Talk:Lebanon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Open War"

I know that we agreed that '"open war" against Lebanon' and '"open war" against Hezbollah' are out of the question on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict section, but I am wondering why when someone wrote in '"open war" between Hezbollah and Israel" this change was reverted. Why was it erased? Okay... so he/she should have discussed it (ergo why I'm now doing this). But that statement is correct, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I m dude2002 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I reverted it as it seemed to have the same neutrality issues that the original statements had. However, I'm entirely open for discussing the matter if people would like. — George Saliba ^[talk] 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement under discussion doesn't involve a declaration of war against Hezbollah or Lebanon by Israel, merely a statement that Hezbollah and Israel were engaged in "open war." I think that is a fact that no one can dispute. I m dude2002 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence. If we changed it to "The operation quickly developed into a widespread 'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel, as Israel's air force continued to bombard large areas in Lebanon, resulting in the near-total destruction of Lebanon's main infrastructure, the displacement of over a million Lebanese civilians, and placing over three million civilians under siege.", the statement effectively states that the civilian infrastructure targets were attacks against Hezbolllah, and it makes no mention of the attacks on Israel by Hezbollah. So it has neutrality problems from a couple different angles. It might work if it was broken into separate statements or something though. — George Saliba ^[talk] 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised that you of all people should dispute the current wording. Take a look the Archive 6 if you need a reminder. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at archive six, as you advised, and in light of this I regret having ever accepted the current terminology. What I wrote there was "The bottom line: in order to justify the claim that Israel declared open war against Lebanon, one must find a reliable source which states that Israel produced a declaration of war against Lebanon." In fact, if you consider all of the sources listed in that archive, they do indicate a mutual declaration of war between Hezbollah and Israel. The only declaration of war explicitely quoted is from Nasralla., but these are nevertheless numerous credible sources who didn't share the problems of that particular CNN article originally used. Merely leaving the statement "open war" begs the question "open war between whom?" Moreover, the following statement implies open war between Israel and Lebanon, which remains to be proven. "open war between Hezbollah and Israel" clarifies that statement in a way that correlates with the source. What about the following wording:

"The operation quickly developed into a widespread 'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel. During this conflict, the Israeli Air Force (AIF) bombarded large areas in Lebanon, resulting in the near-total destruction of Lebanon's main infrastructure, the displacement of over a million Lebanese civilians, and placing over three million civilians under siege."

If you so desire (and I think this would be a good idea), you can even add "while Hezbollah fired a continuing flurry of rockets at civilian population centers in northern Israel." I m dude2002 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't looked at these articles in a while. Initially I thought that "open war between Hezbollah and Israel" would be fine, but based on the CNN article it would seem that this isn't at all what is cited. The CNN piece frames Israel's pseudo-declaration of war as being aimed at Lebanon rather than Hezbollah. I'd prefer remaining with the neutrally vague current statement than various other alternatives to this statement though (unless someone comes up with a less vague version that is equally neutral and accurate). — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The CNN article has, to me, lost its credibility, since it accidentally inverts the word "direct" with the word "indirect." (See discussion in Archive 6) It is the only source of which I am aware that says Israel declared war on Lebanon, and yet I don't trust it to have distinguished between war on Lebanon and war in Lebanon. The other six sources in the discussion show that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel.

I think the problem with the current wording is precisely that it is vague. Someone reading it may think that Israel was at war with Lebanon. In fact, this is entirely incorrect. The parties to the conflict were Hezbollah and Israel, but not the Lebanese government. 68.97.31.184 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think this is intentional, letting the reader reach their own conclusions. For instance, from what I've read, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the statement "Israel was at war with Lebanon." Billions of dollars of destruction to civilian infrastructure, including the international airport and the power station, along with significant civilian and Lebanese military death tolls, and the stated blame placed on the Lebanese government makes this an entirely reasonable conclusion to some. This blame, by the way, wasn't specific to this CNN article, as it was the official Israeli government stance – as filed with the UN, they viewed the Hezbollah kidnapping as a declaration of war by the entire nation of Lebanon.[1] — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe President Bush said that Iran committed acts of war in Iraq by attacking US soldiers. That doesn't mean the US is at war with Iran. Likewise, Lebanon did not declare war on Israel, but merely engaged in "a belligerent act ... violating all UN and Security Council decisions." Israel may have bombed dual-purpose targets (or even civilian targets), but there were no battles between the Israeli military and the Lebanese military. It is true, of course, that Israel bombed some Lebanese military outposts. I have no idea why... but that was not part of the war. I m dude2002 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think if the United States had "fired back" in a significant manner, hitting targets in Iran, then a case could definately be made than the US would be at war with Iran. Also, while I'm also not sure why the Lebanese military was bombed, I don't believe that they were accidents, or confused with Hezbollah militants. From what I've read, they seem to have been quite specifically targetted for being members of the Lebanese army. I'm not sure how we can conclude that this wasn't a part of the war, given that it occured at the same time. — George Saliba ^[talk] 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The goal of an encyclopedia should not be to let "the reader reach their own conclusions" in matters of fact. I think that a statement which calls upon the reader to deduce the parties to a conflict is not specific enough. That having been said, it is tragic--and, to me, unacceptable--that practically all of Lebanon was collatoral damage. But that doesn't change the fact that the Lebanese military did not participate in the fighting (at least not under that capacity). So the war was between Israel and Hezbollah. If it is your argument that the above ynet article proves war between Lebanon and Israel existed (which I think is a fairly reasonable argument, though not necessarily true), then the article ought to read that Lebanon declared war on Israel. Of course, that is far from true. I m dude2002 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that who was and wasn't "party to the conflict" is a matter of some debate. On the one hand, Israel's primary goal was likely to recover their soldiers and eradicate Hezbollah militants or leadership, and Hezbollah's primary goal was probably to prevent Israel from doing so, while firing rockets at various targets inside Israel. On the other hand, however, various Israeli politicians stated that they held the Lebanese government responsible, there was significant damage to the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, and most of those killed were Lebanese civilians (arguably). Also, the Lebanese military servicemen who were killed, regardless of if they fought back (or even had the means to), were specifically targetted for being members of the Lebanese army, not because they were thought to be members of Hezbollah. Please note, I'm not specifically disagreeing with you, I'm just outlining how the matter can be reasonably disputed on both sides. I prefer the vague wording specifically because the topic is so disputable that I don't think the issue can be completely resolved at present (consider reviewing the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict's 36-page Talk archive for what I mean). — George Saliba ^[talk] 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article specifically lists Hezbollah and other Shiite paramilitary organizations as combatants in the conflict, but does not list the Lebanese government. I think the reason for that is because neither the Lebanese government nor the Israeli government (a) declared war one against the other, (b) authorized the deliberate use of military force against the other, (c) authorized the bombardment of civilian or military infrastructure in the other's borders intended as acts of war against the other, or (d) engaged in large-scale open battles against the military of the other nation. As far as I can recall, both Olmert and Senora made it clear that the Lebanese military was to stay out of the conflict. Even if there had been such instances, the delineation between war in Lebanon and war on Lebanon was critical during Summer War. The difference between those two was a key point in Israel's justification of the conflict, and so I think that distinguishing between them is crucial to understanding this chapter in Lebanon's history. After all, it wouldn't make much sense that the deployment of the Lebanese army in Southern Lebanon would be a critical part of the ceasefire agreement if that army was at war with Israel. Wouldn't you say that that is true?

It is indeed clear that the Israeli government held the Lebanese government responsible for the attacks of Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah has adopted as its goal the destruction of the state of Israel. But holding a nation responsible does not constitute a declaration of war. There was a declared, established, clearly defined war between Hezbollah and Israel. What occurred between Israel and Lebanon was at worst a collection of Isolated scuffles, low-profile targetings and a hot exchange of accusations and biting words. Was there war between Hezbollah and Israel? Absolutely. Was there war between Lebanon and Israel? I think it possible to argue that there was something that could be classified as war (and I would disagree), but it is certainly not as well-established as the fact that there was a war between Hezbollah and Israel. So why is there an objection to writing "'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel"? Do you not agree that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel? I m dude2002 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to go through these point by point.

• At one point the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict did in fact list Lebanon as a combatant, but I agree with it being removed. However, combatant and "party to a conflict" are two very different things. I guess one could make the argument that killing people who don't fight back is more of a slaughter or massacre, but good lucky getting any wording that POV into an article. ;)
  • I am happy to see that you can approach this conflict so humerously. I, unfortunately, have to view it realistically. There were Lebanese combatants (i.e. Hezbollah). So to say that Israel killed people who didn't fight back is a slight exaduration, especially considering that it is widely agreed that Hezbollah launched the war. But the Lebanese government was not in a state of war.

Ack. So many bullets. Ok, let's see. For this point, the "people who don't fight back" I was referring to were the Lebanese military, and only them – not Hezbollah. Sorry, thought this was obvious. Also, please don't confuse my personal lightheartedness with any sort of humor regarding the issue at hand. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• While there was no formal declaration of war by either side (in fact, many nations no longer make declarations of war), we do have quotes such as:

  [Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman] called a press conference, in which he declared that “Today, war was declared on Israel from the northern border,” a declaration of war by Lebanon on the State of Israel, he explained.

  • Why do you think that he is referring to Lebanon and not Hezbollah? After all, Hezbollah acted from Israel's northern border and declared "open war" against Israel. Don't you think it's OR to say that he meant Lebanon declared war on Israel? Even if there were sources saying that, they can't read his mind. They can't extrapolate what he meant.

I think such since it was reported as such. Remember, we can only repeat what reliable sources say. If they had said Hezbollah, I would have said Hezbollah. How they came to their conclusion is entirely their problem. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bit misleading to say that the Israeli government didn't "authorized the deliberate use of military force" against the Lebanese military forces, as saying so means that the attacks on Lebanese military targets were mistakes – something which I believe the facts show is blatantly false. At best, the Israel army showed great restraint in it's attacks on Lebanese military targets. That's very different that attacking someone on accident, however.
  • I think Israel's behavior was unforgivable in its attack against non-Hezbollah military and civilian posts within Lebanon. But, understand, they were not bombed in their capacity as Lebanese military outposts, but rather in their capacity as dual-use facilities for Hezbollah. Of course, it would help if the Lebanese government broke down the figure of 1,200 killed to show how many of them were military and how many civilian. But, by Israeli and UN estimates, it appears at least half of those were members of paramilitary organizations, not the government.

If you have some references that state they were bombed because they were being used as dual-use facilities for Hezbollah, that's fine. I've just never heard that before. Also, which Israeli and UN estimates are you referring to? The last number I heard from the Israeli military was 530-532 identified (of 600 estimated), and the last I checked the UN didn't release any official estimates. Regardless, I don't know that 50% militant kill ratios say anything about whether or not they were "authorized" to hit Lebanese military targets or not. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Let's not fool ourselves. If Israel had declared war on Lebanon, the Lebanese army would have been pulverized or would have surrendered within a matter of days (at most).

Again, it's not out place to make the determination that because Israel didn't pulverize the Lebanese army, and showed great restraint, then they were not at war. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• • You don't refute the argument that the deployment of the Lebanese military was a crucial requirement of the ceasefire. Does it make sense to you that a condition for Israel's agreement to withdraw from Lebanon would be the deployment of the army they were just fighting accross the border? It doesn't make sense to me. Israel seems to like the idea of a buffer zone where enemy armies can't enter (like the area outside the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula). Just another factor that leads me to think Israel did not fight the summer war against Lebanon.

I don't refute the point because I believe that the deployment was indeed a crucial requirement of the ceasefire. However, making the conclusion that this means that Israel wasn't at war with Lebanon is a bit of a stretch. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Declaring that the bombing of civilian (or military) infrastructure inside Lebanon wasn't intended as an "act of war" against Lebanon is purely original research. If you have some reliable sources that state such, that's one thing, but we can't just assume that this is true without evidence. In addition, it's a fairly difficult argument to make, given the preponderance of evidence on the other side.
  • The Australian Broadcasting Corporation states: "Israel did not declare war on Lebanon."
  • The Idaho Observer states: "Israel has not declared war on Lebanon and is not claiming conflicts with the government of Lebanon are being used to justify bombing population centers throughout Lebanon."
  • The Beak states: "Israel never declared war against Lebanon, only against Hezbollah."
  • News Vine expresses the opinion that Israel should have declared war on Lebanon, rather than just focusing on targets of value to Hezbollah (I don't share this view, but still, the fact that they are calling on Israel to declare war on Lebanon five days before the ceasefire should show there was not a war against Lebanon for the first 29 days of the conflict).

I have found some reliable sources that "state such." This is not OR.

Please note, I was looking for sources that stated that the bombings were not "acts of war". I don't at all dispute that Israel never formally declared war on Lebanon. This, however, has been established as unnecessary to refer to wars as "war", as some nations choose not to declare war (See: Vietnam war). — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I again believe you're wrong to state that there was a "declared, established, clearly defined war between Hezbollah and Israel", as, from my understanding, Israel made no official declaration of war whatsoever. Also, please read the article on declaration of war, noting that Hezbollah is not a "national government".
• It is my understanding that Israel did declare war on Hezbollah. However, if Israel made no declaration of war, then let's look to Hezbollah's: (a) The article quotes "open war" from Nasrallah's speech, and (b) Hezbollah might as well be a sovereign government; they control Southern Lebanon.

From my understanding, Israel never made a "declaration of war" period. Various politicians stated that they considered the kidnapping an "act of war" by Hezbollah or Lebanon, or both, and that they blamed Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions, but a "declaration of war" is very specific thing under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, which I don't think ever took place here (voted on and passed by the Knesset, notifying the United Nations and neutral states, etc.). Also, the quote by Nasrallah states something like "If they want open war, we'll give them open war" or somesuch (my paraphrasing), which I don't personally read as a "declaration of war". Furthermore, the status of Hezbollah as a sovereign government has been discussed on these Talk page (see the archives), and while some hold the same opinion, Hezbollah itself doesn't claim to be a sovereign government (to the best of my knowledge), and no other nations recognize them as such, so the point is moot. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have certainly not seen evidence of a declaration of war by Israel. Let's follow your logic: why do we say there was open war if you say there wasn't a war?

Also, allow me to refer you to the quotation by Danny Gillerman that you brought up.

Finally, this calls into question how we define a sovereign state. Was the Confederacy a sovereign state? It was the argument of the North that it wasn't. If so, the American Civil War wasn't really a civil war, but a civil conflict, according to your definition. The Vietnam War would not have been a war. And so on and so forth. What's required for "open war" is the authorization to engage in massive operations against enemy forces for the purpose of targetting them as hostile forces. In the case of the Summer War, this applies to the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, but not to any conflict whatsoever between Lebanon and Israel.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I wrote. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of the point I was trying to make. Was this a war? Absolutely. Why was it a war, from the standpoint of Wikipedia? Because it was called a war, not because there was any outright declaration. The same holds true for my example, the Vietnam war - no declaration, but still a war. However, the "parties" to this war are what is in dispute here, not whether or not this was a war. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, this is a key point here. Yes, of course there was warfare between Hezbollah and Israel. However, it's a logical fallacy to state that because there was warfare between Hezbollah and Israel, there could not also have been warfare between Lebanon and Israel (or war on Lebanon). When you state "Was there war between Lebanon and Israel? I think it possible to argue that there was something that could be classified as war," that's the whole point – because this issue is so debatable, we've favored the neutrally vague wording approach rather than trying to explicitly state what any one of us believes to be "truth". This is also why we don't use the phrase "'open war' between Lebanon and Israel", or "'open war' on Lebanon" - everyone has their own opinion, and we favor the most neutral approach possible by just listing it as "open war". If a reader is curious, they should go read the main article surrounding the conflict. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you disagree with the statement that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel? Do you think this is a contented statement?

I do not disagree with the statement. However, such a statement can be interpretted to mean that because there was "open war" between Hezbollah and Israel, then there was not war between Lebanon and Israel, which is a contentious, POV statement. Please see half-truth – "the statement may be true but only part of the whole truth". I favor a neutral vague argument over a more specific, less neutral wording any day. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The most neutral way of writing is to write nothing whatsoever. But that is also vague. Do you prefer that? Nothing whatsoever tells the whole truth. But it is absolutely true to say that there was open war between Hezbollah and Israel.

Obviously not. We report what we can readily verify from reliable sources. We can readily verify that there was a war, and the article states such. We can readily verify that Israeli and Lebanese civilians and military were hit, and that most of the fighting was between Hezbollah and the IDF. However, I believe that explicitly stating that this was a war "between Hezbollah and Israel" is misleading, and possibly a half-truth, and as such it's worth leaving those four words out. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the following facts:

1. There were hardly any--none that I am aware of--instances in which the Lebanese military targetted an Israeli citizen in its capacity as the Lebanese military (although I'm certain many Lebanese soldiers are also members of Hezbollah).
2. The instances in which Israel targetted the Lebanese military, or any outpost of the Lebanese government were few (relative to the total number of bombings).
3. Many of these bombings were accidental, caused either by faulty intelligence or by human error in bombing.
4. In many cases, these targetted rocket launch sites that only happened to be located near centers of the Lebanese government.
5. Many of these places--at least according to Israeli perception, which is critical to this question--served a dual purpose for Hezbollah use.
6. The Lebanese government at no point declared that a state of open armed conflict existed between itself and the state of Israel. Nasrallah certainly maintained through words and actions such a conflict.
7. As far as is publically known, no high-ranking Israeli official ordered any attacks against Lebanese governmental buildings, with the exception of Nasrallah's office (clearly a dual-purpose facility at best). On the other hand, Olmert and his cabinet personally authorized the commencement of armed conflict against Hezbollah.
8. Out of the 1,000-1,200 Lebanese dead, about 600 were Hezbollah fighters (by all estimates except Hezbollah's), whereas (at least as it appeared to me) less than 50 were Lebanese soldiers.

Clearly, there was a serious armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. The case for a serious armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon is much more difficult to make. That is why I don't think it's a half-truth to say that there was "open war" between Hezbollah and Israel, whereas there was no "open war" between Lebanon and Israel.

Ok, let's go through these "facts". I've numbered them so we can more readily discuss them, point by point.

1. I agree with this.
2. I agree with this.
3. I have seen no proof whatsoever that indicates this. If you have proof of such, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I consider this to be your opinion.
4. Again, if you have proof of this I'd be interested to see it. I've seen claims that at least some civilian targets hit were intended to take out rocket launchers, but I've seen no such claims around either Lebanese military targets or civilian infrastructure targets that were hit.
5. Again, if you have a source to quote regarding "Israeli perception" I'd like to read it. However, without a source we're still just talking about opinions.
6. I'm not aware of the Lebanese government making any such declaration either, and Nasrallah did indeed indicate that he was at war with Israel (and likely feels that he has been for years). However, we also have Israeli government sources quoted as saying they interpretted Hezbollah's attack as an act of war by the nation of Lebanon, which I haven't seen recanted.
7. I'm not exactly sure what the point of this is. If no high-ranking Israeli officially is known to have publicly ordered attacks against Lebanese military or civilian infrastructure targets, then all such attacks must therefore have been either accidents or rogue agents in the Israeli army? Do you have some Israeli government meeting minutes from a Cabinet meeting that state that their war was authorized "against Hezbollah"? From PM Olmert:

   "I said from day one, and all the way through, that the purpose was not to destroy Hizbullah. The purpose was not to destroy every launcher. The ambition was not to catch every Hizbullah fighter. The purpose was to impose a new order on Lebanon that would remove to a large degree... the threat to the state of Israel that was built up over the last 6 or 7 years to an intolerable degree."

   I don't know about you, but imposing a "new order on Lebanon" sounds to me like, at the very least, it's possible that they had more in mind than just targetting Hezbollah.
8. I tend to agree that the Hezbollah death toll is greater than the Lebanese military death toll, though the civilian death toll was also quite large. I'm not sure the relevance though.

Bottomline: I agree that there was armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, but I don't agree that the case for armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon is "much more difficult to make." That's why I favor the neutral vague wording, rather than adding four words which, while possibly being more accurate, run the serious risk of being POV or half-truths. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am short on time right now, so I can't give sources to prove all of my claims at this very moment. But here is evidence that neither the Lebanese military nor the Israeli military fired one against the other during the Summer War: The Middle East Times stated today: "Israeli and Lebanese soldiers traded fire for the first time in decades." I m dude2002 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "trading fire" would not include, for instance, Israeli forces firing upon and/or bombing the Lebanese military, when Lebanese military forces did not fire back. First time they've "traded fire" in decades? Maybe. First time either one has shot at the other in decades? Definately not. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As an update, to try to incorporate your concerns in a neutral manner, I've changed the wording of this sentence to the following:

Fighting quickly escalated into open war, as the Israeli Air Force (IAF) bombed areas throughout Lebanon, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) fired artillery across Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah rained hundreds of rockets a day onto Northern Israel.

Let me know if that covers your concerns with the wording of this sentence. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem, as it does not specify between whom the fighting is occuring, and furthermore takes away the source. In my opinion, not specifying the parties to a conflict is a half truth. For example, it is correct to say "The United Kingdom fought in Falkland wars." However, that omits the fact that the UK fought Argentina during this war. It's certainly more neutral. After all... one can argue that since Galtieri was a dictator, it was his own personal war, and not the war of the Argentinian people. It would be more neutral to say that the UK fought during the Falklands War than to say it fought against Argentina, is that not so? But if that "vague argument" that you prefer "over a more specific, less neutral wording any day" is the only information Wikipedia provides on the subject, then it's of little use.

Back to the numbered points:

1. Agreed. :-)
2. Agreed. :-)
3. This point applies to 2, 3 and 4: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states: "Israel only targeted facilities which directly served the terrorist organizations in their attacks against Israel." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Dayaa compound (which Israel gives as an example of this targetting) was a Lebanese military outpost. Furthermore, it states: "Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon, but rather, Hizbullah military assets within Lebanon. Israel avoided striking at Lebanese military installations, unless these were used to assist the Hizbullah, as were a number of radar facilities which Israel destroyed after they helped the terrorists fire a shore-to-ship missile at an Israeli ship."
4. Addressed.
5. Addressed.
6. Today, the Vatican declared China's ordination of three Bishops without its consent an act of war. Bush called Iranian actions within Iraq which target US soldiers acts of war. Unless you accept that China and the Holy See are at war, and so are the US and Iran, this point is moot. Moreover, Lebanon does not consider Hezbollah's actions an act of war on its own behalf, and Israel does not consider any action it pursued in Lebanon as an act of war against the Lebanese government (as far as I have seen).
7. I disagree with your interpretation of the quotation. I think it means an order without Hezbollah in Lebanon. To answer your question regarding whether I have evidence the Israeli war was not against Lebanon, see the quotation provided in #2.
8. This is relevant because a war is something larger than a scuffle. If 600 Hezbollah fighters died in the conflict and less than 50 Lebanese soldiers died, it is much easier to assert it as a war between Hezbollah and Israel than one between the Lebanese army and Israel. I m dude2002 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that makes the same assertion as this reference? I don't dispute that some parts of the Israeli government and military are probably of the opinion that their strikes were completely justified, aimed at Hezbollah and only Hezbollah, and any innocent civilians on the ground who were hit were all Hezbollah's fault. However, it would really be better to find a neutral, reliable source that makes a similar claim, rather than just accepting the published claims of one side or the other. And to the best of my knowledge, you are wrong about the Dayaa compound. Dayaa is a suburb of Beirut, and the compound (from what I've been able to gather) wasn't used by the Lebanese military at all. Also, please note that the section you're quoting from is from a FAQ question regarding the civilian infrastructue hit – not the Lebanese military. Furthermore, remember that actions speak louder than words. I'm not sure that what happened on the ground agrees with the point of view expressed on this site.

Regarding point #6, as soon as the Vatican starts dropping bombs on China, I will absolutely consider them at war. Same goes for the United States and Iran. Before that, the issue would be entirely debatable.

Regarding point #7, again, I don't disagree per se with your assessment. I do think, however, think that by playing the role of Devil's advocate, I've shown that issue is debatable, and thus the vaguer, more neutral wording is preferable.

Regarding point #8, remember, I'm not disagreeing with calling this a war. I'm only disagreeing with the explicit declaration of sides to the war, or intentions. The exclusion of Lebanon may leave something lacking, since non-Hezbollah Lebanese military personel and cilivans suffered signficantly, and the inclusion of Lebanon may go too far, since they did not fire back at Israel (or Hezbollah for that matter). I'm also not saying that we should call it a "war between the Lebanese army and Israel", as that's even more inaccurate than "between Hezbollah and Israel". I also don't believe it should be called "war on Lebanon", as that has the same issues, even though it comes from the opposite point of view.

Remember this isn't the "only information Wikipedia provides on the subject". We have a whole article dedicated to the event. Also, this isn't an extensive summary of the event. Since this is the Lebanon article, it's a summary of the event in regards to how it relates to Lebanon. If this was the Israel article, it would be entirely accurate to summarize the event differently, focusing on its impact on Israel. Do you have any suggestions for a neutral statement that you think would better convey the event? — George Saliba ^[talk] 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would first like to say that I agree with you that, at least in this case, the more neutral wording is absolutely necessary. That is why I think we need to replace the wording that the article now uses--one which implies that Lebanon was a party to the conflict--with a more neutral version which clearly defines the combatants. In other words, we need to say that the conflict escalated into open war between Hezbollah and Israel.

1&2. Still agreed.

3,4&5. You wanted evidence as to the mindset of the Israeli government, which would show that the intention of the war was to attack Hezbollah, not to attack Lebanon. I do not understand why you would ask me for minutes of the Israeli cabinet meeting saying this is not a war against Hezbollah, and then say that a source from the Israeli government is unreliable. We agree that the Lebanese government did not consider this a war against Israel, and information from and Israeli governmental website says that "Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon." So both sides agree they weren't at war.

6. In that event, we can agree that when nation A says that nation B committed an "act of war" against it, that does not necessarily constitute war (unless, of course, nation B agrees). Which means that any statements by the Israeli government saying Lebanon declared war against them cannot be used to make the case for war unless Lebanon in fact concurs and says it did declare war.

7. I respect your logical abilities tremendously, and I hold you in high regard for them. But I don't think that they issue of whether Israel and the Lebanese government were at war can be subjectively evaluated. Is it debatable? Certainly. The color of the sky is debatable. But there is still one right answer: Israel and Lebanon were not at war during 2006.

8. While I do agree that only information pertinent to Lebanese history should appear in this section, it is clearly relevant to Lebanese history whether it was Lebanon who fought this war or Hezbollah.

I have every intention of continuing this quest for rhetorical neutrality in the "2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict" article as soon as I get it sorted out in the "Lebanon" article. So much work... such little time. I m dude2002 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more sources:

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (different page) stated on August 12: "Israel stated that the campaign is directed not against Lebanon, but rather against Hizbullah, and that Lebanon is not a party to the dispute. It also stated that, with the end of hostilities, Lebanon must impose its sovereignty over its territory and deploy its army in the south."

Israel's Prime Minister's Office stated on July 25: "Prime Minister Olmert emphasized that Israel has no interest in harming the Lebanese population and added that Israel's war is against the Hizbullah terrorist organization and not against either the Lebanese Government or the Lebanese people."

Olmert himself stated on July 31: "We do not pursue innocent civilians, we do not fight against the Lebanese people and we do not seek to topple their government."

I understand that there is great anger within Lebanon, and I am certain that the perception that Israel was trying to kill civilians and members of the Lebanese military is prevalent. But this was not a war against Lebanon, as I hope the above statements by the Israeli government, and the previous statement, should help clarify. I m dude2002 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm glad that you can see the possibility of debate on the subject, but I disagree that it is as straightforward as the sky being blue. In fact, I think most sources (be they news sources, historians, politicians, or just random, everyday people) would disagree with your assertion that "Israel and Lebanon were not at war during 2006." You may want to consider filing an RfC.

I'm also very curious why you think that "the wording that the article now uses... implies that Lebanon was a party to the conflict". My edits were intended to leave this decidedly vague, neither implying that Lebanon was a party to the conflict, nor denying that it wasn't. Again, however, I'm curious if you have some wording variations in mind that you believe is more accurate but equally neutral that we could discuss. — George Saliba ^[talk] 09:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We can agree do disagree, but we also have to agree on a wording. I will file an RfC... but I've never filed one before, so please tell me if I'm doing it right. The reason I think the current wording of the article is not as neutral is it could be is because it implies that Lebanon could be a combatant in the conflict. I think that since neither Israel nor Lebanon considered themselves at war with one another, the wording should specify who was fighting in the war. I m dude2002 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did it right to me. I've editted the list of my previous statements on your RfC, but you should feel free to add more of your own as well (to balance it out). Just two last points I'd like to make: First, you're assuming that a neutrally vague wording implies that "the governments of Israel and Lebanon were at war". This wasn't the intent. The intent is specifically to leave open the question of whether "Israel and Lebanon" were at war – not specifically Israel and the Lebanese government. The original debate on the wording (that resulted in this version) was whether to call this a "war between Hezbollah and Israel", or "war on Lebanon" (again, note that this wasn't a reference to the Lebanese government at all). This vague wording was chosen as a compromise between these two versions, not the third version that I think you believe it implies (a version that you believe implies the Lebanese government, which neither of these two did). Second, I'm still hoping you can suggest some possible wordings. Even if we disagree on this point, it's possible that you could come up with a suggestion which we could both agree was neutral enough to change to, but you need to make specific suggestions of what you'd like to change the text to, otherwise we'll be stuck discussing the issue ad nauseum. — George Saliba ^[talk] 20:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War"

This is a dispute over whether or not Hezbollah and Israel should be explicitely mentioned as combatants in the Summer War, or not specify combatants at all. 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• I think the neutrally vague wording is intentional, letting the reader reach their own conclusions. For instance, from what I've read, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the statement "Israel was at war with Lebanon." Billions of dollars of destruction to civilian infrastructure, including the international airport and the power station, along with significant civilian and Lebanese military death tolls, and the stated blame placed on the Lebanese government makes this an entirely reasonable conclusion to some. — George Saliba ^[talk] 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think the biggest problem is that who was and wasn't "party to the conflict" is a matter of some debate... Various Israeli politicians stated that they held the Lebanese government responsible, there was significant damage to the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, and most of those killed were Lebanese civilians (arguably). I prefer the vague wording specifically because the topic is so disputable that I don't think the issue can be completely resolved at present. — George Saliba ^[talk] 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• We can readily verify that there was a war, and the article states such. We can readily verify that Israeli and Lebanese civilians and military were hit, and that most of the fighting was between Hezbollah and the IDF. However, I believe that explicitly stating that this was a war "between Hezbollah and Israel" is misleading, and possibly a half-truth, and as such it's worth leaving those four words out. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that there was armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, but I don't agree that the case for armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon is "much more difficult to make." That's why I favor the neutral vague wording, rather than adding four words which, while possibly being more accurate, run the serious risk of being POV or half-truths. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• The goal of an encyclopedia should not be to let "the reader reach their own conclusions" in matters of fact. That having been said, it is tragic--and, to me, unacceptable--that practically all of Lebanon was collatoral damage. But that doesn't change the fact that the Lebanese military did not participate in the fighting. I m dude2002 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• It is indeed clear that the Israeli government held the Lebanese government responsible for the attacks of Hezbollah. But holding a nation responsible does not constitute a declaration of war. I m dude2002 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• The more neutral wording is absolutely necessary. That is why I think we need to replace the wording that implies that Lebanon was a party to the conflict with a more neutral version which clearly defines the combatants.
• We agree that the Lebanese government did not consider this a war against Israel, and information from an Israeli governmental website says that "Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon." So both sides agree they weren't at war. ... I think that since neither Israel nor Lebanon considered themselves at war with one another, the wording should specify who was fighting in the war.I m dude2002 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Here is a case where it is SO obvious that Lebanon was not directly involved in the war that I normally wouldn't be in favor of specifying Hezbollah and Israel as the combatants. I would have thought that it would go without say that the war was between Hezbollah and Israel. But this discussion shows me that the general public reading Wikipedia may need to be educated as to the fact that Israel did not fight against Lebanon, nor did Lebanon fight against Israel. LimerickLimerickson 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I went back and read over the comments in the previous discussion box thingamajigger. I think i m dude2002 makes an excellent point with his quotations. Allow me to quote some of his and add some of my own:

"Prime Minister Olmert emphasized that Israel has no interest in harming the Lebanese population and added that Israel's war is against the Hizbullah terrorist organization and not against either the Lebanese Government or the Lebanese people." From the ISRAELI Prime Minister's office

"You wanted an open war. You will get an open war." Nasrallah (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=24495)

Bear with me here... it's a lot harder to find quotes that say that people didn't do something than that say they did. I mean... for example... I couldn't find many sources that say Lebanon didn't declare war on Russia. In this case, the best thing I found was from the Israel Insider. Hope it's good enough.

"After all, the Lebanese government did not 'declare war on Israel' as Olmert pronounced in his first reaction to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers." (http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9654.htm)

So what do we conclude from those:

(a) Israel declared war on Hezbollah.

(b) Hezbollah declared war on Israel.

(c) Israel did not declare war on Lebanon.

(d) Lebanon did not declare war on Israel.

Conclusion: the neutral thing to say would be that there was war between Hezbollah and Israel. LimerickLimerickson 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought maybe we could discuss an example, in the hopes that we can come up with a neutral wording. All names are made up, and any similarities they have to actual names, names of terrorist organizations, or names of countries is purely coincidental.

Harry stabbed Ian. Ian pulled out a gun, and shot Harry, and Harry's brother, Larry.

The intention with the current wording of the article was to follow a very similar pattern to that above, which I consider to be neutral and accurate. Larry didn't fight back, and Larry didn't start the fight, though he obviously suffered the effects. Ian claimed that he shot Larry on accident, but some people claimed that they heard him threaten Larry, blaming him for not taking the knife away from his brother Harry.

So I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time: Does anyone have a wording that they can suggest as being both neutral and accurate that we can discuss? — George Saliba ^[talk] 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for wording: "Fighting quickly escalated into 'open war' between Hezbollah and Israel [source], during which the Israeli Air Force (IAF) bombed areas throughout Lebanon, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) fired artillery across Southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah rained hundreds of rockets a day onto Northern Israel."

I don't think your analogy of Ian, Harry and Larry captures the complexity of the war. But if Harry's organization attacked Ianistan from Larristan, and Ianstan's government responded by targeting locations within Larristan which it considered to be of importance for Harry's organization, I don't think that constitutes war between Ianistan and Larristan. I do think it constitutes "open war" between Harry's organization and Ianistan, especially if Harry says something to the effect of "you wanted open war and now you can have," and the Ianistani government responded by saying they are at war with Harry's organization and not with Larristan, even if they say it's Larristan's fault for letting Harry's organization operate from within its borders. Wouldn't you agree? LimerickLimerickson 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The parts I would disagree with (or look to clarify at the least) would be whether or not there were targets hit in Larristan, by Ianistan, that Ianistan didn't think were of importance to Harry's organization (for instance, power stations, airports, etc.).

However, that aside, I'm ok with your suggested wording (in hte context of the newly worded sentence), and I'll update the article accordingly. — George Saliba ^[talk] 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)