the area as its own. From what I have read above at the U.N which is about as neutral as I have found. Is that the report from 200 establishes the Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory which Syria might have ceeded to Lebanon, but that is hear say. And it should be stated that the soldiers were captured on Syrian occupied territory if it's true! Enlil Ninlil 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was wrong , the report states that the Lebanese-Syrian border committee that concluded in 1964 that the farms area is Lebanese and not Syrian, If you dont belive me then read the report la. Thankyou kind people Enlil Ninlil 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've searched the UN's website and found that in resolutions 425-426 of 1978 the security council demanded that Israel withdraw all its forces from Lebanese territory, but without specifically mentioning how far south does "Lebanese territory" go. However, in later resolutions of years 2000-2005, the council states that Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon was complete and in accordance with resolutions 425-426. This statement was made in several resolutions, including - among others - the following:

1. Resolution 1583 of 2005 (Can be found here).
2. Resolution 1310 of 2000 [27].
3. Resolution 1614 of 2005 [28].

(You need Adobe Reader to view all these)

So, as the UN is probably much more NPOV and reliable than Israel, Syria or Lebanon, I believe we should write that the Sheba Farms are officially Israeli, but that the Hezbollah believes that they belong to Lebanon. Tamuz ^(Talk) 12:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Found the specific part concerning the Sheba Farms. In Secretary General Report S/2000/460, paragraphs 14-19, the dispute about this area is mentioned. The argument is a bit hard to follow... but it is written there that this area is already under the jurisdiction of the UN force that was in charge of the Israel-Syria border - in other words, the UN recognizes this area belonged to Syria before being captured by Israel, which means that Israel is not obliged to retrieve it to Lebanon. Tamuz ^(Talk) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's only partially true: Israel is not obliged to retrieve (or return) it to Lebanon, but they are obliged to return it to Syria along with the rest of the Golan Heights. Retention of territories captured in war is inadmissable. Once returned to Syria, it's up to Syria and Lebanon to work it out. Of course it gets messy because Hezbollah believes that the Sheba'a Farms are Lebanese territory, although Hezbollah itself is supported by Syria. The one thing of which we can be certain, however, is that Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights, including the Sheba'a Farms --Jobrahms 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is irrelevant, as the soldiers were capture/abducted/kidnapped from an area nowhere near the Shebaa (note the correct spelling) Farms. They were definitely on the Israeli side of the internationally recognised border between Israel and Lebanon. Also to claim that "the retention of territories captured in war is inadmissable" is simply not true. Wars eventually end with a peace treaty between the two sides. Both sides may decide as part of the peace treaty to exchange territory. There is no obligation to return to the pre-war status quo. What *is* inadmissable is to initiate a war for the sole purpose of gaining territory, but that is a different argument :-) . Cymruisrael 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really certain as how obliged they (or should I say "we" - I'm Israeli) are to return it to Syria, but I don't really have sufficient knowledge on the subject... But this is irrelevant. The soldiers were on a territory that was de-facto held by Israel, whether rightfully theirs or not. And, Cymruisrael, can you please link to the source saying exactly where they were kidnapped from? Thanks! Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I 2nd that as there seems to be confusion as to where the soldiers were captured, I have never read of the specific area of capture. Cymruisrael is right I belive as in the report I posted the U.N states that Israel and Lebanon agreed on a border before 1967 and exchanged territory, but I dont know if Syria and Israel have? Enlil Ninlil 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The only possible dispute is the Shebaa Farms area (which the UN certified as not being Lebanese, but Hizballah, and now the Lebanese gov't claim), but that is regarding the 2000 event. This "abduction" took place on a part of the border not disputed even by Hizballah, though in the last week they apparently made some claim about the soldiers being across the border. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)