Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.88.223.98 (talk) at 16:24, 30 July 2006 (→Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Todo priority

Archive

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11

This page has been given 2 subpages for discussion. Please use these subpages to discuss Pictures, POV, or certain edit debates. If the topic you wish discuss isn't either of these, please place it under the headings provided here. Thank you. If you are looking for discussion on those two issues you posted here, look in the subpages. This page is constantly being re-organised.

Discussion on Pictures
Discussion on POV problems

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions


Latest Developments

IDF website I would suggest to go from 'conflict' to 'war'. Even the IDF websites calls it a war by now.

....IDF hopes that the fighting in Lebanon against the Hezbollah terror organization will be finished quickly but at the same time is prepared, in logistics and morale, for as long a period of time as the task requires. "We are doing everything possibly to shorten the operation while still reaching the objectives we have set for ourselves," said the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dan Halutz. IDF enjoys widespread support among the Israeli public, which backs the war, feeling that there is no other choice in the matter. The Israeli home front is showing its strength and much fortitude, and there is a sensation that the public is prepared, if necessary, for the long haul. http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55050.EN --Attraho 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War (Israeli official statement)

Amir Peretz mentioned a state of war [1]. Many agencies mention war. Why not change now to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War or 2006 Lebanon War (like 1982 Lebanon War)

--TheFEARgod 16:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ If this was a war, why not this--TheFEARgod 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most Western media sources are uncomfortable with going all out and proclaiming the conflict as a war, instead going with a more gentler "conflict" or, in CNN's case, a "Middle East on the Brink" title. Should we stay with these media outlets that are well respected or go with war because Peretz mentioned a state of war? This is truly a predicament. No, that was not sarcasm. 71.230.21.190 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli "war" usage

I removed the following:

(also known in israel as "war between borders" - "מלחמת בין המצרים" "milhemet bein mezarim" in hebrew, for the fight in the southern border in gaza against hamas and the fight in the northern border against hezbollah)

I have noticed some usage of this term though, so if we can find some reliable sources, we should somehow formulate its use. TewfikTalk 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more evidence that the article should be renamed to "war", not "conflict". And by the way, you were right to remove that obviously pro-Israeli crap from the article. What's up with people adding in such un-encyclopedic stuff, complete with improper capitalization, as if copied out of an email message? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel government didn't formally declare war on Lebanon or even 'in' Lebanon yet [4], here the official term used is "security situation" [5]. One government difficulty appears to arise from conflicts classification as a "war" and payment of compensation/monetary aid to war affected people/regions.
The term is think the original editor meant was probably "war of the straits".

"Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz announced that the current conflict between Israel and the Hizbullah would be recorded in history as Milhemet Bein Hameitzarim" [6]

Whether this announcement was in public or in private or in which history it was to be recorded is not clear from the article. Apparently this period is a 3 week period of mourning for the destroyed Temples incl. festival of Tisha B'Av. This mourning period is known in Hebrew language as "Bein hametzarim" or "The Three Weeks" , meaning "between the straits."
I believe that status as 'conflict' is fine, use of the "straits" moniker appears not to have taken off, add to this the alleged reluctance of Israeli government to confirm status of conflict means it shouldnt probably be included. Its worth noting that the conflict is also called the "re-engagement war" here [7] demonstrating that there will be fluctuations and names from pundits too which might gain wider currency than "announcements".
There is also the problem of wikipedia being used to endorse some symbolism to the conflict which until some moniker (if any) sticks to it might generate the wrong impression [8]] 82.29.227.171 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"War" Poll

On the question whether this conflict already constitutes a "war" or not, I would like to state the WP definition, to be found here. In the introduction of this article a "war" is defined as follows:
War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war. Until the end of World War II, participants usually issued formal declaration of war. Other terms for war, often used euphemistically, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action [...].
In order to get a clear view on the question of going from "conflict" to "war" we should do another poll. --Attraho 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Oppose. Israel is not at "war" with Lebanon. It's at war with Hezbollah, so renaming to "Isreal-Lebanon War" would be inappropriate. Lebanon has officially disavowed Hezbollah's actions and want a cease fire (as stated in the main article). Hezbollah is only a party within Lebanon and was formed in Iran and receives funding from Syria and Iran (also referenced in the article). I suggest leaving the title as it is and calling it a war when quoting or paraphrasing someone who already did so. mhsia 13:31, 7/27/2006 (EST)
  2. Oppose. This is part of the War on Terror. I oppose despite Emile Lahoud's statement that he "respects Nasrallah" and if Lebanon "reaches the point of no return" then the Lebanese will fight alongside of Hezbollah. He also commands the military and is a former general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchouli (talk • contribs)
  3. Oppose. We have already had a poll like this. Once again its not a war. Its certainly not a war between Israel and Lebanon and I certainly don't believe you can have a 'war' against a random group. It is, and should remain, the preserve of nation states. --Narson 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I oppose changing to war, on the basis that it will provoke the same on Wikinews :-). Seriously though, the UK goverment was never in my memory reported as having declared war on the IRA, and I wonder if declaring war on a terrorist organisation is anything more than a variation on declaring war on common nouns - a soundbite that mainstream media can serve up to the public. --Brianmc 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I don't like voting in polls but thought I'd continue to oppose the addition of war until it's commonly perceived/declared as war. I was moved to vote as the definition we have on wikipedia of war is very surprising to me. MLA 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Like MLA the term isnt current andto oppose the addition of war until it's commonly perceived/declared as war. I was moved to vote as the definition we have on wikipedia of war is very surprising to me. MLA 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Rush to have conflict reclassified to suit a POV which isnt widely held or citable. 82.29.227.171 10:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "War" (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Support. There is definately territory(that is the issue in here), both Israel and Hizbollah can surrender, and/or collapse. And since this is after WWII, no declaration is needed.
  2. Support. Territory, check. Leading person or organization on each side, both of which can surrender, check. After WWII, check. Full scale assaults - organized use of physical force and weapons - by both sides, check. Insane99 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This is a war certainly, waged by participants willing total destruction of the enemy. But change the name also....2006 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Because this is definitively a war, fought on all three spheres of warfare (land, air and sea) and the local impact is definitively that of a war, and the mounting casualties definitively show that isn't a "conflict" but a full-scale war. dott.Piergiorgio 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Meets all the criteria to be a war. Hypnosadist 14:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Invading a country with infantry and tanks supported by airpower, killing several hundred civilians and destroying their homes, is outright warfare. The Lebanese people are a party in this war, whether their government acknowledges it or not. Also, Dutch media, notably NOS, call it a war. Qwertyus 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. "conflict" seems like an understatement and does not render well the use of heavy weapons by both sides for more than 2 weeks now. could the bombing of civilian houses and facilities be justified in any other context than full-fledged warfare? besides, the Israelian Cabinet itself spoke of "act of war", held the Lebanese government responsible and threatened to go further than southern Lebanon [9] Sadly, "Israel-Lebanon war" does seem appropriate Laurent paris 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. It's a full-scale war, with both sides overtly targeting both military and civilians. Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq were considered more than just conflicts, and this war, with Israel acting and promising to bomb down Lebanon 20 years back, has at least a comparable scale. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. following our definition of war: War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons (Israeli tanks, Hezbollah's missiles) and physical force by states (Israel, Lebanon) or other large-scale groups (Hezbollah). Israel stated to drive away Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. So, this conflict involves both territory and an organization that can collapse. After World War 2 it's no longer common to 'declare war'. Mauro Bieg 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support The words "state of war" have been used by Israel. Furthermore, a war need not be between nationstates. The current war in Iraq is no longer between the US and Iraq, it's between the US and Al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia, however you spell that.Umlautbob 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Israel has invaded lebanon territory its a war, even the UN says so.Br2387 10:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments relating to the poll:

  • not an argument --TheFEARgod 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (comment relating to the 2. opposing vote, but at its original place in the middle of the poll it disrupted the numeration of the poll --Attraho 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I would just like to comment that this is not a part of the War on Terror. This is a separate war caused by separate causes to the War on Terror, primarily, though not exclusively, the kindapping of the two Israeli soldiers. Insane99 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with insane99, this is definatly part of the war on terror, the US administration thinks so certainly. Also i accept that this has a different Casus Belli than the war in Iraq, even different groups involved but this was very common in the cold war. That war covered south america and asia and the mid-east with 100's of different groups over 40 years yet they are linked into one Meta war made of many individual conflictzones.Hypnosadist 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be fine and dandy, Hypnosadist, except for that conflict between Israel and other states and factions in that region has been going on since before most of those states and factions even had names. This conflict/war whatever is the result of further escalating tensions between Israel and everything else, not the American involvement over there. Insane99 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A war need not be a conflict between nation states, see civil war. Qwertyus 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, whether or not this is a war is not at issue (see Attraho's poll intro above). The poll is regarding whether or not to change the title of the article to include the word "war" instead of "conflict". I think the argument that it is not a war between Israel and Lebanon (i.e. the country of Lebanon) still stands. This is discussed further below and a similar conclusion is reached. --mhsia 15:25, 29 July 2006 (EST)
  • to Brianmc, the RAF did not bomb Irish towns to take the IRA down either, even during the Irish "WAR" of Independence Laurent paris 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including Hezbollah in the name

I would include the name of Hezbollah in the title for four reasons: 1) They instigated the conflict 2) They are one of the primary military force currently engaged 3) This is not a war between two soverign countries as the title suggests 4) While they are part of the Lebanon government, thier military arm has seperate command and control

--user:mnw2000 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be Israel-Hizbollah_conflict, Lebanon has little to do with it. --Doom777 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Lebanon army is not a participant, though casualties are mostly Libanese. 'Libanon' in the name is false. Dreg743 06:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is acting independantly of Lebanon, so Hezbollah should be in the name instead of Lebanon. Insane99 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Technically, it is not the Israel-Lebanon conflict but the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Lebanon's troops are not involved. Israel is not targeting Lebonan but Hezbollah. Unfortunately, Hezbollah has established itself in the middle of Lebanon.

No. Use the example of the existing name in 1982 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this compromise The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006) any thoughts.Hypnosadist 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TheFEARgod. Conflict or TheFEARgod's use of War is Neutral. The examples used to cite use of the term "war" are of concern. Should Hezbollah sources which refer to fighting as "Sixth-Arab-Israeli war" make it sensible to use that? Each side aims for certain propaganda/morale advantages when using term "war". Why are editors so eager to have this article renamed to a war? I can understand the reasoning behind the arguments but what is the rush? 82.29.227.171 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is bombing Israel, so the conflict isn't only taking place in Lebanon, you'd need to include both places or use a broader term like "The Middle East" Omishark 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the Combatants

Earlier discussions

Unsourced claim about Iran

Under Casualties/Foreign nationals it says "Between six and nine Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers have been killed by Israeli forces." There is a source where this is claimed [10], but this is a very sensational piece of news, which shouldn't be hidden in this section if it was confirmed. But we must remember that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and this has not been reported by more well reputed sources. The beginning of the article doesn't really look convincing "The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources said. Israeli and Egyptian security officials confirmed the news." Would Lebanese "political sources" and "Egyptian security officials" really speak of such confidential stuff to a small American newspaper? I'm removing the sentence above. --Battra 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some usful sources on these iranian troops. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075 Hypnosadist 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Volunteers" Are Basijis

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_iran_volunteers;_ylt=Aof2REyYreEurI0s8Jc_bWJvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM- They are either currently are government payroll or have retired. Iran has 11,000,000 of them alone. They serve as cannon fodder. They all have machine gune and grenade training. The Iranian regime that sent them there with monetary incentive. The incentives aren't revealed. They may include a home upon the "volunteer"s return.

The mullahs don't dare to openly fight Israel because they are going to be annihilated.--Patchouli 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please quote the sentence which shows all of the Volunteers are Basiji. You can't deduced it by yourselves.--Sa.vakilian 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The job of Basijis includes wearing civilian clothes, marching in favor of the government, brutally beating and detaining dissenters indefinitely, spying on people, and much more. The majority of Iranians hate their regime except these guys who are on government's oil payroll. Even the Basijis know that they are being clowns but it's not like jobs are profuse with 11.2% (2004 est.) unemployment.https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html


This is implied in the article. Plus, I myself and all Iranians know this even if the word "Basiji" weren't within the article.--Patchouli 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't explicitly imply that the volunteers are all Basiji. It is only NPOV to go by what the source says. The source also doesn't quote "volunteers". --Epsilonsa 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you deduced it by yourself. The article gives information about basijis and sais some of them are basijis. It is not axiomatic at all and you aren't neutral.--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. There is nothing that says all the volunteers are Basijis. --Epsilonsa 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a citation is needed. The link to the news article clearly says that basijis were present with the volunteers. --Epsilonsa 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Earlier discussions


Israel Massing troops

Sorry if this is already on the talk page - I didn't see it.

Israel is calling up reserves and massing troops on the border. We can probably expect a ground invasion soon. Source

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions

Lebanese Casualty Figures

The Lebanese casualty figure in the infobox has a lot of problems.

What we do know from sources is :

  1. Civilians have been killed in Lebanon.
  2. Roughly 400-450 people have been killed, almost all sources point out these are mostly civilians, some say "almost all".
  3. as of 07-17 166 civilians in Lebanon were killed
  4. as of 07-20 300 civilians in Lebanon were killed
  5. other sources prior to the above source have noted an exact civilian death count

Some people like to use the fact that most sources don't specify how many "Lebanese killed" are civilians, and they remove the sources that do give some number of civilian killed, to justify omitting from the infobox that any Lebanese civilians have been killed. An example is User:Bibigon in this edit - [11], in which he does not even mention the deletion of sources in the edit summary. There is no reason we have to hide the fact that Lebanese civilians have been killed. We can show how many, according to sources, are civilians, and specify those of unknown status, either by subtracting the number, or saying something like "total 450 of unknown status".--Paraphelion 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since several editors are fond of removing sources, we can keep a list here :

Sydney Morning Herald - Israeli air strike kills 54
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israeli-air-strike-kills-51/2006/07/30/115%7C4197998127.html
"An Israeli air strike killed at least 54 Lebanese civilians, including 37 children" [1]
BBC - Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea - 07-26
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm
"More than 400 Lebanese" [2]
Chosun - Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300 - 07-20
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200607/200607200001.html -
"Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300"
"Lebanese death toll passed 300, almost all civilians."
The title is the only place this article specifies civilians, however the rest of the article does not contradict this [3]
AP / Yahoo - Israel hints at full-scale Lebanon attack - 07-20
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel
"Death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon" [4]
News 24 - 45 killed in new strikes - 07-16
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1968721,00.html
"At least 45 people were killed"
"Nineteen civilians died in an Israeli attack"
"Almost all of those killed and injured since the beginning of the Israeli assault on Wednesday were civilians." [5]
Reuters - Israel pounds Lebanon - 07-17
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-17T112055Z_01_L11538533_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml -
"Israel's campaign has killed 179 people, all but 13 of them civilians" (note 2nd page of article) [6]

317 injured[7]

We're going to approach a problem soon and it is rooted in the above statement. Hezbollah does a dual business in attacks on Israeli civilians and vigorous humanitarian aid for the displaced, bombed-at Lebanese. An interview with some Lebanese civilians who had lost their homes (and many loved ones, friends, etc.) caught my ear on NPR yesterday - the interview was of a distraught Lebanese man who voiced that before, he and his family, friends were not against Israel, nor in favor of Hezbollah but the bombing had convinced him that if/when Israel's troops showed up, he would fight. Support for Hezbollah is growing, if only because they're providing basic needs no one else can get the Lebanese because of the bombing. We all should be so lucky to sit at our computers and contemplate Hezbollah as a militant organization with only violent actions - but these humanitarian efforts are going to turn our "Civilian Deaths" infobox into a quagmire - more so than it already is, trying to see how many Hezbollah members are within the Lebanese civilian figures. Now we must consider how many Lebanese civilians aligned themselves in support of Hezbollah - with very non-civilian actions. Ranieldule 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty hard to give services to regions that your own army is scared to goto. People stating they will fight are not always doing it in favor of Hezbollah, they arent gonig to join the rank and file, they are simply fighting against Israel. Just because we have a common enemy does not mean you are my ally. Furthermore the illegal tactics of Hezbollah is what causes the situation in the infobox, any Hezbollah member without a gun at the time their corpse is picked up is a civilian, unless the coroner was lucky enough to find a Hezbollah glow in the dark membership ring on them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't purport to ascertain Hezbollah's (or Israel's) actions as legal or illegal - nor would I attach either claim to Lebanese joining Hezbollah against Israel, collaborating with Hezbollah without actual membership or fighting Israel independent of all groups but themselves. The already blurry distinctions of who's a civvie and who's a combatant are likely to get much, much more muddled. Ranieldule 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to consider very much other than what is reported.--Paraphelion 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to figure out which of the dead are of "unknown status"? Cant think of any nonPOV reporting or announcements on Lebanese civilian casualties that ive read that would allow further discrimination of who was/wasnt purely resistance/Hezbollah/non-combatant. How is that going to happen? 82.29.227.171 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think there is any other way but basic subtraction, which I used to come up with "Civilians : 300 (plus 100 or more of unknown status)". I know this isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to be able to both keep the civilian tag in the infobox for Lebanon and come up with accurate figures based on what sources there are.--Paraphelion 09:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Casualities

Please add a reference to the following statement: "Over 1,200,000 Israeli civilians were evacuated to shelters and other safe locations in fear of Hezbollah's rocket attacks. Over 1600 missiles have been fired by Hezbollah on Israel leaving over 600 buildings in damaged condition." PJ 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Amal Casualties?

I wasn't aware of these.
In fact, I didn't even realize that Amal was still an armed militia, and had been under the impression that their paramilitary capability had been effectively wiped out by Hezbollah towards the denouement of the Lebanese Civil War.
Can someone please clarify this issue.

Ruthfulbarbarity 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lebonese civilian causalties

Can someone explain whyt the lebonese civilian causualties keep changing, at one point it said 600+, then 425, then 425+, then 325. It seems a little politically motivated, the lowest figure usually goes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.57.202 (talk • contribs)

This edit I made might explain: "On 28 July Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh announced that hospitals in Lebanon had received 401 dead Lebanese people since 12 July. He also reportedly said: "On top of those victims, there are 150 to 200 bodies still under the rubble. We have not been able to pull them out because the areas they died in are still under fire". [12]
So figure is estimated beyond the 401 announced - could be higher/lower/static- but 600+ death are expected at that point but only 401 are known for sure. Also note that edit says "people"- there is dispute over if all casualties reported are civilians as opposed to civilians and some of those fighting. Also notice in the article that it says "At least 445 people, most of them civilians, have been confirmed killed in Lebanon, according to a Reuters tally." so other figures do exist. However, I believe the consensus would be to stick to official announcements of that kind unless each death can be cited and added to the total given by Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh. 82.29.227.171 07:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few editors have been deleting sources and also it's a result of people not wanting to break down the figure, for the main purpose ot denying any civilians at all have died in Lebanon. Have a look at the lebanese casualty section up above on this talk page. I have been trying to break down exactly what is known about the casualties.--Paraphelion 07:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The current number of Lebanese casualties is today stated to be 523, citing Reuters saying that todays strikes killed 40. The NYTimes areticle, Israeli Strike Is Deadliest in Fighting So Far, says "At least 54 people were killed", which would make the total number 537. Madd4Max 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about whether it is a war

Earlier discussions

Would it be more accurate to refer to Hezbollah as mafia? Or radical Islamic militants?

Doesn't the UN recognize them as a terrorist organization, I know there is a resolution from long ago telling them to disarm? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Earlier discussions

captured?

Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it says captured but the correct term is POW or prisoner of war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.195.26 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Osama bin Laden kidnaps you, would you consider yourself a POW? Remember, war had not even started yet, since there isn't even an official declaration of war (as required by the Geneva Conventions). --Terrancommander 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Geneva Conventions explicitly say they apply equally to undeclared wars. When was the last time a major world power declared war? And the war or "conflict" starts with the first act of war or "conflict" such as an attack on enemy soldiers.Edison 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a soldier, yes.--Paraphelion 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, war has not started yet, you call him a Prisoner of War? Wrong context. And, they're terrorists, not even proper participants. Does that mean Israel has a 58 year-long war lasting from 1948? Cause there's not been a single year without violence. --Terrancommander 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be on to something here. One could see this conflict as part of an ongoing civil-war between two groups of Palestine inhabitants. MX44 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you read Prisoner of War before commenting. --Terrancommander 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict has started, regardless targetting of soldiers is capturing. also note that civilians killed is not called murder anywhere in the article, other than quotes from involved parties. the article doesn't call them all terrorists. Yeah I read the entry on POV, perhaps you should re-read it. - "who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict". This is a conflict. And nice try on the 58 year old war rhetoric.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, soldiers are people too. These soldiers were just doing their job, just like if you were doing your job, and suddenly, out of nowhere, they were abducted. It's different if there's a formal declaration of war or a state of open war, but these guys were just sitting in a border camp and were taken out of the blue. --Cyde?Weys 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the word "capture" that does not suggest they are not people. Yes, out of nowhere, as if by aliens visiting earth for the first time. And just as if I were doing my job, say I don't know, making biscuits. Making biscuits is about on the same level as border patrol.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be just like making biscuits if there is no war. The point is that Hezbollah specifically stated that the aim of the operation was to take these soldiers, they weren't captured incedental to combat. TewfikTalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I diagree that soldiers on border patrol should not be significantly more expected to be the tartget of an attack, be it killing or capture, than civilians.--Paraphelion 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source that states there was a Hezbollah "operation" to capture these soldiers in Israel? Were they not captured during an Israeli operation in Lebanon? See references to Aitaa al-Chaab / Aaita ech Chaab above. David O'C 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens and Biscuits aside, it is not as though there was a peace agreement. Soldiers are soldiers, if Hezballah started the conflict by capture, right or wrong, attacking/capturing a soldier is an act of war, if it is an act of war, then it is capture, if it involved a civilian, it's an act of terrorism. Remember, even terrorist group CAN do both. Angrynight 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries declare wars, terrorist groups cannot. Hezbollah is a terrorist group and as such as was required to be disarmed some time ago by the United Nations. These soldiers were not captured as can be seen by Hezbollahs own actions in violation of the Geneva Convention. Captured soldiers have rights and cannot have their lives threatened, these soldiers were obviously abducted, but I have made this arguement before. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've made this "argument" before, and it's just as much a non sequitur then as now. When Hezbollah captured those soldiers (of a GC III signatory, no less), they undertook a responsibility to treat them accordingly. If they fail to do so, then Hezbollah can be said to have violated the GCIII -- called a "war crime". But any such violations, had they occurred, in no way change the status of the captured soldiers. At least that's how it would go if logic had a place here. Instead, we have "policies": since we are to slavishly follow the external concensus no matter how stupid or contrary to the plain, obvious facts and trivial deductions made therefrom (cf. "war" vs. "conflict" in the archives), then the words "kidnapped" and "abducted" and similar must be used in this article, as they clearly dominate in the references used by the article. mdf 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah isnt a signatory of the Geneva Convention, they do not operate under any guidelines of the Geneva Convention, they are group of people the UN calls a terrorist group. They cannot take prisoners as they are not an army, they abduct people because they are a band of terrorists. You try so hard to have it treated like Hezbollah is a military, they are a terrorist group in the eyes of the world. The country they operate in does not acknowledge them and was told by the United Nations to disarm them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that where they were taken also matters for this discussion. They were taken from inside Israel and so abducted is more appropriate. IF they had been inside of Lebanon they would have been captured. They were soldiers. But they were not engaged in any action against or in Lebanon. They were "home." If they had been seized out of their beds in downtown tel-aviv I think most readers would agree that they were abducted and not captured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I would like to suggest that perhaps the proper terminology is that the Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. Neither captured (which seems to be closer connected to prisoners of war which are generally troops who are defeated and not killed, or who surrender), nor abducted (which seems to infer a kidnapping from one's innocent bed, as mentioned above) cover what happened between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah took the soldiers with the specific purpose of holding them on the condition that their demands (the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel) were met. This is a hostage taking with demands, not a capture in war time, or an abduction of civilians. For example: the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli atheletes is considered by wiki to be a hostage taking because the hostage takers demanded a release of palestinian prisoners held in Israel.--Axgoss 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of war can be considered to be held hostage since they are used in exchanges and the like, even between "civilized" armies. Besides, this isn't Iraq, Hezbollah is unlikely to kill them. As to zerofault. You can kick, scream, and shout that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but that means nothing legally. Terrorist has become so rhetorical that calling a group terrorist definitively is POV. Even the articles about such groups will merely state who considers them terrorists. A personally favor 'captured' since kidnapping/abduction are crimes, yet they are only civilian crimes. No one is going to track down the individuals and arrest them for kidnapping. It was a raid by Hezbollah, certainly, but we do not know the purpose of the raid. We believe it was to kidnap, but we do not know. The fact is they killed seven and wounded eight. Maybe it was some other mission gone awry. Regardless Olmert called it an act of war. Kidnapping is not an act of war. Capture is. Angrynight 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captured vs abducted vs ???

It has been brought to my attention that the discussion (Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Capture vs Abduct) regarding the validity of "abducted" as a characterisation of the taking of the two Israeli soldiers, as opposed to capture, had not been resolved at the time. Does anybody feel that it would be neutral to use a term other than capture to convey the nature of the soldiers' being taken in contrast to a standard Prisoner of war case? The majority expressed being in favour of using abducted at the time (if I understood the archive correctly). TewfikTalk 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have lost track with all the page moves and archiving but the first time this came up, it was capture that held consensus. MLA 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of capture versus kidnap. You can see the discussion here. TewfikTalk 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought militaries capture soldiers. Where are these soldiers and military on the Lebanese side? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please cite a dictionary which says that "capture" has specific military overtones and that it implies legality, or can we just drop this finally? Zocky | picture popups 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't raise the issue because of any "legality" implications, but rather because the action might be described better using a different formulation, and there was not a clear consensus for either side expressed on Talk in the archive (including unanswered arguments on both sides. TewfikTalk 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are definitions:

  • Capture - To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.
  • Abduct - To carry off by force; kidnap.
  • Kidnap - To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

These soldiers were taken with the intent of forcing a prisoner swap. ie for ransom. Its obviously best to say kidnap. The people who did the kidnapping did it against the governments wishes ie. illegally. The group itself operates against UN Resolutions calling for their disarmament, further supporting illegally. Can we drops this game now, its not POV to pick the most appropriate word, they operate illegally, the act was illegal, what is the drama? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't think that they operate illegally, that's the whole point. Zocky | picture popups 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really does not matter, if a masked murder feels he is doing gods work it doesnt make his crimes not murder. There is a concensus on their legality, in the worlds view that is, its a bit higher then our community here. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And besides what they consider themselves, there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under, or which they are subject to. Which is why a war has started, and which rather than focusing on purely a retrieval effort is mainly concerned with destruction of an enemy completely independent of the so-called crime.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is adressing me, but the fact that there is no law addressing this is because Hezbollah oeprates outside all international convention regarding laws of war. Which is why the UN called for thier disarmament. Your statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" is because the soldiers are not "captured" they are hostages, they were kidnapped. Hence the definitions above. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement there is no effective system of law under which the capture of these soldiers falls under" means the act was not unlawful since no laws apply to it. So by your definition, they cannot have been kidnapped.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The groups existence is against the ruling of the United Nations. Its also illegal to enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it, its called kidnapping. I am almost 100% sure that there are laws regardering kidnapping in Israel, if I find one will this debate be over? There is also laws against illegally entering the country I am sure, and then there is murder since they did kill people while over the border. I will have to look up weapons laws, not sure if you need a permit or something of that sort to carry military grade weapons in Israel however. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah are not Israeli subjects. Israel is not prosecuting this issue through the Israeli legal system. They are not even negotiating international law with Lebanon. They are using their might as they see right. These actions are all taking place outside of law. The United Nations is not yet a world government under which all are held to its laws. At best it's a dictatorship of a few powerful countries who sit on the security council and vote on how they will impose their will on others, presumably for the betterment of the world. I'm not even sure UN rulings are described as law, but rather conventions, prohibitions, sanctions, etc. Anyone can make up rules and claim someone else is breaking them and then call them criminals, but it doesn't make it so. People routinely enter a soveriegn state and forcefully abduct people from it. For instance the US keeps many of these abductees in offshore prisons specifically meant to circumvent their own laws, say Israel has captured Hezbollah in Lebanon - they are not doing so on behalf of the UN, citing some UN law. They are doing it because they can and no one will stop them. --Paraphelion 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the drama is your call to sentiment and labelling as a game, all opposed to your rhetoric. Go back to lifting out of context passages from weapon conventions.--Paraphelion 13:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you cant be civil refrain from addressing me. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really must you keep at this game of drama.--Paraphelion 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reposted from above, since I have no idea where this discussion is taking place: Definitions mean nothing, we all use words as we see fit. Prisoners of war can be considered to be held hostage since they are used in exchanges and the like, even between "civilized" armies. Besides, this isn't Iraq, Hezbollah is unlikely to kill them. As to zerofault. You can kick, scream, and shout that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but that means nothing legally. Terrorist has become so rhetorical that calling a group terrorist definitively is POV. Even the articles about such groups will merely state who considers them terrorists. A personally favor 'captured' since kidnapping/abduction are crimes, yet they are only civilian crimes. No one is going to track down the individuals and arrest them for kidnapping. It was a raid by Hezbollah, certainly, but we do not know the purpose of the raid. We believe it was to kidnap, but we do not know. The fact is they killed seven and wounded eight. Maybe it was some other mission gone awry. Regardless Olmert called it an act of war. Kidnapping is not an act of war. Capture is. Either way, the manner in which some are intent to make Hezbollah look as bad as possible is POV, no matter how much they deserve it. Sorry, forgot to sign Angrynight 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is false, prisoners of war cannot be held for ransom unless in vioaltion of the geneva convention, furthermore the lives of such POW's cannot be threatened, also would be a violation of the geneva convention. As for your distinction of capture and kidnap, Hezbollah is made up of civilians, hence the problem with counting casualties. They do not form a regular standing army, they do not identify themselves, and if killed there is no distinction between a Hezbollah fighter and a civilian. The action was very much illegal, unless there was an open state of war between these two countries, even the breaking of a cease fire would be an illegal act, as it breaks the ceasefire. The idea of not listing this as kidnappings only servers the POV of promoting Hezbollah as a standing legal army, which they are not according to the United Nations. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no note on ransom in the Geneva conventions that I can see. If you cite one I'll take that back. Hezbollah have, in fact, and continue to wear uniforms and identify themselves as combatants. They are legally part of the Lebanese Government, making them technically a "Power" under the very conventions you name. Those fighting for Hezbollah out of uniform are subject prosecution. However, most armies engage in non-convential warfare to some degree. The armies are rarely held liable, only the individual combatants are prosecuted as violating the laws of war. Yet, the only constant here is war, in war people are captured, sorry. Unless you have evidence that the soldiers that captured the Israeli soldiers were not in uniform at the time, you have no ground to stand on. Breaking a ceasefire is not illegal. There is no court which can prosecute a country breaking a cease-fire. Where there is no law there is no crime. As for an open state of war, the cease-fire was with lebanon, not with Hezbollah, now that hezbollah has become part of lebanon, technically lebanon violated cease-fire. Countries violate ceasefire all the time. Finally the idea that initial action doesn't count as an act of war is stupid. It would be like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland was not an act of war because there was no war. Reprehensible, Godawful, terrible, pick as many adjectives as you like to describe the capture, but a capture is a capture is a capture. Finally the UN called for Hezbollah to disband, no mention was made as to whether it was "recognized" that's not what the UN does anyway. Angrynight 16:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah militants are not part of the government, you seem to be mistaking the people in office with those that fire rockets into towns in Israel, they are not one in the same. Hence why they claim ignorant of the attack and of knowing where the soldier is etc. Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically states "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Having their lives threatened if a prisoner swap is not conducted violates that. Furthermore you have not ackowledged the issue of Hezbollah being an illegal group under the eyes of the United Nations, therefore their actions are not sanctioned by their own government nor any world body, nor are they recognized as legitamate by any world body. Since they are illegal, not sanctioned, not recognized, they are an illegally operating group, and as such their actions are illegal, making it a kidnapping. You can dodge the issue ally ou want, but a band of people wearing the same arm band is not a recognized army. Also they are not a power because they are not recognized by the Labanese government, if one senator said I reconize this Nazi militia, it doesnt mean the US recognizes that nazi militia. Lebanon cannot recognize them, they were already ordered disbanded many many years ago. You have yet to prove their "recognized" status, by whom are they recognized? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh* I am going to say this one more time. The UN does not consider them a terrorist group.Not even the EU considers them one. The UN language refers to them as a "militia". It considers them to be in violation of a resolution. But entire countries ignore resolutions it doesn't make them a non-entity that can suddenly no longer conduct war. Also, again, this is not Iraq, they are not going to kill the soldier, but will certainly hold on to him as long as they can. Even if they did, it means they committed a war crime and has no bearing on their identity as a recognizable army. It doesn't matter if Lebanon recognizes them. Read the Geneva convention, it was there when the US fought the revolution and hasn't changed much in this regard. Just because the British considered them an internal insurrection it did not alter their status under the conventions. Many of Hezbollah conduct operations in full military clothing march in regalia. Just because a large proportion do not, it does not mean that they are not, at least on occassion, recognizable as combatants. Recognizibilty is battlefield trait, not a political one. Carrying arms openly is technically the bare minimum. Political recognition is unimportant in the conventions. To claim that the raids into lebanon were perpetrated by the ununiformed is unverified and unlikley since numerous films by Hezbollah documenting attacks have demonstrated that they prefer to don uniform in such raids and even suicide attacks. They are not Hamas, and incurse into Israel with a preference for military members.Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get what is and isnt an act of war? I would like to see this source of yours stating kidnapping is not an act of war but capturing is. Considering kidnapping is illegal and capturing isnt, I do not see why capturing would be an act of war and the illegal counter part not. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. In war, we can agree, people get captured. Historically and as recently as Iraq capture of prisoners is an acceptable goal for a belligerent force. Whether they wish to exploit them for intelligence or for other prisoners, it has been and continues to be done without restriction from the conventions. When you attack an outpost to capture a prisoner to exchange him for other prisoners during a cease-fire, you break a ceasefire (which has its own consequences, but is not itself a crime) If there was a peace, maybe this would be another situation. Kidnap is not mentioned in the conventions as far as I can tell (once again you can do your own research). If kidnap is not a factor in the law, then there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no crime. Ironically this is especially so because Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, which may allow your charges of kidnapping. Since the Conventions are descriptive of both conventional and non-conventional warefare, it says everything, or doesn't. Please put a space in the edit page between comments from different users to make it easier to determine when and where comments start and stop. Angrynight 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its against Israeli law to illegally enter the country and remove persons from it. Hence why its against the law to kidnap. This group did that. I dont know why you are attempting to complicate the issue with international law etc. Capturing soldiers on a battle field is legal, however these soldiers were not on the battle field, they were in their own country, on the opposite side on a UN barrier. They were illegally removed during a time of peace (technically) from their country, ie kidnapped. The definitions speak for themselves. Illegally removing people is kidnapping. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this though, those who wish to change it to kidnap seem to have no other reason to do so other than POV. I prefer to maintain good faith but I cannot see any other reason for such hard lobbying o use a phrase which has no legal basis and is generally associated with perverse criminality. Angrynight 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say you, I said the idea. Do not take everything so personally. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon

I call for the removal of the beginning chapter where it notes Hezbollah's and "Lebanese Police" (there are hardly any Lebanese government presence in the border area other than Hezbollah) assertion that the IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon. This is a blatant accusation without any proof whatsoever. Here are the facts: 1)The Katyusha and mortar attacks commenced before the actual kidnapping to provide cover and a distraction 2)The 2 armored Humvees were destroyed and their remains were inside Israel, in the road used by the IDF to patrol its border. Had the kidnapping occured inside Lebanon, why weren't the Humvees there? 3)The unit attacked (3 KIA, otherws WIA and 2 captured) were made of reservists doing their annual duty. If the IDF was going to send a force inside Lebanon, it would not have been, reservists doing their 2 weeks of service, rather, they would have been conscript Special Forces. 4)The only vehicle remains that were in Lebanon, was that of the Merkava that ran over a mine inside Lebanon, which was sent to intercept the guerrilas AFTER the initial kidnapping. 5)The U.S., U.N, EU and other G-8 countries all agreed that it was an initial Hezbollah agression inside Israeli territory that precipitated the conflict.


Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest that the entry mentioning Hezbollah claims be deleted. For Wikipedia to include such entry is tantamount to include an entry of 9/11 where Hezbollah claims it was the Mossad who launched the attacks against the Twin Towers. Richardmiami

If Hezbollah really has said that they were captured in Lebanon, then it is accurate to say that "Hezbollah said that they were captured in Lebanon", even though it might be unlikely that the statement is correct. We should state the official viewpoint of both Israel and Hezbollah, even though they both are biased. But is this really the official viewpoint of Hezbollah? For example, did Nasrallah say on video that that the attack was in Lebanon (or in Israel)?
By the way, many of the things that is said about Hezbollah here is not that very well sourced. For example, the statement that Hezbollah calls this "Operation Truthful Promise". A good source for what the Hezbollah viewpoint would for example be some Hezbollah official saying something on video. Now we mostle have bad sources, just saying "Hezbollah says...", "Hezbollah claims...", without mentioning a name of the person who said this. --Battra 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree...hear are the facts the world knows that ISraeli media can not be trusted and is highly censored. Everything Hezbollah has said has been deemed more accurate than Israel or the IDF. How long as the IDF been making claims about capturing places it has not. The soilders were caught in Lebanon. What is also interesting is the connection to oil and how a week earlier according to the Jerusalem Post troops were called up or former NATO COmmander CLarks comments that this was planned over a year ago. It is clear what is going on. The facts scream that Israel is being very dishonoust. 69.196.164.190
Are you stupid? the fact that the israeli soldiers were captured within israel has been explained very clearly just a few paragraphs above. open your eyes and read. idiot. 213.42.2.25 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that this is the official position of Hezbollah. The assertion that the IDF soldiers were captured inside Lebanon seems to have appeared on the wire services on July 12, and disappeared shortly thereafter. Hezbollah has had ample opportunities since then to explain its version of events. If someone can find a recent statement from Hezbollah that makes the claim, that can go in the article. As it is, the contradictory wire service stories from July 12 probably just reflect the confusion of the moment. Sanguinalis 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about weapon types

Earlier discussions

chemical weapons

Removed statement about chemical weapons because I didn't think this article looked credible and the rest of the site is in Arabic so I'm not sure what kind of site it is : As-Safir newspaper also ran a story about alleged use of unknown chemical weapons, citing a member of the "French Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons" [8].

However I did find other articles about chemical weapons : [13] This one claims this picture is of a scene in Lebanon of an IDF soldier handling a chemical weapon shell : [14] This one claims that chemical weapons from Iraq were passed to Syria and then to Hezbolla : [15]--Paraphelion 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That first article doesn't even pretend to be unbiased (it refers to "Zionist aggression in Israel"). Please, wait until we get some verifiable sources, anyone with an agenda can put any claims they want to on a website. You know what they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ... and saying that Israel somehow needs to resort to chemical weapons (which would cause more international outrage) when their conventional weapons are doing just fine doesn't make much sense. --Cyde?Weys 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intenion of adding anything based on these sources. I mentioned them to show what little and low quality there is for this topic, after having removed the statement on it.--Paraphelion 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a picture of a 'chemical' weapon in the cited source from globalresearch.ca. It is a mine clearing device called 'Carpet'. http://www.defense-update.com/news/6702carpet.htm

  • The New Zealand Herald (which has fairly unbiased coverage of this type of thing) indicates that they may be in use, but it is unverified whether they are chemical weapons. Anyway, I think that there is enough justification to include that it is alleged, but unverified, that Israel has used chemical weapons. Hope that helps --222.154.123.120 10:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News.com.au has reports of something Israel might be using. --Iorek85 10:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?!

"Some" user has been removing peoples contribution to the talk page, this is TOTALY unaccapatable!

Here is my part again:

white phosphorous Guys, im not involved here, so im just droping the info: is Israel is using white phosphorous that targets that include children [16]? Is that not a serious war crime? Is that not CNN? --Striver 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not very clear, what I assume he is referring to is the linked youtube clip from CNN in that article. Direct link to CNN clip : [17]--Paraphelion 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are again and still targeting sivilian ambulances [18]. Yes, Again and still [19][20] [21]! Imagin Muslims doing this... --Striver 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war," Saudi state television quoted the king as saying in an official statement. [22] --Striver 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
er? hello, muslims are doing worse... using human shields, locating their military among densely populated civilian centers, etc... and lets not forget the fact that this whole war was started by hezbollah to secure the release of "Samir kuntar", a person who killed a man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, and then smashing her head against a rock.. anyone who supports hezbollah even knowing this fact cannot be allowed to live Shakespeare Monkey 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, see Annan calls attack 'deliberate targeting', and China agrees --Striver 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A article about "Myths" and "proportions" [23]. Good reading for anyone editing this article. --Striver 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


White phosphorus is not a war crime, and is not a chemical weapon. It is the main ingredient in vacuum bombs, that Israel uses to destroy Hizbollah buildings. there are no major conventions that denounce use of white phosphorus. --Doom777 19:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protocol III of that convention on conventional weapons whatever covers incindiary weapons. However as pointed out above since its not being used to target civilians or soldiers its use doesnt violate anything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, Striver, what is the point of putting those 3 links here? They are completely off topic, and just serve as anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, and to an extent anti-Semitic propoganda --Doom777 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! Anything that chalenges FOX news is anti-<insert word>? lol! --Striver 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but those three pages are. "semitic supremacist", yada yada yada. The issue, though, is not even that. The issue is that they do not contribute to the talk page at all. --Doom777 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me? (with regards removal) I'm not removing comments - I'm moving them to the correct sections to make the talk page easier to follow. You will find your comments either in the archives listed above, or in the correct section (Discussion about weapon types), or depending on the comment, the separate pages provided. There is, however, a chance that I accidentally lost your comments while refactoring. If that is the case, I apologise. --Iorek85 10:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I guess then that we are cool.

IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions

There are reports that the "bunker buster" munitions that IDF/IAF took receipt of are tipped with depleted uranium [24]. This should probably be flagged up in the article somewhere due to the problems some experts have cited with contamination from these weapons particularly with reference to Gulf War syndrome.

Here is the original article with the report and I realise the source is suspect (prisonplanet) [25], but I recognise the video clip- it is from a documentary called Beyond Treason [[26]] and it is credible testimony from the expert Dr. Doug Rokke. Anyone have time to write a paragraph on this in the casualties section with appropriate links to the longterm health effects of these IDF/IAF weapons? 82.29.227.171 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something on this- where in the article is it meant to go? There is no weapons section. The concern with the weapons is 1) their longterm health effects 2) indiscriminate nature (when expended they pulverise and contaminate a wide area). With those specific concerns in mind it would probably belong in the civilian casualties section until any decomination effort begins (assuming there will be a pause in activity for it to take place). 82.29.227.171 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Earlier discussions

Please do not edit these archive discussions.

Please Visit [www.Uruknet.com]; the real reasons why Israel has attacked Lebanon

Read the articles about the new oil pipeline near Lebanon nd Syria, the article about the Russian plans for a naval base near the temrinal, and how the U.S. wanted to have a base near the pipeline to secure it for both ISraeli and American interests. Its nice to hear that there will be foreign troops in Lebanon maybe the U.S. will get its base after all.

READ THIS...then you will see why Israel is attacking Lebanon (not Hezbollah, but all Lebanon) and why the U.S. and Britain have savatoged all ceasefire agreements...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824

An article on the oil link with the Israeli attacks

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060728&articleId=2839

the Russian base in Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060523&articleId=2508 The militarization of the area near the oil pipeline

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25004&hd=0&size=1&l=e

The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon....the U.S, base was for securing the oil pipeline

http://www.rense.com/general63/aahi.htm The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25005&hd=0&size=1&l=e Lebanon as also a pretext for war in Iran, to secure Iranian oil too

How was the beginning of the conflict?

I see different narrations about the beginning of conflict in the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Please look at these [27] , [28],[29].And also look at this [30] . And if you look at the earlier edition of the article [31] you'll find a link to AP report on 12 July which isn't accessible now. Indeed there isn't any agreement about what has happened. So we should write all of the narrations in the articles equally and we can't judge which one is correct.--Accessible 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. There are very good sources saying it was on Israel soil(Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes), and very poor ones saying it was on Lebanon soil.--Doom777 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article, then you find this part doesn't have fact.

"At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 11 soldiers and civilians[citation needed]. " So I don't agree with you that " If something is removed, it is obviously incorrect. "--Sa.vakilian 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should discuss other important actions leading up to the conflict. Back in June 2006 Hamas captured a first Israeli soldier. This was in response to the Israeli Navy shelling that killed a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach. This ended the informal 16-month cease-fire. Two more Israeli soldiers were killed the next day. Hamas started firing rockets and Israel increased the shelling of Gaza. Israel put all border patrols on "high-alert". IN spite of the warning two more were captured on the Lebanon border. This is where the current wikipedia article picks up. All these events instigated the current conflict and should be included in the article. --Jeff Bullard 0:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Wikipedia's own page on the Gaza beach blast, you'll see that a German newspaper has raised significant questions about the blast, suggesting that at least the video footage of the aftermath may have been staged. In any case, the blast may have been caused by any number of things, including a Palestinian land mine, unexploded IDF ordinance, or indeed shelling by the IDF. Valtam 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.--Iorek85 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive10#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
    • Video of Hezbollah firing missiles
    • Hezbollah rocket campaign
    • Criticism of both sides
    • pre-planning for the war
    • Hell in a Hand Basket
    • Discussion about strength of participants
    • Edits around 1948 and terms
    • WP:V and WP:RS
    • Blank references
    • Names of operations in the preamble?
    • Splitting up the article
    • "Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict"
    • Introductory paragraph
    • Missing from this article
    • Some thoughts on the civilian section

Archived section to help reduce rediculous size of the page Gudeldar 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long

We really need to work on shortening the article. Everyone wants to add, which is great, but not many seem keen on keeping the length in check. We have separate articles for some sections, but for some reason the summaries keep growing. The page is currently 98kb long, which is too long. I'd like to think between 50-75kb would be long enough to keep everything needed in, without going overboard. I think the references section would be taking up a lot of this; over 200 references is far too many!--Iorek85 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose making a second article dedicated to the "targeting of civilians". It's an incredibly large topic, absolutely filled with references. Canadian-Bacon 05:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. We could just leave behind that summary sentence at the top. The only problem I can see is that it is a vital part of the conflict, and taking it out would almost gut the article of it's point. Still, I think it would work. --Iorek85 06:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we would need to leave a basic summary of it in the article, but it doesn't need that much bulk on the main page. Just gut each mini-section in it to one or two sentences then move the bulk of it. Canadian-Bacon 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1-2 sentences from each section seems ample.--Paraphelion 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can suggest the naming convention for this new article I'll get working on it ASAP Canadian-Bacon 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it.. it could just be part of a civilian casualties page... "Civilian Casualties of the 2006 ILC". The unfortunate thing is that this section is better referenced and less redundant than a lot of the rest of the article.--Paraphelion 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer volume of references were one of the reasons I think it should be moved. Look at the list at the bottom, it's massive. Moving this would significantly help make that more...comprehensible. Canadian-Bacon 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also yes, that's an excellent idea Canadian-Bacon 06:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas:

  1. International Reaction - reduce to one 4 sentence maximum paragraph, move whatever we want to keep to the internatonal reaction page.
  2. Casualty Section - the infobox already gives a summary
Find a way to move the following to other pages :
  1. "Foreign Nationals" - this might somehow be moved to the international page, or reworking the internatonal page to be something which could include both.
  2. "Negotiations for ceasefire" - perhaps can be moved to something like the above.
  3. "Historical Background" to a "Historical Background of the Israel-Lebanon Conflict" page or something
Do away with or move or to a new page :
  1. "previous prisoner exchanges"
  2. "Hezbollah" - Hezbollah is linked in the very first sentence, we don't really need a summary of what they are.
a good 2-3 screens worth is from the huge arab-israeli conflict box, see also and links.
I think the most difficult to do anything with is the Targetting of Civilians section Postion of Lebanon. Both seem longer than they should be but when I read through it, it's hard to pick out things to take out.--Paraphelion 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think these are suggestions in the right direction, but disagree with them for one simple reaosn across the board: they divide up information that should be together.
Also I oppose removal of Hezbollah paragraph becaus eit was put there, nearly two weeks ago, because someone asked here for it. And it is so short it makes no impact either way.
Now, I think we should basically create introductory paragraphs for all sections who dont have subpages, and move ALL the information from here to there:

1 Background (keep all of subsections) 1.1 Hezbollah attack 1.2 Israeli response 1.3 Hezbollah rocket campaign

2 Targeting of civilian areas (put new NPOV introductory paragraph, and move entire section to new page) 2.1 By Israel 2.1.1 Claims of phosphorus incendiary bomb use by Israeli forces 2.1.2 Attacks on ambulances 2.2 Attacks on United Nations personnel 2.3 By Hezbollah 2.4 Opinions on civilian attacks 2.5 Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons

3 Historical background (put new NPOV introductory paragraph, and move entire section to new page) 3.1 Israeli-Lebanon conflict 3.2 Hezbollah 3.3 Previous prisoner exchanges

4 Casualties (keep, limit explanations of events to "Miliatry operations" page) 4.1 Lebanese 4.2 Israeli 4.3 Foreign nationals 4.4 United Nations

5 Position of Lebanon (keep) 6 Negotiations for ceasefire (keep) 7 International reaction (I don't understand why this section is so huge, as this is the oldest subpage... rewrite introductory paragraph, mention sub-subpages, and link, eliminate sub-sections and put on corresponding subpage) 7.1 Diplomatic reaction 7.2 Demonstrations 7.3 Evacuation of foreign nationals

I would add an section here, with its own short intro for "The Role of non-combatant State and non-State actors"

This is how I think it must be done, but anything similar am game for. The important thing is that no information be lost, and that the introductory paragraphs clearly state they are ,ere pointers to the main subpages and prominently link to them. I think even If not, we will continue having the monster we have now.--Cerejota 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hezbollah section before reading Cerejota's comment, sorry, but I still think it should go. We don't have one on Israel. There is still info contained in the historical background which should help queries. I don't particularily mind how we shrink the page, but it definitely needs doing. --Iorek85 08:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, its nice we've shortened it, but we've really gutted it of it's point. My main concern is the 'Isreali response' section - we've only something about the immediate attack, and nothing about the bombing and invasion of Lebanon. Isn't this really what the article is about? That, and it has a big section on Hezbollah rocket attacks, and nothing on Israel. I'm having a go at fixing it up. --Iorek85 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Iorek85 here. The article should be "as simple [short] as possible, but not simpler [shorter]." I've added the main points on the attacks on civilian targets from the now sub-article. AdamKesher 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strike on UN chapter removed

May I ask for the reason why it was removed? It had an image of the destroyed UN outpost and description. Was this Isreaeli whitewashing or a mistake? --Pudeo 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been moved to the sub-article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Check there. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's been moved to the sub article because of size constraints. --Iorek85 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I just rechecked the article - it's been completely removed! I don't support that at all. We shrank the section to a summary, and it needs to be in. --Iorek85 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLL

Reinstatement of full UN section as there was no reason to remove it.

  1. Support. Reaper7 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. - Change my vote - I thought it had just been summarised, not completely removed.--Iorek85 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Object. It was not removed, it was put in a relevant subpage for article size reasons.--Cerejota 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. comment The sub pages are used as an excuse by pro Israeli editors to remove sub articles they don't like to pointless exclusive pages no one will ever look up individually. The UN attacks should remain imo. Reaper7 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen cerejota (pro-islamist) do the same with the article summmary. Where it once mentioned that "samir kuntar" was in prison for killing a 4-yo child after killing her father, cerejota removed it and relegated it to some dark corner of wikipedia to prevent that little known fact from seeing the light of day Shakespeare Monkey 08:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me comparasion with URL for history comparsion, and i might support. Hello32020 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I've changed my vote. I thought we were just discussing shrinking it to the summary. But completely removed? No, I don't support that. I think it should be left as it was, a summary paragraph with its own section. --Iorek85 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part shoul be moved

I propose to discuss about moving some part of article to a new article.--Sa.vakilian 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Lebanon

I think this part is very important and it should be remained completely.--Sa.vakilian 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiations for ceasefire

I think this part is very important and it should be remained completely.--Sa.vakilian 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the article with them in is far too long. Roughly 50k is the upper limit for article size - it was over 100kb before people made an effort and shrank it. --Iorek85 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who changed the external links section and replaced good links and great sources by blocks? Could someone change it back to the "pro-lebanese, pro-israeli" one? CG 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aims section

At the moment this section consists of text copied from elsewhere in the article, and some newspaper observations. It seems the important stuff is already covered in the "Negotiations for ceasefire" section as well as the general Hezbollah and Israeli responses. TewfikTalk 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but I think we should allow for some duplication in the article. If you feel there's too much we could add a "See also" or something. My creed is too much info is better than too little. FightCancer 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Earlier discussions

Discussion about the status of the article

Earlier discussions

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Discussion about the talk page

Earlier discussions

Whew. After a lot of work, I've refactored the page, archived about 200kb of it, and split out the discussion on the two largest sections into separate pages. And the talk page is STILL too big! (though 50kb isn't nearly as bad as 300kb). Is this format O.K with everybody? --Iorek85 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's a total mess. Just archive the conversations from here on out. (Bjorn Tipling 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion refractoring on this page is a total mess

Whoever did the work: good effort, bad judgement. Just about killed the conversation about images by moving the page to some obscure location. Just archive the discussion like you would on any other page. Thanks. (Bjorn Tipling 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I did. And the page was still well over 150kb. The section on photos alone (after archiving round one!) was 70kb. I didn't want to archive current discussions. I thought by separating it out, we could keep discussions going longer without archiving. The photos section on its own is now over 30kb, and this page is already over 100kb. --Iorek85 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is time to move back POV and pictures to this page? There is hardly any discussion at all going on in the refactoring pages (not even 10 edits a day.) --Battra 11:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you exclude my refactoring edits, theres not a huge amount more going on here. 10 a day just on photos isn't small (and I don't see the problem - if people couldn't find the pictures section, they'd just put the talk here). And yes, you could move them back, I wouldn't object, but this page is currently over 120kb already. Moving them back, even archived, will still make this page even bigger. I tend to prefer moving out text instead of archiving it - the U.N section, for example, has been repeated many times, same as discussion on where soldiers were captured, because people don't read the archives. --Iorek85 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

Summary

  • I am GOING THERE!
  • Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV
  • edits by banned editor
  • Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?
  • Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185
  • Just ban the vandals already!
  • Fork for deletion
  • Someone has vandalized the article again
  • Opinions on civilian attacks??
  • Am I the only one concerned with article quality?
  • User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism
  • Salvage French
  • Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG
  • Adding Links
  • Where are the kidnapped soldiers?
  • New page
  • Video of the shot up ambulances
  • Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah
  • By Hezbollah
  • Disproportionate in what moral universe

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Mediation

The question of what links should be present in the article is currently in mediation by the Cabal. Please come to the case page if you can comment on the issue. Also, other questions can be directed to mediation to be resolved with assistance of a third party. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Lets get it sorted out. --Iorek85 09:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record here and as per CP/M's request at the case page, I have suggested the following links and descriptions:

BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)
END

AdamKesher 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Diderot, on 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC), you stated "I have repeatedly removed [the links] and will do so again." You made this statement after the mediator CP/M requested on 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC), "stop removing any links at least until the case is closed. This is essential for providing proper view on the subject for parties involved in the dispute." Would you please clarify your current position vis-a-vis removing information from this article at the case page?. AdamKesher 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add this proposal to the page, and clean up the other links at the same time. The characterization of assorted news reports as pro- one side or the other doesn't satisfy NPOV or WP:V; I'll make edits to these too. AdamKesher 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in AP story on July 12

It seems that either AP (Joseph Panossian) substantially changed its story during the course of the day on July 12, or local editors/publishers of the story did. As noted by Guerrilla News Network:

The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. “The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them,” reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. “The forces were trying to keep the soldiers’ captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.” [32]

The first sentence quoted (my bold) is only present in early versions of the article: [33] [34]

Later in the day, the sentence had been changed to "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence." [35] [36]

In another instance, on a less reputable site, AP apparently said: "Hezbollah said Wednesday its guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, triggering Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon and widespread clashes along the frontier that killed two Lebanese civilians." [37] Hezbollah said that? Are you sure, FindLaw? No one else seems to have interpreteed the AP story that way. "Cross-border raid" also becomes vague here, because in the first item above, "across the border" meant "in southern Lebanon".

Is AP itself ever the party updating the story during something like this? Or are the publishers editing/"updating" it? As I understand it, and I'm by no means an expert here, publishers of AP content are generally allowed to edit AP stories for fit, but not to substantially change their meaning. Off the top of my head I'm aware of a previous controversy, when newspaper publisher Canwest Global was inserting the word "terrorist" in AP articles relating to certain Palestinian groups a couple years ago.

Just trying to put the pieces together here. Am I missing something?

Btw, can anyone find a copy of the Agence France-Press article, cited in the GNN article I quoted above, on a "reputable" website for similar comparison purposes? The cited article - the one that apparently says "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory" - may have been first published in another language (French?). Of course we have that same fact in this English-language story. heqs 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The yahoo India page is the only one that says today that the kidnapping/arrest occured in Lebanon. Most other sources say it was in Israel. --Doom777 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. As I just pointed out, there are many copies/versions of a July 12 AP report that says "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon". heqs 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And as I pointed out above, very very reputable sources have acknowledged that this happened on Israeli soil, including Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, NYTimes, and more--Doom777 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that. You said "the yahoo India page is the only one", that's not true, there's AP and AFP. I'm trying to draw attention to what happened July 12 with a "very very" reputable source: AP, to see if anyone has any insight. I don't think anything to do with the seminal events of July 12, media included, should be overlooked. heqs 07:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the AP story was written before anyone knew anything. The facts came out. And I don't have the source, but I've seen the two burning Hummers on TV, and the camera crew said it was in Israel. --Doom777 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: I'm not debating what happened. I'm discussing the news itself. I think it helps to illuminate the situation, and probably should be noted in this article or one of the related articles. heqs 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictoral bias?

It seems that there are far more pictures of suffering Lebanese people than suffering Israelis. In addition, the suffering of the Lebanese people is shown more prominently since the picture at the top of the article only depicts their suffering. Would anybody mind if I did the following to try and fix this? :

  • Comment out some pictures of Lebanese people suffering so that the amount of pictures depicting the suffering of either side is equal
  • Change the picture at the top of the page to be 2 images next to each other, with each image depicting suffering in a different country

-- Where 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. --Doom777 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there a disproportionate number of Lebanese casualties (at least 2.5:1) and displaced (not even close, going by #s in article)? heqs 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!! Around 20x more Lebanese have been killed than Israelis (if we looked at the children killed, that ratio would be even higher) - so on what basis is equal representation of pictures of people suffering justifiable? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, do not confuse neutrality with equality. --200.88.223.98 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there have been 20x more children killed on one side than the other, I would expect that there will be more photos floating around depicting that reality. This is especially so if dead bodies of children need to be left out in the open for days on end, in street gutters, on ditches by the side of the road, etc, if the Red Cross, the UN, or indeed anyone, cannot go and retrieve them. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agreed with you. --200.88.223.98 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of pictoral bias, the image of the map of Lebanon showing where Israeli airstrikes were targeted renames Israel "Occupied Palestine" at the very bottom. Hmm. (PatDonovan130 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Definitely. Also, this is another subject. This topic is about the number of images, not the quality of individual ones. --200.88.223.98 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The casualty rate probably would have been much more equal if the Israelis did not have bomb shelters. Are you implying that since the Israelis tryed to avoid being killed, they should be portrayed as the aggressor? Should they just stand in open fields while the rockets are fired on them? 70.18.81.10 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on United Nations personnel

→ NOTE: The previous section 13.13 "Attacks on United Nations personnel" was included into this section. In order to prevent discussions on the same topic taking place under two headers. --Attraho 16:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this section deleted?

According to Democracy Now!, as of July 27th, 2006:

The killings of the four UN observers brought the UN death toll in the current crisis to six. A Nigerian couple with UNIFIL's civilian staff were killed when an Israeli airstrike hit their home near Tyre. Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council failed to agree on a statement responding to the Israeli attack after the United States refused to accept language condemning: "any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel."[9]

It clearly provides new info to the article pertinent to the Attacks on United Nations personnel. It provides a death toll as well as the UN's reaction.

There is already a detailed accounting (including this information) in the appropriate sections. This is redundant right now. TewfikTalk 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this article mention a death toll or the UN's reaction? FightCancer 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe that the mans wife was UN staff- according to UN press releases anyway. You could add his death to the "deaths" area- currently it is in the casualties section

Created daughter page: Attacks on United Nations personnel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. We can expand on the circumstances of the incident, response, and background of UN's role and operation there. --Vsion 00:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll move it to the deaths section. FightCancer 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know something is fishy when the US denies common sense stuff such as condemning "any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel" which I guess includes by Hezbollah... If the USA is willing to let Hezbollah off the hook, you got to worry... I stand off my soapbox. --Cerejota 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


→ moved here from previous "13.13 Attacks on United Nations personnel":

In the MacKenzie paragraph: "According to an interview on CBC radio and multiple print sources, Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie, referring to an email he had received a few days previously from the killed Canadian peacekeeper Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, stated that "...what he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were (sic) targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it." "

  • Doesnt cite text of Kruedener's email so unclear what MacKenzie is commenting on.
  • Makes it sound like MacKenzie received the email personally, he didnt, CTV.ca did (also misrepresented in most of the articles except CTV.ca)
  • Makes it sound like MacKenzie isnt expression his opinion/interpretation
  • Doesnt include the remarks of others, including the widow of the dead man who indicated that the bombing (to her knowledge) had been going on for weeks.

Full details do belong in child section as it will probably grow but it would be good to represent at least a skeleton of the facts in the parent article. 82.29.227.171 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left it in as balance, as if I'd chucked it in the main article, people would be all up in arms about anti Israeli bias. If you want to change it or add something else from the main article about the claims that Hezbollah are hiding around U.N observers, that would be great. --Iorek85 02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK well thats good. My only point is that to state MacKenzie received the email personally when he didnt, and to quote his opinion on something when the reader isnt presented with what hes commenting on, looks uneven. I will think about best way to make small NPOV changes along the lines you suggested. Thanks for your comments. 82.29.227.171 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed also that in the 'Casualties' section that Israeli/Lebanese dead and wounded are given space, but in the UN subsection details on UN wounded dont appear- only fatalities. Its probably right to also have a link there to Attacks on United Nations personnel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict child article (preferable) or duplicate UN wounded details. 82.29.227.171 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mackenzie comments can be included, but as a one line comment with a link to the article, something like "A Canadian officer interpreted the comments as supportive of Israel's assertion that Hizbollah is using the UN as a shield." followed with source followed by the caveat of the wife and the source. I think NPOV rather than calling for his comments to be excluded, calls for his comments not to be given the undue weight they seemingly have: for a person 1000s of miles away, with no direct knowledge of the region, nor any particular expertise on its history from an academic standpoint, his comments certainly are peripherally relevant, and its inclusion rather tenous.

In the big scheme of things this attack is a footnote: Israel has attacked the UNIFIL and other UN personnel and troops dozens of times before, and killed hundreds of UN personnel (please see the pages for the fact check) so 4 dead, well, thats just another number. Plus IMHO the civilian casualties are much more important than covering the occupational hazards of being a blue helmet, and devoting so much space to what belongs in the UNIFIL page in this already ultra long article goes squarely against the grain of our purpose of building a quality encyclopedia.--Cerejota 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and when the story broke I voiced doubts as to whether it should be included at all [38]. Nothing has erased my doubts on the importance of what he said. I'm saying that if his comments are to be included then they should be in context of what the original comments were.
Probably a good idea to move it off the parent article and settle it completely on the child but I know someone will just reinclude it because of the weight they think it lends to their POV on the rights and wrongs of the incident. 82.29.227.171 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about captured Hezbollah

It was reported several days ago that Israelis captured two Hezbollah. This was not the case. See: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=108354 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TassadarAlpha (talk • contribs)

July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting

If anyone finds any information relating events going on in Lebanon or in Gaza to this event, please post in article. (Just stating cause it's possible) (AP source) Hello32020 01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: [39] At least five people were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man a witness said was upset about "what was going on in Israel." Perhaps we should add a sentence somewhere saying that initial reports indicate that the shooter may have been motivated by the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? I'd prefer to hear other's opinions before adding this to the article. GabrielF 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Hello32020

I think this article is long enough - perhaps add it to the International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict ? --Iorek85 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps add July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting to related articles section...Hello32020 01:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just be bold and do it Hello32020 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy

Where incidents of this nature belong in the article isnt clear as alleged attacks on food convoys/the fleeing havent been addressed so far. [Syrian] Red Cross drivers won't take aid to Lebanon [40] Aid convoy hit in Lebanon as UN accuses Hezbollah

"A soldier in the UN force in south Lebanon (Unfil) which reached Rmeish yesterday told Reuters that carrying aid into the south was highly dangerous as Israeli strikes often landed very close to the UN vehicles."[41]

82.29.227.171 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC analysis of the effect of the war

I went over the link below and BBC seem to have done a good job on analysing the problems Israel is bound to face in executing this mission. Of cause, some will say its biased, but then time always have a way of validiting/anulling?? analysis of events that have future signficancy. [42] [43]

Nassarallah image gone means petetz image gone.

Aunty knows best!Hypnosadist 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Un observers die

In Metula (sp?), two Indian UN observers died due to Israeli airstrikes. CNN said it on TV, but their website doesn't have anything on it yet. Also, the syrian-lebanon boarder just closed. Look for some citations, I can't find anything--Rayc 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I hate it when CNN does this. It took what, three days to find a source for the Lebanon Anti-aircraft quote.--Rayc 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[44] says 2 indian UN wounded when IAF bombed their post, perhaps they died of their injuries? 82.29.227.171 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And they blew up a road to Syria [45] "Late Saturday evening, a road leading from Damascus to Lebanon, reportedly close to the Syrian-Lebanese border, was targeted" 82.29.227.171 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On ABC an UNIFIL spokesperson is reported of saying, that two UN soldiers were injured during an Israeli air strike. If you cross check with e.g. Google News you receive more than 1000 likewise hits. Therefore this information should be included in the article. --Attraho 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But has anyone found if they died? CNN now saying they were only injured. --Rayc 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, trying to fix intro

I saw that the intro got mixed up and it read that the initial Hezbollah attack killed 8 soldiers? It should have read 3 killed. Also the shelling into Israel came later? Anyways, sorry if I messed this up. --Tom 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am reading different number of initial Israli soldiers killed and there was shelling? My fault for trying to edit this article, I am out of here!! --Tom 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced info box

How come members of Hesbollah are called militants. I don't think they consider themselves militants and certainly large part of population of Lebanon does not consider them either. Also entry stating "875 treated for shock" is a subjective and irrelevant in context to casulties of Lebanon column especially since none are listed under Lebanon column. There is quite certainly far more shock cases than in Lebanon. These items need to be corrected --Dado 04:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Militant" is generally considered a neutral descriptor for groups like Hezbollah, because it describes them without engaging in moral judgement. They are considered terrorists by several Western governments. TewfikTalk 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If noone else objects I'll take your answer but what is the deal with the number of shocked Israelis. Also why did you remove a well sourced edit in the second paragraph talking about the order of events. Your 0 summary revert was a bit arogant.--Dado 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The militant is a good NPOV comprimise. As for the shock, I don't think it should be there. Wounded, certainly, but shocked? Who wouldn't be shocked after having half your house collapse, or your family killed? --Iorek85 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah has a militant wing but is not militant as a whole. There is the political entity called Hezbollah and the citizen political constituents of Hezbollah. Most of them are not militant. One could think of Hezbollah as a political party including its constituents, much the same as "Republicans" or "Likud". A portion of that political group is in fact militant and engaged in guerilla war against Israel. Even the Wikipedia article on Hezbollah states this. Here in the United States we call them all "Terrorists" but of course that is POV. --JBull 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Shock" there refers to something along the lines of Post-traumatic stress disorder, and is a documented medical condition. The reason it is included, per Talk somewhere above (I'll check if you need confirmation), is that the Lebanese numbers do not differentiate between regular and "shock" injuries (or between much else - the situation has not allowed for clear Lebanese numbers on much). Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PTSD is something that happens mach after the initial shock usually as a subconcious response to past events. This event is still ongoing and it hard to quantify who has suffered a shock. I am also certain that most Lebanese will not flock to psychiatrist after their experiences which they are still going through. In either case it is very premature to discuss these yet and I support the removal.--Dado 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference to shock on the info bar as it listed a number. The article it cited [[46]] did not and says "The vast majority of casualties were treated for shock, while 19 people are still hospitalized across the country in serious condition." It does not mention a specific number as the info bar did. Where that number came from is a mystery to me. Feel free to add it back if you have a citation on that.--Oiboy77 07:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also mentioned the shock stat on the Discussion on POV problems page --0g 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?

The Israelis have made this page as they see the war, Lebanon casualties and destruction not relevant despite it being one of the most important facets of the war. Reaper7  ]]

I don't see any pictures of the destruction of civilian targets deliberately aimed at by the Hizbullah. If you want pictures of destruction, then fairness requires pictures from both sides of the border Cymruisrael 14:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
more fairness requires more pictures from the side it had 34 children dead today --200.88.223.98 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been atleast 100 times more destruction in Lebanon than Israel. That is obvious. Fairness would atleast have a lebanon picture and then maybe an Israeli picture if they are so desperate to attempt to show or compete with the huge destruction they caused in Lebanon. The damage like the death toll is disproportionate and should be shown. Unless you believe close to 600 Lebanese lives = under 20 Irsaeli and the destruction of Beriut and Tyre = some holes in some buildings in Israel. Reaper7 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Begining od conflict

I have added following edit to the "Begining of conflict" section: "Following the Isreali air-attacks on Lebanon in which some 60 civilians were killed [22] intended to pressure Hesbollah to release captured Isreali soldiers,..." With supporting source [47]

Tewfik has in two instances removed the edit justifying it as being discussed before here [48] and here [49]. Both of those discussions talk about the where were soldiers captured. Obviously I am not disputing nor discussing that issue in my edit but I am pointing out the order of events, in summary that Isreal began air assult following the capture of soldiers. Why is this being removed? Am I missing something here?--Dado 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he removed it because every single major news organization agrees that the conflict didn't actually start like that. Should we claim that WWII started because a bunch of polish soldiers crossed into Germany and destroyed a radio station?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the difs. There was an IP intermingled with your edits that added the Ayta al-Shab stuff, however you added reports of Israeli bombing as taking place before any Hezbollah attack, which is equally incorrect (and isn't what the cited source says either, as far as I could tell). I imagine that you didn't mean to change the chronology, but you did. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask myself or this Talk. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Why is this article included in the War Crimes category? Until a court has decided that a specific action is a war crime, any such categorisation is POV and should be avoided. Cymruisrael 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the category has been removed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Sydney Morning Herald - Israeli air strike kills 54". Sydney Morning Herald. 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea". BBC. 2006-07-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300". Chosun Ilbo. 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Israel hints at full-scale Lebanon attack". Associated Press. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "45 killed in new strikes". News24. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Israel pounds Lebanon". Reuters. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Israel launches new strikes in Lebanon". CNN. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "Israeli Agression on Lebanon", July 19 and 21, 2006, in As-Safir, Retrieved on 2006-07-16.
  9. ^ [50]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=66700403"