Talk:2006 Lebanon War

Archives
Archive1 Archive2

Discussion about the Combatants

Strength?

The infobox lists the IDF strength as 6,000. What does that number refer to? Where did it come from? Unless there is some citeation of a source with that number, I belive the strength field should be removed, as neither Hizbulla nor the IDF publish their strength. --darkskyz 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the most accurate description would probably be "variable". — ceejayoz ^talk 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be removed if it doesn't have verified source. --TheYmode 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The current estimation of IDF's strength as 400000-500000 is unverifiable, and besides, it is greatly exaggerated. It might refer to the strength of IDF including all of its reserves should a total draft be declared - which is not the case.

Is there any source for that? We can't just list our estimated strength of the combatants' strength without proper citation. reverting the strength section to "unknown" until someone brings up real numbers with proper citations. And please sign your comments. --darkskyz 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The strenght section in the infobox is misleading. It implies that the 68000-75000 soldiers of the Lebanese army are all deployed and fighting against Israel, same as for Hezbollah and Israeli numbers. Could you fix it or mark as Unknown. CG 15:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran?

It has been stated that Hezbollah is trying to transport them to Iran. [1] Or should we wait till it is confirmed that Iran is harboring them?

Harbouring fighters does not indicate combatant status for a nation. That's at most a support role until the combat involves that nation's armed forces or their territory. MLA 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont ad them yet. Like MLA said harbo(u)ring soldiers duz not mean yur on ther side.Cameron Nedland 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I add Iran as an combantant? Based on their involvement in the Haifa missile launch. [2] Hello32020 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not definitive yet. As I mentioned above, it's still possible the missile came from Hezbollah. --Pifactorial 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, only Fox News has reported this and even they aren't really sure I think (they say: Israelian radio says so - but what radio was it? a reliable one?). Most news services say it is likely that Iran or Syria provided the missile type to Hezbolah. That however is not enough to be listed as combattant, as for instance the USA and USSR together supplied many conflicts in the world with arms. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its way to early, israel uses british tanks but britain is not a combatant and we have no solid evidence yet. Also it is in effect an accusation of warmongering by Iran and i would want Very notable people saying that before we put it in.Hypnosadist 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read online that CNN also reported it. However, its too early to say this. Its not held up by any news agency as truth, its just a "report" at this phase which isnt validated. Israel is not claiming Iran fired the missile at this time. Rangeley 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not a combatant. Neither was Lebanon proper until the attack on Beirut. Even then it is still not clear the relationship between Lebanese forces and Hizbollah forces in this conflcit. Yet another POV point: we accept ISRAELS view on the conflict, while the Lebanese government has condemned Hizbollah.

Now we itchy to add Iran into the fray. Following this logic, Saddam Hussein is behind it all. :D --Cerejota 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It would be equally valid to add the USA as the major supporter/supplier of Israeli Military. USA provides Israel will helicopters and weapons—Dananimal 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN reported it during their morning TV segment today, as well as online, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, I agree that it's early to add them. While it may be valid that Iran supplied the missiles, it's too early to know if they were supplied specifically for Hezbullah's actions this week. Meanwhile, given the fact that there are Iranian revolutionary guards in Lebanon, if any of them come under attack, that might quickly change things. Acarvin 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there Iranian revolutionary guards stationed in Lebanon today, beside those guarding the Iranian Embassy? Who says? Thomas Blomberg 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not yet. Ahmadinejad has just been posturing so far. UltraNurd 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added Iran - I have no doubt. Here's the source [3] Hello32020 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I readd? Someone just qualified my source and article (from New York Post) as a "fake article." Hello32020 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is making things seem bigger then they are. The only source it has about Irani involvement is a statement made by Israeli military, with no external confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

New York Post can hardly be considered a reliable source, see for example [4].--213.65.178.172 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There's critisism with other news organizations see 1 and 2, that does not make them unreliable. Hello32020 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN and Fox News which you refer to is indeed criticized, and quite unreliable, though not as unreliable as "New York Post". It think would be best if Fox News and CNN were avoided as sources for Wikipedia though. --Battra 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we can't just not believe any source that has any controversy 3 4 5. I mean if we did that we wouldn't have an article. Also that is just an opinion and others could have completly different views. Hello32020 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I believe your argument is void per WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth Hello32020 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should readd if we get more sources confirming though. Hello32020 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are we confirming? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That Iran is a combatant. And I'm thinking I should readd them as one (someone removed regarding NY Post ariticle as "fake) per Wikipedia policyWP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. [5] Hello32020 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, many sources are saying that Israeli intelligence says 100 iranian troops are in Lebanon, and that they have helped fire missiles. I think its reasonable to add the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a combattant as these are the specific Iranian troops involved, rather than just saying Iran. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i can't find in the article any real source that iran is taken an active role in this conflict. --Japan01 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon?

In the infobox, under combatants, it lists Hezbollah & Lebanon vs. Isreal. I don't see this as true. The Lebanese government has not attacted Isreal, and have condemed the actions of Hezbollah. The govenment is stuck in the middle of this war, and have not yet officialy chosen a side. For that, i believe that Lebanon should be removed as a combatant, because they have not yet attacted anyone. I would like to here your opinions --Dimigw 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

Israel has attacked Lebanese instalations and Israel blames Lebanon for not reigning in Hezbollah. Lebanon has also fired anti-aircraft weapons at Israeli planes. Xtra 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Source for the AA fire by lebanese armed forces ? dott.Piergiorgio 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was reported on Fox News. Xtra 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ynet 89.138.32.183 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but lebanon is not on the side of hezbollah, they are firing AA guns (didnt know that prior), but they do not have forces with hezbollah. Maybe they should be listed as a third party. Just an idea.--Dimigw 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They can't be listed as a third party, they are under direct attack and are defending themselves. Obviously they are part of the war, who is reponsible for that is another issue. Ryanuk 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon should be listed as a third party. They cannot be listed on the same side as Hezbollah. Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. MJZ, 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah??? The civilian arm of Hezbollah is an official political party with members in the Lebanese Parliament! While other parties within the Lebanese government may not be allied with Hezbollah, the government, as an entity, is responsible for controlling Hezbollah and therefore responsible for its actions.--WilliamThweatt 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has approx. 400,000 members in Lebanon. That means the other 3.1M Christians, Druze, Muslims and others are NOT Hezbollah! Furthermore, the UN and EU urged Hezbollah to put down their arms and become political party. That is why they now have elected members of Parlimant. It is common knowldege that the Lebanese Government has no control over Hezbollah. The Hezbollah militia is better funded and better equiped than the Lebanese Military. Any attempt to disarm them would have erupted into civil war. Since Lebanon still bears the scars from a twenty year civil war, you can understand why no one there wanted to rush into another civil war.

I don't see an alliance with hezbollah either, i don't agree with listing Lebanon the palestines or (even) hezbollah as combatants. its an insult since most only resistance is of the gandhi kind. There hasnt been a lot of fighting. in gaza and untill recently none in libanon. just bombardments, raids, terrorising people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk)

So...guilt by association? What a very simplistic, narrow view you have...And does putting three questions marks after your "question" make it more pertinent? MJZ, 14 July 2006, 22:03 (UTC)

And does putting "question" in quotes make it not a question???????? Obviously, you weren't reading my comments but just distracted by the pretty punctuation. I didn't say "guilt by association"...it's just "guilt" and "responsibility". Hezbollah is a political party of Lebanon, participating in it's current government. Furthermore, it launched its attacks from Lebanese soil (for which the government is responsible). In not controlling what happens within its own borders, the government is at least culpable and at most passively supporting it. (I hope there wasn't too much punctuation here for you.)--WilliamThweatt 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin acted as the civilian branch of the IRA for many years, yet no-one is silly enough to attach guilt to the government of Northern Ireland for the actions of the IRA. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, GeeJo...definately worth considering further. However, it's not an exact parallel as the government of Northern Ireland (which, before Home Rule, was simply and extension of the government in London) not only publicly, and loudly, disavowed the actions of the IRA, but actively sought to reign in the IRA, through political, financial, and very public police/para-military actions. Had they not, then it would not have been "silly" to attach guilt. The government of Lebanon has never mounted any serious attempts to control Hezbollah...on the contrary, Hezbollah (and their foreign backers) are gaining more control over the government and therein lies the difference and the justification for attaching guilt.--WilliamThweatt 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the government does not speak against them, is that the next day their car explodes and they die. The lebanese government has absolutly no control over hezbollah. The majority of the egovernment is against them though, just not outspoken. The majority of people also despise hezbollah, its only the small minority of shite muslims and palistinianes. --70.39.205.84 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

69.125.1.187HOW CAN LEBANON BE A COMBATANT???? What does it mean to be a combatant because the Lebanese military has not done anything to "combat" Israel thus far, why is Lebanon listed as a combatant in the infobox? How can one be a combatant if the military has not done anything to the agressor. Are victims considered combatants? Just because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, I would have to say that they are acting independantly of the Lebanese government. I think the combatants as of now, are Hezbollah, and Israel. --El Presidente 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon should be removed as a combatant.I don't agree that Lebanon is a combatant. They are a bystander more than anything. By calling Lebanon a compbatant you give an inaccurate view of the actual conflict.

Under international law, a government is responsible for cross-border violence emanating from within its borders. If the Lebanese government can't control Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is staging attacks from within Lebanon, then effectively the Lebanese government ceases to be a player at all. It's just a figurehead in Beirut, or another faction. Accordingly, it may not be accurate to say Lebanon is a combatant, but that assumes that Lebanon doesn't exist as an actor in this conflict. You've got a war going on in territory you claim sovereignty over, but with which you are not involved. How do you square that? Epstein's Mother 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I square it this way, you have nearly 300,000 Palestinian refugees, which has grown from the original 120,000, displaced from the 1948 war, that were left to rot in camps in southern Lebanon. They are not citizens of Lebanon or Israel and Israel will never allow them to return homes. They live in camps stealing elctricity,they are not allowed to hold most jobs and many homes have no running water. Groups like Hezbollah offer them jobs, schools, medical centers and are seen as charities by most Shia's and Palestinians. Moreover, Hezbollah is well funded and better armed than the Lebanese Government. The Lebanese Government spends 560 million a year on defense, in contrast the Israeli Government spends 9 Billion. Regardless of the fact that the arab countries started the war against Israel in 1948, Israel had a responsibility to do something about the 600,000 Palestinian refugee's from that war. Israel took the stance that the arab countries were responsible for the Palestinians. This arrogance and lack of compassion is the primary reason groups like Hamas and Hezbollah exist. Lastly, the Hezbollah represent its 400,000 members, the Lebanese Government represents the other 3.1 million Christians, Jews, Druze, Muslims and others in Lebanon. It would be the equivilant of the US bombing Toronto because of terrorists in Quebec. Israel's bombing of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon is shameful.

If there were anti-American militants in Quebec, and they started shelling America, and Canada chose not to go after them despite being asked, labeling these militants as legitimate anti-American resistance, America would indeed consider Canada as harboring terrorists and thus in the same boat as the terrorists. Governments unwilling to go after terrorists in their land tend to be viewed as responsible in cases such as this, and Israel does indeed see Lebanon as responsible, hence they have bombed Lebanese bases etc. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwillingly to go after Terrorists?!? The Lebanese Government was instrumental in twarting a terrorist attack on New York's transit tunnels under the Hudson River, by arresting and handing over the suspected Al Queda member on April 27th of this year. Is this how we thank them for preventing a terrorist attack in this country? They are trying to avoid another twenty year civil war by trying to deal with Hezbollah diplomatically.

I wasnt aware the United States was involved. Israel is being shelled by militants in Lebanon. Lebanon has refused to go after Hezbollah. It is due to this Israel considers Lebanon responsible. Lebanon sees Hezbollah as legitimate resistance, not terrorists - otherwise they would not be negotiating with them at all. I dont want this to be a political debate, because this isnt the place for it, but instead I am just trying to explain the Israeli viewpoint as to why Lebanon is being targetted - its because they have not sent their army into southern lebanon to break up Hezbollah. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was simply answering Epstein's Mothers question which I believe was directed to me. One last point, the US is involved.

Well sure, same as Iran and Syria. They just arent being fought or fighting at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the lebanese government is extremely weak; they haven't got the strenght to deal with hezbollah.PerDaniel 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is my point. Lebanon, as such, is now a failed state. It doesn't have control over what happens within its own borders. It doesn't seem that the Israelis are targeting the Lebanese government itself. Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be directing any demands towards the Lebanese government, precisely because it recognizes that Beirut doesn't control what goes on in the country. Instead, it has made demands of Syria--which, at this point, also probably doesn't have much control over southern Lebanon. The problem we have here is symantic. There is a country called Lebanon, which is now a battleground. And while there is a legal government of Lebanon, at this point there is no "state" of Lebanon, its representative to the U.N. notwithstanding. So, to say "Lebanon" is a combatant is probably incorrect. At the moment, there is no single state actor called Lebanon that could be a combatant--even if it wanted to be. Epstein's Mother 04:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon has not declared war, and war has not been declared on Lebanon. Lebanon is simply the country that Hezbollah calls home. This conflict is between Hezbollah and Isreal. Lebanon Is pleading for a cease-fire. They are not a combatant.--67.82.149.158 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)JC

That argument really isn't enough. By that logic, the United States hasn't been in a single war since World War II, since no official declaration of war has ever been issued by the U.S. Congress since 1941. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're arguing over the directionality of "combatant". Lebanon and Israel are definitely the location of the conflict, I'm pretty sure that's NPOV because that is simply where the attacks and raids and rockets have happened. Hezbollah is definitely a combatant because of their raid, and their rocket attacks against Israel. Israel is definitely a combatant, because of their raids and bombing runs against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and Lebanese infrastructure. Lebanon is a graph node with only incoming edges, because as far as we know, the Lebanese military has not acted in any official capacity against either Hezbollah or Israel. How can we indicate that Lebanon is experiencing the receiving end of combat, without implying that they are actively fighting by calling them a combatant? UltraNurd 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question. The Lebanese military is still not taking any military action against Israel. Does anyone know what the Lebanese army is doing? I doubt they are just drinking tea and following non-crisis procedures. Sijo Ripa 13:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are on state of high alert and would act if Israel tried to push North of Sidon. They man various checkpoints and anti-aircraft batteries but we're talking about leftover US equipment from the 1970's and 80's. The Lebanese army is no match for anyone. They are more like a big police force. The Hezbollah has more modern anti-aircraft equipment from the Russians and Chinese.

The template 'Infobox Military Conflict' indicates that the combatents shout be ordered cronologically by order of attack or involvement. and I do think that that is (1)Hezbollah, (2)Israël, (3)Lebanon and that the collums are not ment for indicating sides

I will change the combatents in that sequence--213.118.73.79 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the motivation for making the chronological change, but the current layout is very confusing because it makes it look like (Hezbollah and Israel) vs. (Lebanon). While Lebanon's infrastructure and civilian population is bearing the brunt of this violence, this conflict seem to me to be very nearly triangular (Hezbollah vs. Israel vs. Hezbollah vs. Lebanon or something equally confusing). Is there a way we can reorganize the combatants? I initially thought someone had made a small vandal change by moving Hezbollah over to Israel's column, to make some political point. UltraNurd 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal :) , I simply disagree that somebody can say that Hezbollah and Lebanon are on the same side, so I looked to te template if it was possible to make 3-sides, but found there that the left and right column were not meant to indicated sides, and that combatents shout be ordered by sequence of involvement. And that if Israël and Hezbollah are in the same column people woudn't still assume that the collumns indicates sides. But they still do ... And that does implicates that Lebanon and Hezbollah cannot stay in the same collumn! The best thing to do, is changing the template to 1 or 3 columns. I do think its more confusing for people to see that Hezbollah and Lebannon are in the same column because they will think they are one side.--213.118.73.79 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently :o). I looked over the template after you first mentioned it, and I think it's ambiguous what the template's designer meant. The bigger problem is that, if you don't know there's a template, you see two columns, you think two sides - and I think having Israel and Hezbollah together on one side or Israel and Lebanon on one side is going to make a lot more people go "Whaaa???" than putting Hezbollah and Lebanon together, even though they are not explicitly allied, makes the most sense to me. Oh, and if you do switch the combatant columns, make sure to switch the leader columns as well. UltraNurd 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Combatant - noun - One who engages in a combat or struggle. That is the definition of combatant. As such, Lebanon cannot be defined as a combatant. Iran and Syria are more suitable to list with Hezbollah as they have governments that openly support and fund it. Source for definition, Answers.com - MJZ, 15 July 2006, 18:07 (UTC)

According to CNN TV, Lebanon anti-aircraft guns are now firing on Israeli planes, right after the prime minister of Lebanon said it had the right to self defence. So does this now making it a partisipant?--Rayc 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Show us the article...69.125.1.187 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

One of their corspondants in Lebanon mentioned it, but didn't follow up with any information. I don't see it anywhere on the web. Sort of like the Iran missles thing, lots of talk, but no one can confirm.--Rayc 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Listing Lebanon as a combatant is factually incorrect and highly prejudicial. Are we simply waiting for the "inevitable" to justify this misinformation? Shouldn't this be corrected? MJZ, 15 July 2006, 21:52 (UTC)

It is highly prejudicial, yes, but can anyone think of an instance when this much damamge has been done to a countries infrastructure and the country's military didn't get involved? I think they have a lot of restrain in not retailating up to this point. Though, why retailiate when you can just let someone else do it?--Rayc 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If we do end up listing Iran as a combatant then if the Lebanense army get involved (as opposed to just having their soldeirs killed by the Israelis as is the case so far) we defintiely have to add the USA as a combatant as 85% of armaments in the Lebanese army come from America. Andrew Riddles 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of the energy spent here could be used to add some information to the article itself about the position of Lebanon/the Lebanese government in this conflict. So far there seems to be nothing on that subject. --84.193.50.72 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if we start listig countries that are somehow involved (eg Iran because they supplied a missile, USA because they supply most of the military hardware to the Israeli AND Lebanese army (according to Wikipedia articles) then who knows where the list of combatants will end. Andrew Riddles 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is a combatant. They are in this war/crisis, whether they wanted to be or not. Hello32020 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese Army is not participating in any form of combat action, therefore it cannot be called a combatant.

We should at least keep it until we get more consensus though Hello32020 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

Israeli war crimes?

Having that link there is pretty POV, no? Let history decide whether any war crimes were committed here. --Pifactorial 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, its POV. Rangeley 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

last time I cheked, killing children is labeled as war crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK so is there a Hezbollah War Crimes article to balance the POV? Even if there was, the casualties section wouldn't be the appropriate place for a see also. This is a pretty clear case of petulant POV pushing. Brentt 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The intentional or avoidable (but not avoided) killing of civilians is a war crime. Virtually every modern war has had civilian casualities. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has a history of war crimes in Lebanon. In 1981-82 they dropped cluster bombs and thermobaryc (fuel-air vacuum) bombs on lebanese civilians, causing hundreds of badly maimed and burnt people. These bombs were made in America and USA sold them to Israel on the condition these very powerful weapons cannot be used unless TWO arab states invade israel concurrently. Instead Israel invaded lebanon and dropped the bombs. There was outrage in the congress, but Teller, himself a jew, intervened with Reagan and the incident was glossed over in the west. In the communist bloc the event was widely publicized, although at that time USSR no longer had any interest in materially helping arab and muslim people, opting to invade Afghanistan instead. 195.70.32.136 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International is calling them war crimes, but both sides : [6]--Paraphelion 09:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In 1982, in similar circumstances to this Israel invaded the Lebanon. In the year leading up to the invasion 9 Israeli civilans had been killed in rocket attacks. In the ensuing invasion Israeli fire killed between 20,000 and 25,000 civilians. I think it is a great idea to have a Hezbollah war crimes page; but it will not be "balanced" because the drimes of Hezbollah against civilans is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Israeli army is up to. ariddles

Israel has a fifty year history of human rights violations and has had numerous UN Resolutions drafted against her for these violations. Both sides behave badly and the truth should be told.

• If a particular organization is calling them war crimes, list it in international reactions as with Amnesty International. We do not call them war crimes until they are proven in a court, in the same way an article would not read "_____ is an American murderer" until he/she is found guilty of murder in a court. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Staxringold; the term "war crimes" has a fairly specific official usage, regardless of how it's thrown around by media outlets and partisans on any side of a conflict. The best way to avoid POV issues is to stick to this official usage, and so far it's too early to label such actions this way. Mentioning it as a reaction from organizations like AI, however, is certainly warranted. -- H·G (^words/_works) 00:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Staxringold's definition of "war crimes" there is no way the Israeli strikes can be classified as such. I mean, Israel has warned the civilian population of every planned attack, using both the media and fliers, even at the cost of losing the advantage of surprise. So we can definitely see that any attack on civilians was not intentional. I also don't think it could be considered avoidable, again because warning the civilians was the best Israel could have done. Hezbollah's missiles, however can be definitely considered 'war crimes' because (except for the attack on the INS Hanit) all of them were targeted at civilian population, ususally where there are few or no armed forces so the attack on civilians is intentional. 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Except of course a war crime is the targetting of civilans, which Israel has done. Also, warning civilians is not considered a good enough defence in international law: if the civilians do not or cannot flee that doens't mean you can then attack that place - as the attacking army you in fact have to desist from attacking that place. Another aspect is proportionality: you cannot as a country use oover kill - for example destroying a power station in another part of the country is not considered a proportionate attack under international law. Andrew Riddles 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah does not follow the Geneva convention, they are not a nation, Israel however is a nation and as such must follow international law, which it never has done. (owned) Erpals 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist or militant

Should Hezbollah fighters be catergorized as militants or terrorist? I belive that terrorist is too biast for this article as they were in operation against israli military unit's. Both sides have attacked civilian infastructure and killed civilian's so if one is a terrorist than they both are. Enlil Ninlil 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but you need to remember the main difference between Hezbollah and the IDF. The Hezbollah has been categorized as a terrorist organization (atleast by the US) - therefore its people are terrorists; and IDF is a national army.Máfiàg 09:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know but that definition is an American point of view, I know the IDF is the sole defence force in Israel and Hezbollah has no such backing in Lebanon. I just dont want to be biased either way. If they blow up a buss then there a terrorist. Enlil Ninlil 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah's security wing is classified as a terrorist organization by the EU as well. I am assuming that it was the security wing who did these operations, as they do all operations, therefore according to the US and the EU (everyone that matters) these are terrorists. 167.24.104.150 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, neither the US or the EU can legislate as to how an encyclopedia refers to an organization. The question is whether Hezbollah meets the commomly accepted definition of "terrorist". I doubt whether there is consensus on this question, therefore the term should be avoided. --Danward 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So 88,3% of the worlds population doesn't matter? PerDaniel 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, calling Hezbollah "terrorist" is very biased. To preserve NPOV, use simply "Hezbollah" or "the Hezbollah group", and "militants" instead of "terrorists". CG 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, you can argue all day about the definition of terrorism - the use of 'Hezbollah' is more appropriate ahpook 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing "Lebanese terrorists" into the article. First of all, the majority of lebanese casualties were civilians who had nothing to do with any of this, and second, the Lebanese military does not support Hezbollah (well.. at least not officially) Jadelith 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One groups terrorist is another groups freedom fighters. Calling them a Militant force seems apropriat for an encyclopædia.Cameron Nedland 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I dislike "militant" as vague and actually an euphemism for "terrorist". It is probably a weasel word to argue being "neutral" while retaining bias.

From a true NPOV point of view, Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamicist group with an armed wing and a civilian wing.

When describing attacks or military operations, NPOV calls for us to describe it as performed by "Hezbollah's armed wing" or some such.

Terrorist, militant, guerillas, freedom fighters, etc are all biased descriptions, because they are biased terms.

See the page for Hezbollah itself to look at an example of a NPOV description. Since there is already an seemingly accepted tone and description to use when refering to Hizbollah (after much discussion!) I see no reason why this page cannot adopt, in true encyclopedian style, the same wording used in the Hezbollah page.

NPOV is NOT about using a softer word to describe something, but to be as close as possible to a valid, objective observation. --Cerejota 00:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Agreed. If NPOV is the goal, then a term like "Hezbollah Irregulars" should be used. "terrorist" and "militant" are both dysphemisms. Mmason 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, irregulars. I can go with that. Thats cool with me. They arent standard soldiers, but they arent pacifists.Cameron Nedland 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

THey should be called millitants. Wikipedia does its best to avoid American POV. Terrorists is an overloaded non-specific term. 74.137.230.39 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One clarification. I'm not opposed to a different term. I was just commenting on the two options given in the section title. 74.137.230.39 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we go with the official Genevia Convention term, Illegal Combatants?--Nmourfield 05:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who your source for this is, but this is not so. Under the Third Geneva Convention on Prisioners of War, there is no mention of the term illegal combatants. This term is a legal invention of the USA's current administration, under a highly creative and controversial reading of the IIIGC. Yet, even if we were to accept the USA's reading of Geneva, Hezbollah is not considered by the UNSC (with the implicit legal recognition on the part of the USA) as an illegal organization. In fact, under rules of war they are considered a militia, in the sense that is a uniformed, private, non-state sanctioned military force, engaged in lawful war, and respecting the law of land warfare. The USA's current administration plays the middle ground by trying to define Hezbollah as a "terorrist" organization, while at the same time acknowleding in the ground that it is a legitimate combatant.

Now, you might disagree with the UN's view, but you cant use a document of which the UN is the depositor as justification for a term, and ignore that body's ruling on this specific matter. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Still, the UN's opinion of Hezbollah is POV.

--Cerejota 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not call it a militia? As that is what it was formed as (A citizens army to defend lebanon, or so the claim goes) and its fairly neutral? --Narson 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Hezbollah is officially considered a militia arm under the UN reference cited somewhere in this page. Therefore, they can be considered militants. It can also be used to justify civilian targets as militant targets. Very confusing. --Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

• To echo points made above, sticking to the UN's point of view could still be considered POV. Still, I'm not opposed to the use; WP defines the term as "any individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, normally for a cause." But the "terrorist" connotation is noted there as well, and to that extent, "irregular" might be safer. -- H·G (^words/_works) 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should refer to Hezbollah as I mentioned before, as two separate wings, and to the military actions of its armed wing as coming from "Hezbollah's militia" or from "Hezbollah's Military wing". The insistence in finding what amounts to a codeword for terrorist probably constitutes the single most egrerious example of weasel words in this discussion. This article will not be NPOV until Hezbollah is refered to in the same neutral tones as the IDF is.

Again "militant" is *not* neutral as it is used as a weasel word to appear neutral but actually in context, wink wink, make them the lesser actor. NPOV requires we treat all conflict actors equally.

--Cerejota 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying we should call the IDF "terrorists", or Hizbollah "soldiers?" Senatorpjt 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wa snot talking of the IDF, which are NPOV described as "soldiers" because they are members of a State controlled armed force. My concern is with describing Hizbollah combatants in the same NPOV light.--Cerejota 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hizbollah Militia or Hizbollah Militants is fitting. To call them soldiers would be slightly misrepresenting the relationship between Hizbollah and the Lebanese government (And if Lebanon does get involved we need to have that clear distinction). I am sure many people think nasty things when they see the word 'Arab', the same as when they see the word 'militant'. Are you saying that we shouldn't describe the Lebanese as Arab because some people consider that a negative thing? POV is tricky like that, if you then begin to assume what others will think. You have to simply be NPOV, use the correct wording and not worry what people who have a strong POV will think when they read it. Odds are the people you are worried about linking militant with terrorist have already got the word in their head when they read 'Hizbollah' and before they get to the militant bit, eh? --Narson 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition of the word Terrorist (as quoted from dictionary.com) is this: "ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st) n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism" The definition of terrorism: "ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

From these definitions Hizbollah fighters can be described as terrorists and still be NPOV.Ahkman1999 23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By these same standards Israelis are greater terrorists as they cause more terror among civilians (MPOV). The word 'Terrorist' is loaded, and should not be used. Call them members of ..... / fighters / resistance (that is after all what they call themselves, so why hide this crucial piece of information?).

Professional News Services use the word militant. Fox News, CNN, Routers all agree on using the word militant. This is a dumb argument because the consensus in US media seems to agree on using the term militant. To argue for terrorist is to place yourself in the class of people who want to call suicide-bombers homocide-bombers and pro-choice pro-abortion.--71.194.243.7 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Violation of international law

Please do not revert the sentence about violation of international law. This is not my personal POV it is a fact. I have a law degree with a specialisation in international law and I believe I am qualified to make such a statement. I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with other similarly qualified individuals. Israel does not have any special rights that allow it to freely violate the Geneva Convention without those violations being noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I have a law degree with a specialization in international law, too, from one of the best law schools in the world, plus I work in the field, and I'd say any discussions of violations of international law at this point are pretentious. As a matter of practice, the only international law that matters in war is customary international law, so discussions of treaties are silly, since, in practice, countries can withdraw from them at will. (And if you don't believe me, go ask the International Court of Justice following its decision in U.S. v. Nicaragua.) Epstein's Mother 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So then you know that waging aggressive war and committing war crimes is a clear violation of jus cogens. AntonioBu 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jus cogens is the fuzziest and least helpful aspect of international law. It has too much of the "pornography definition" to it (i.e., "I know it when I see it.")Epstein's Mother 04:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not permit original research. Only published information can be used as a source for our articles, and your personal conclusions based on your professional experience are not published information. --Delirium 06:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And BTW if you wish to follow this policy then please go through the article and remove all the uncited sections. They are numerous. Perhaps you could also remove the large chunks of uncited research appearing in articles you have written too. AntonioBu 07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that comment, and while I understand that Israel did break the geneva conventions, I really don't see an encyclopedia making the -argument- that Israel broke the geneva conventions. It is an argument until a widely recognized court convicts Israel of breaking them. Again, this is wikipedia and people are reading these articles to get NPOV facts. Yes, you might think this is a fact, and hell it probably is a fact, but its place is an analysis of the conflict, not an encyclopedia article. I don't want to start an edit war so I won't delete it again, but please respond here asap so that we could come to a conclusion :) --Jadelith 06:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Following this logic, that means that technically Hitler didn't commit any war crimes because he wasn't convicted by an internationally recognised court. If someone is murdered that doesn't mean to say that they is no murderer if the person is not brought to trial. The law stands - there is an international law against the invasion of other countries, and the Geneva Convention also has regulations about the proportionality of attacks, eg, use of weaponsin civilan areas, use of force aginst the size of the enemy. The essence of this particular Geneva rule is you are not allowed to use a hammer to crack a nut. Israel, whether we are supporters of the country or not, is breaking this law and this convention. ariddles

Delirium, I did not make that judgment based on professional experience but on the continued opinions of a wide range of international bodies based on the typical operating procedure of the IDF. The amount of uncited, unresearched writing on wikipedia puts paid to your argument. My comment was not unresearched. So no, sorry to you actually. It is an important issue that must be addressed. And Jadelith, it is not an argument that until a court 'convicts' Israel there is no breach as there is no international judicial body currently capable of prosecuting Israel as a state party due to the continued interference in such processes by the US. Breaches of international law can and do occur without direct judicial sanction for this very good reason. International law is not a law of courts and juries to the same extent individual state law is. I believe thats where your confusion may have arisen. To further extend my analogy, if you stab someone, you breach the criminal code of your nation. You may never be convicted but you still committed a breach. This case is a clear breach. AntonioBu 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, its true that a US backed israel may never be convicted of anything, and yes it is unfair. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it cannot allow the analyses of individual persons. While I understand that the unnecessary bombings of civilian buildings are a clear cut case of a breach, us (you, me, delirium, and everyone else here) as individuals are not officially recognized bodies of such jurisprudence: what we have to say cannot be recognized as facts. If I stabbed someone, and even if everyone in the world just knew I did it, they can't punish me if they cannot prove that I did it. and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot add a comment like that until either: a) another government official or b) UN accused Israelis as breaching the conventions. We can only report stuff, and your personal opinions are only analysis. --Jadelith 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unfair. You have perhaps missed my point. A breach of international law can occur without there being a judicial conviction. That is a part the very nature of international law. I have added a third citation, please note in the sixth paragraph the quote by Kofi Annan.

ahhh.. a breach of international law CAN occur without there being a judicial conviction. but, we need a recognizable outside source saying that these breachings occured, because otherwise we would be saying that as an individual. it might look very simple and clear-cut to you but it is an analysis. an encyclopedia can only write events that happened and quote the analyses of important officials (government officials, UN, etc).

if you really want to add anything, add it to "international response" page under "UN". you can say something like "and the un officials criticised the Israeli attacks, saying that "blahlbahblah"". what you are doing to this article is vandalism. (and no I'm not deleting your ideas, someone else is. I try not to delete anything as it is a possible vandalism) --Jadelith 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If laws preclude these actions then do we need to say that an international body has come out and condemned Israeli action? If the law stands and is broken, and it is broken. If someone is murdered, the law is contravened whether someone says so or not. It would be "vandalism" if we ignored international law. If you want to balance the argument then sure, say that Hezbollah violated international law too. Doesn't mean to say that Israel didn't break law too, or in a worse way..

My edit is cited. The article is full of totally uncited sections as is this entire project. You have no right to accuse me of vandalism. You're splitting hairs.

Read the international response. It is already criticising Israel as violating international law and the calls will only grow as the Israeli incursion continues. So this commentary will end up in this article. Thank you. AntonioBu 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AntonioBu, what you cite is the text of Geneva Convention, not the verifiable source saying that Israel has violated it. Once you have a verifiable source saying that "Israel violated Geneva convention by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure", and once that source is different from AntonioBu's private opinion, you are welcome to come back and insert a reference to that opinion either here or in the Reaction page.

What you cited does not justify your writing. Your cited the geneva convention itself, and UN officials condemning Israel for the offensive. The project is not full of totally uncited sections. Wherever we see them, we ask them to be cited. International response is indeed criticising Israel, but it is already written there. Someone who wants to read about this conflict will be able to read the international response by clicking on the aforesaid link. Someone who wants to read the assault on Lebanon should be able to read a nonbiased description of the attacks by israel on lebanese civilians/infrastructure etc. The reader does not need the analysis of the encyclopedia author. Even if we end up using international response in the article, it would belong in an "Aftermath" section.--Jadelith 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I have said is biased. It is the truth. I cited the convention because I mentioned it in the sentence. That is standard academic procedure. I see at least two 'citation needed' tags plus other non-referenced comments. Just what is your agenda here? AntonioBu 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please no original research. Also please refrain from speculating on other editor's motives, see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You should also be aware of the three revert rule, violation of which may result in an edit block. Weregerbil 11:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia is not a place for academic procedures or academic research. The other places needing citation are undisputable; your private opinion that 'Israel has violated Geneva convention' is not. Besides, the fact that other material is not 100% conforming is not a green light for someone to go on and add more non-conforming material. We are trying to raise the bar here, not to put it down. (By the way, the Israelis have the explanation for their actions against civilian infrastructure; they claim that these are either used by Hizbullah to smuggle or transfer weapons, and besides they are isolating the country to prevent transfer of kidnapped soldiers to Iran; as such, they are not targeting civil infrastructure but the military one, and its not their fault that the infrastructure serves both purposes. Should I add citations to the article?) Anyway, from Israeli POV they are NOT violating Geneva Convention. --87.69.70.61 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? And the Israelis must have a justifiable point of view. The last point of view to be believed in this situation is of the combatants, who have vested interest in claiming legitimacy for their actions and that means both Israeli and Hezbollah. My god, an encyclopaedia is not a place for academic procedures?! I cited my contribution and the material I mentioned. An encyclopaedia demands academic procedure by its very nature. I keep saying it is not my personal POV it is fact and Israel's POV in this is hardly relevant. If they are the violating party do you think they would say they are committing those violations. I apologise for questioning someone's agenda but don't threaten me with being blocked. Thats not exactly civil behaviou either. AntonioBu 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are an international law expert, the proper way to add the assumption that Israel violates international law would be to publish an academic work stating such in a respected, peer reviewed law journal, then add that claim citing that work, not simply say "here is the jeneva convention, what they are doing is clearly in breach of it." I am not in international law expert, and by reading the geneva convention I cannot say without doubt that Israel is in breach of it, neither can I say that about the other side. This is original reaserch, not common knowledge, and does not belong here. --darkskyz 12:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a fact until somebody else who is verifiable and reliable decides it is a fact; one's personal opinion is neither verifiable nor reliable. Israel might say one thing and Hezbullah some other; until now, it was you who decided that the targets were civialian (and not, for instance, serving dual - civilian and military - purpose) and it was you who decided that the targeting was deliberate (and not, for instance, made by mistake or by misunderstanding or such). The decisions of this type is exactly what is called original research. As such, it will be omitted from this article, as Wikipedia policy demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.70.61 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for academic original research. Regarding the WP:3RR rule: please do not take that as a "threat", I was merely making sure you know the policy and the consequences of violating it. I think it is more fair to make sure you know about it rather than have any possible block come as a surprise. I now see you know the policy and still continue to revert; this way you are violating it by conscious choice rather than as an honest mistake. Weregerbil 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added this information back into the article using the "apparent contravention" formulation, since that appears to be an acceptable NPOV formulation, judging from its use in relation to resolution 1559 in a less contested area of the article Jacob 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly the same case. Resolution 1559 calls for the dismenteling of all armed militias in the area. I doubt anyone says that the Hebollah isn't "an armed militia in the area." JC is concerned with the ntentional attack on civilians, which is hardly clear at the moment. --darkskyz 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source which states that there was an "apparent" violation of resolution 1559? If so, please cite it or rephrase/remove the line from the article. Jacob 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From the resolution: "3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;" Does anyone claim that Hezbollah isn't a militia? --darkskyz 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case, finding a source to cite for the claim should be fairly easy. If there is no source, however, then the "apparent violation" of resolution 1559 does start looking very like original research Jacob 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We're back on the same route. Who is the source of the information that what Israel does is 'apparent' violation of Geneva convention? Unless there is a source for that claim (or apparent claim, or whatever) it is original research and is discouraged. You can say Jacob considers Israeli actions to be an apparent violation of Fourth Geneva Convention, and it would be reliable and verifiable, however this kind of POV apparently does not belong here. If you think that relation to resolution 1559 is in a need of citations or otherwise can be strenghtened, please do provide a source for it, thus improving the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.70.61 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - The source was actually the Amnesty link provided, but I've clarified the text to make that explicit. Jacob 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jacob. Now it is based and verifiable fact. The problem is - Amnesty press release that you linked to relates to Israeli attacks on Gaza strip and has nothing to do with the current article, or with this Israel-Lebanon crisis at all. Could you please either fix the link to the relevant press release, or drop the relation to Geneva convention altogether. Thanks. 87.69.70.61 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that I'd pasted the wrong link, but ... Oh, the joys of edit conflicts.

Anyway, I also just noticed that Amnesty's reaction is already covered on International reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, so I've re-removed it from this article as it would be pointless duplication having it in both places Jacob 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A UN official has stated that Israel's actions are in breach of international law. Please see the final paragraph of the link I have now added. There is now no reason to remove the assertion that Israel is in breach of international law and any attempt to do so is nothing more than vandalism. AntonioBu 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is also being blamed with breaking international law, both by this official and the Amnesty International response (in international responses). And still, this belongs in the int'l response sections and not as part of the factual article. Or you may as well note that Hebollah's firing hundreds of rockets aimed at civilian population centers is a far clearer breach of int'l law. I personally don't care anymore - I'm tired of arguing with a someone who thinks just because he has a law degree he knows beter then anyone else. I hope other editors will continue this until a concensus is reaced and article changed accordingly rather then in a forceful act by one editor reverting his (POV) claims. Good night. --darkskyz 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then add a section about Hezbollah's violations, I won't complain. Violations of international law are a fact but obviously you can't grasp that. I understand that as an Israeli this personally effects you and your loved ones but try and remove yourself from the scene for a minute and understand that these incursions, yes by both sides, have violated international law and that is a FACT. I have now clearly cited my edit, it is not my POV it is now a fact. AntonioBu 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"apparent contravention" of 1559

needs citation. the present cite simply links to the text of the resolution. who says lebanon is in "apparent contravention"? Doldrums 11:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are still armed militias acting in the area. Otherwise, who kidnapped the soldiers? I doubt you would say it was the lebanese army, since they aren't there. The military wing of Hezbollah is an armed militia. --darkskyz 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

the resolution "calls for" disarming militias. does "call for" impose a binding obligation? if this is "non-binding" language, then its not contravention.

the easiest thing to do is find a source which claims someone is in contravention, and add that claim to the article.

secondly, the resolution does not call upon the Lebanene government to disarm militias, it simply calls for the disarmament of militias. so i'll fix that statement accordingly. Doldrums 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you want, but i apreciate your attempt, prolli it's real hard to write a npov article on this subject, at least for me i found it pro-israel biased and expect it to stay so. What is actually happening (crippling neighbouring 21st century economy's structurally , purposedly, and possibly with bad intends.(like using them as markets , guest labourers, and denying them the development to stop them from understanding their rights to stand up against all this.)) isnt even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk)

"kidnap" versus "capture"

while israel considers this a "kidnapping", the neutral term is "capture", "hold captive", etc, because the latter are neutral as to the legality of the action, whereas kidnapping is not. since the legality of hezbollah's raid and whether the action constitue an act of war is under doubt, we shld use "capture", unless reporting israels' view or such. Doldrums 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as this goes, coming into another country unprovoked and taking reserve troops who were doing ordinary border patrol "captive", is strict "kidnapping". This has nothing to do with neutrality. Dave, Israel, 17:16, 14 July 2006.

In your opinion the attack was unprovoked. You should not confuse your opinion fact. Neither should you trash the article, then call me a vandal for protecting the consensus. Damburger 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By The way, if CNN is good enough to use the word "kidnap" in relation to this "incident", then I think this should be the word used here as well. And again, the provoked/unprovoked question is not a matter of opinion. Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon over 5 years ago and since then has done not a single military action in Lebanon. Hizbullah, in the meantime, has kept up its aggression in violation of international law and UN resolutions, including the Unprovoked attack on Israel and the Kidnapping of the soldiers. Would you also erase the words "terror" and "terrorist" in relation to the attacks in New York on 9/11 because in Al-Qaeda view it is a military operation???

Definition of Kidnap: To seize and detain a person unlawfully; sometimes for ransom. As you can see, this is exactly what was done here. The soldiers were seized and detained unlawfully, an d are held for ransom of thousands of terrorists held in Israeli prisons. Don't try protecting your views under the so-called "consensus" or "neutrality". What was done is pure kidnapping. And so, I'm editing it back to kidnap, and will continue doing so. Dave, Israel, 17:52, 14 July 2006.

If you continue to change the article against the consensus, you can be blocked under the three revert rule. I suggest you stop vandalising this article in favour of your political agenda. Damburger 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" seems to be your and the general ignorant majority's opinion. "vandalising" this article is nothing compared to the vandalism you're doing to the actual truth. And my political agenda is called "peace & truth" in contrast to your "anti-semitism & lies". I feel sorry for you.

While I acknowledge that the dictionary definition of "kidnap" is a general description of the incident, the problem is that "kidnap" is the word used in statutes (admittedly, I've only seen U.S. state instances) that set the legal penalties for such a "capture". It may be an accurate description of the incident in many people's opinions, but it has too many non-neutral connotations. I like "capture". UltraNurd 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like kidnap. To capture someone is something you do in war. They just popped into their borders, shot up a patrol, and KIDNAPPED two people. THEN the conflict started. Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Israel repeatidly called this "an act of war". No citation right now but that shouldn't be hard to find. 83.161.4.134 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kidnap implies to me that it was the primary objective. Perhaps the objective was to attack the patrol, the capture of the Israeli soldiers was incidental to the attack, not the goal. The fact remains that the use of "kidnap" does not convey any more information than "capture" other than to portray a non-neutral point of view. "Kidnap" implies an ambush of an unarmed civilian, not an attack on an armored military patrol (If there is absolutely no expectation of an attack, there is no need for a military patrol!) Also, this conflict has been ongoing for decades at varying levels, and thus cannot be considered to be completely unprovoked. Using "kidnap" would be equivalent to saying that the Israeli soldiers "murdered" Lebanese civilians rather than "killed" them later in the article. Senatorpjt 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Captured" should be used. It's just as accurate as "kidnapped", and it's neutral (which "kidnapped" definitely isn't), so why not? Badger Legion 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Capture" is not neutral - it denotes a collateral situation which did not exist at the time (e.g. - he captured my rook; in return I captured his bishop). And the argument that a border patrol expects attack suggests open season on any country running border patrols, which is just about every country in the world, except (famously) Lebanon itself. And it goes without saying that attacking humvees with anti-tank rockets is like nuking a fly - the epitome of overkill and cowardice. Kidnapping denotes a cowardly action - capture the opposite.--Craven Maven 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of "to capture" which applies here is: "To seize or take possession of by force, surprise, or stratagem; to overcome and hold; to secure by effort".

Another thing I found is from Legal dictionary. It's about ships, but it makes clear that a capture does not have to be legal to be a capture: "Capture is deemed lawful, when made by a declared enemy, lawfully commissioned and according to the laws of war; and unlawful, when it is against the rules established by the law of nations."

That should hopefully clear up any concerns. Zocky | picture popups 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say that it sounds weird to me that a soldier on a mission could be "kidnapped". As Senatorpjt, to me "kidnap" has the connotation of the victim being helpless. Is there any examples of usage of the word "kidnapping" regarding soldiers, in for example a book of history? --213.65.178.172 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as just about all media outlets call it a kidnapping, shouldn't we call it a kidnapping? dposse 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not media outlets. We are an encyclopedia. Thats is a difference many people seem to miss. Media outlets do not adhere to strict, peer-reviewed, discussed NPOV rules like wikipedia. You don't like this about wikipedia, then go somewhere else. NPOV is one of the very few non-negotiable rules in Wikipedia.

As to the present discussion, ill try to to be clear:

"Capture" is NPOV, as it leaves the question of legality or illegality (which is POV unless a court of law evaluates this) open. Whereas "kidnapping" implies illegality.

I dont think in this disucussion views on the captured soldiers being soldiers etc are relevant. The question is one of legality of the action vs illegality of the action, and we must be neutral in this. "Capture" describes a fact without qualification, whereas "Kidnapping" qualifies the fact. NPOV would seem to support "capture" over "kidnapping" for these reasons.

--Cerejota 23:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think that anybody could honestly argue that "capture" in this context isn't a classic weasel word. --Craven Maven 11:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Israel consider this an act of war, therefore it can't be an illegal kidnapping but a legal (under rules of war) capture of 2 enemy soldiers.Hypnosadist 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using word "abducted". It does not imply helplessness or child’s qualities of a victim as “kidnapping” and has no military accent as "capture". I would like to point out that the target was any Israeli citizen and not a specific person, who was intended to be arrested. Michagal

Abducted seems to be a good compromise. I'll begin making changes soon if no one objects. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Abducted is cool by me!Hypnosadist 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli response/NPOVing "who started first

Does anyone have a good (NPOV) formulation describing Israel's actions after the Hezbollah raid? I thought counter-raid just doesn't fit the actions, as it wasn't a raid, but rather many airstrikes and artilery bombardment. I'm putting in counter-attack for now, though I'm concerned it may also be both vague and POV. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Response? ~Rangeley (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli responded by [...], with the express intention of ["..." (direct quote from Israeli foreign minister or similarly high-ranking official)] Hezbollah." Something like that. --zenohockey 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The immediate cause of the events here are the Hezbollah raid. How you would like to phrase the Israeli actions after that is debateable; however the order of events must be preserved in the titles. "Counter-strikes" or some such phrase is legitimate. I only object to "counter-raid" because the Israeli actions were many things but a raid. Anything that describes the missle strikes and artillery while making clear the order is NPOV. If the order is unclear, then that ceases to maintain clarity (or neutrality). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Any conflict is about gradually escalating responses and counter-responses. If wikipedia is going to arbitrarily claim that one particular response to previous events is an "unprovoked" action or a "disproportionate" response, then we would be doing original research unless it's referenced and unless we try to find references for the claims regarding both sides.

To claim that Hezbollah "started this", but that Israel did not, is OR - original research.

Whether or not either Hezbollah was morally/legally/whatever justified in responding to continued Israeli detention of Palestinian prisoners, and whether or not Israel was morally/legally/whatever justified in responding to the Hezbollah attack, is something that can be added in as opinions from various commentators, appropriately referenced.

But let's not claim that one group "started it" and the other "responded" unless we document the fact that both sides are responding as part of a continuing ongoing conflict.

Here's just one reference for what Hezbollah was responding to - i think that if people search around a bit, you'll find other POVs as well: http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19978&Itemid=1

Boud 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Boud 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You could make that argument for any conflict, but wikipedia describes the events. Later in the article we discuss the Hezbollah motivations. To call it a "response" is not factual, and just mixes things up. We don't call the WTC 9/11 attack a response, and we don't call Pearl Harbour a response, but the understanding of the other side's motivation is discussed later. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Strategic Studies discipline the two concepts are separated as "immediate causes" (here: the capturing of the two soldiers) and "underlying causes" or "root causes" (the vicious cycle of violence/poverty/humiliation/etc. between the parties) Sijo Ripa 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The immediate cause is military actions in gaza, hezbollah (i would concern that less limited palestine individuals in lebanon in this case, took action. as a result of taht the ready and alert, (and paranoia) israeli warmachine set out to do to the lebanese what it did to the palestineans, restrict their development. I see no reason to condemn palestine resistance as worse then israeli terror. especially ot when it comes to causes of this affair. (i forget that ...: onix) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk)

It's not about condemning. What we see however is that the violence escalated after the Hezbollah actions. In other words: a conflict is triggered by an immediate cause and I doubt that you can deny that that trigger wasn't the capture of the two soldiers. Ask yourself: would Israel have taken the same actions on the same day without the capturing? Possibly they would have taken the same actions on a different moment, which "however" would mean that there was a different immediate cause (which can be almost anything, internal or external). Sijo Ripa 02:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously arbitrary, you say so yourself: "What we see however is that the violence escalated after the Hezbollah actions. " Now substitute hezbollah actions for : israeli actions in gaza.. see what happened? the israeli actions in gaza escalated violence. No reason to blame hezbollah for the israeli military doctrine and paranoia. I on a more serious note think the rocket attacks are the major reason for israeli overeaction. somehow strange since they perceive terrorising palestineans with jets and guided missiles as not that intimidating, or a cause for distraught.(onix)80.57.243.72 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you can just claim that the palestinians started this one by capturing the soldier in the Gaza Strip, which led to the israeli actions, and so on and so forth. This particular conflict arises immediately, on a very small time scale, from the capture of the two soldiers in Israel-Lebanon border. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

More egrerious POV

I am begining to think some editors here have no good faith.

This is an example of blatant POV:

"Hezbollah's political rhetoric has historically revolved around calls for the destruction of the state of Israel."

First of all, "rhetoric" is not a NPOV term. "Discourse", or "position" or some such is.

Second, the source provided is itself POV, as it states as fact something without providing any sources or quoting directly from documents or interviews.

Hezbollah's page here has pretty well documented sources as to what Hezbollah's stands for, and furthermore, by not mentioning what Israel stands for, we violate NPOV principles of balance.

Beyond this example, as a general principle it is not NPOV to state as fact something that is someone's POV even if this source is the BBC. --Cerejota 18:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you find a problem in the article just fix it. --JWSchmidt 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And we need air to breathe. I have done dozens of edits to this page. Most of them I have explained here, which people are not doing.--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, please assume good faith. Everyone is coming into this with their own point-of-view. Writing a truly neutral article is very, very, very hard. Especially when dealing with such a controversial and emotional topic. Sure, there are people coming in with a malicious intent to slant the article one way or another, but most are really trying to present facts as they understand them. It's up to all of us to keep an eye out for bias and correct it when we see it. When you see something that you consider biased, change it. Make it better. Now I'll hop off my high horse.... --Elliskev 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and continue to assume good faith. It just that so much editing happens with out it being explained in the talk page, most of it on contravention to what we are talking about one gets frustated.--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you had read the article on rhetoric which you linked, you would see that it is defined as persuasive discourse. As someone whose minor concentration in doctoral studies was Rhetoric, I can confidently assert its neutrality. As artists of persuasive speech, Aristotle and others can be non-pejoratively defined as rhetors. I can't attest to Hezbollah's skills in this regard, however. Fishhead64 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As we write not for experts but the general public, we must be aware of common usage too. "Rhetoric" is used in contemporary political speech This is the same as with "militant", which in classic, formal language has no negative connotations, but in the media and popular mind is codeword for terrorist. We cannot be disingenious.

(As to you appeal to authority, you studies of Rhetoric might tell you that this is a fallacy.)

Lastly, the page in wiki to which I link unequivocally states:

"Both the terms "rhetoric" and "sophistry" are also used today in a pejorative or dismissive sense, when someone wants to distinguish between "empty" words and action, or between true or accurate information and misinformation, propaganda, or "spin," or to denigrate specific forms of verbal reasoning as spurious."

Perhaps in you haste you missed it. Its this contemporary and widespread usage I refer to.

--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I was not in haste - I did note that rhetoric has a multiplicity of meaning. As to my appeal to authority, insofar as the dictionary is an authority, I plead guilty. The fact is that rhetoric has a multiplicity of meaning in common usage, and I'm sure the average reader is able to figure it out. Public political discourse is almost entirely rhetorical in the classical sense of the word, so it seems fairly accurate. The point of comment was mainly to assert that we can sometimes be a little too apt to see POV gremlins behind every bush. Fishhead64 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about the gremlins, yet one cannot be with out context here. This is a very controversial topic, it is about a war in which people are killing and dying, and in which most of the editors are firmly in either side of the conflict. If this article were less controversial I would let my guard down. It isn't, so it is up.

And please, don't be disingeneous. While we must assume good fait, we don't see, for example, Israel described as having an "anti-Hezbollah political rhetoric". If we are to use "rhetoric" in the classical sense, we must, in order to respect NPOV use it accross the board. You argument is both teleological and tautological in this sense.

Nevertheless, we cannot assume that readers of the entry will have the understanding of the word "rhetoric" that is positive, but rather the contrary. In particular considering the obvious at Hezbollah bias of the major western press outlets (a good example being the BBC's "What is Hezbollah?" article which basically says things as if they were true without sources or interviews, and which is the source of the formulation we are disucssing) there is an obvious enviroment in which any reasonable, logical person, attempting to understand things from a NPOV perspective might see "rhetoric" as used to refer to Hezbollah as being a negative usage. Might even reasonably assume that this was the editor's intention when quoting the BBC by citation instead of directly. Its context, stupid.

--Cerejota 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV CHECK tag

Please refrain from removing the POV CHECK tag from the page. This tag means that the article might not be NPOV, and that a discussion is on going. We havent reached a consensus, so this remains true. This tag is more tentative than POV tag, and hence if doesnt mean the page is not NPOV, just that a discussion is ongoing, which it is. --Cerejota 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not over-use the tag, though. There's going to be some POV in such an emotionally charged article. Most of it can be dealt with rather quickly, without that ugly-ass POV tag. --Elliskev 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas Elliskev, the POV CHECK is intended to be a more permanent tag. Your POV might say it is ugly, but I think it is better looking and more relevant than the other POV tags.

My attempt by having it there for a while is aimed at preventing a POV tag war (the national wikipedia sport it seems) by not arguing that the article is not NPOV, but by saying there is a disucssion in this regards (which there is). I am tempted to remove the tag, as it seems there is a group of responsible, good faith editors from both sides of the POV, but I resist the temptation because there is still ongoing vandalism and non-consensus edits, some of them massive and by obvious wikignorants. I think we will come to remove the tag when this crisis is over, but will unfortuntelly still need it for a while.

Makes me whish there was a main article equivalent for the talk page "controversial" tag, if you get my point.

--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your feelings on this and withdraw my objection, for now. --Elliskev 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Erpals 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this previous comment should go in the main POV discussion section?

--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources are contributing to this article's bias

WHile it is highly unusual to mention websites or sources directlly instead of as citations, I can live with this as long as the presentation of this sources is NPOV. DebkaFile is a website with a clear pro-Israeli POV, supported by ads of Jewish only dating services, and with connections to the Israeli intelligent services, which they use as sources for their often exclusive stories. Hence, displaying them without qualification gives the wrong impression that they are a neutral, or NPOV adherent source, which they most surely arent.

Claiming "let the reader decide" assumes that they have all the facts at hand, and this is not the case. The simple description of DebkaFile as "pro-israeli" is not NPOV. It is as NPOV as describing Hezbollah as a Shia Mulsim organization. --Cerejota 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Who is citing Ynet as a legitamate source? There is nothing more biased than that. Of course there are NPOV problems when you only get Israeli news and Fox. Why don't I go get some Al-Jazeera and cite that? Erpals 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be preferable if we could use well respected sources. Ynet is just a webpage, which probably isn't independent, and surely not neutral in this conflict. And what I have heard about "Fox" isn't very reassuring, see Fox News Channel controversies.--Battra 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ynet is not 'just a Webpage'. It belongs to the biggest newspaper in Israel, Yediot Aharonot. quoting it is just as accurate as quoting any reputable Arab source.

As for the number of Israelis injured, I think you have some point. Ynet has already reported that 45 of the injured are still in hospital. The big difference here means that yes, Israeli sources are counting minor injuries (such as "shock injuries") which may not be 'counted' in Lebanon. If you want, you can report both numbers, letting the readers decide. 85.250.179.33 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then ynet should be a good source for the official Israeli standpoint, for example when it comes to the number of killed soldiers. But I still think it would be preferable to avoid references to webpages such as these as much as possible, and use for example news from BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, etc. --Battra 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Though the number "500" for the Israeli civilians injured could hardly be an exact number, it seems more likely that it is some kind if rough guess. --Battra 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I've found the sentence in that article "The hospitals have treated more than 500 people since Wednesday, most of whom were released to their homes." It doesn't say explicitly that they were injured in this conflict, though that might be what is meant. It would be good if we had a more exact number though.--Battra 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on this is that this figure is based off of the number of people treated at a hospital during the crisis, which will be anything from life threatening injuries to bad nerves, and that considering this, 500 seems low; consider the number of people "treated at hospitals" in New York City after 9/11 or any similar event. It can be argued that not all those people should be considered injured, but currently it is one of the few sources available. Also consider that one might not think twice about a figure of 500 injured if the actual numbers of Lebanese injured, by the same standard of anyone treated at a hospital, but unfortunately we will likely never have that figure or not for a long time.--Paraphelion 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely go with the figure quoted in CNN, i. e. over 100 Israelis injured, in the infobox. It should be OK to also give the 500 figure in the article itself, with the descrition "treated in hospitals". btw, Ynet attributes this number to the Israeli Health Ministry. 85.250.179.33 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

This is the discussion about reported events/supposed events and source searches.

LINK? on Fox News Alert

Fox News just had an alert that said (something along the lines): Israe: Missle targeted at naval fleet, hits civilian boat. Sorry I can't remember the exact words, but essentially the alert said Israel said that a missle was aimed at their ship and it hit a civilian ship. Is there any links or other sites, tv, etc reporting and confirming this. I also question the merits of course, because Israel is reporting this....and there is nothing to confirm it...sorry I couldn't offer more--Jerluvsthecubs 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Too add on Fox has said they have confirmed that 4 Israeli Soilders are missing and they say they have confirmed a civilian vessel was hit. I'll search to confirm.--Jerluvsthecubs 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I confirmed it through Rueters [7]. There isn't enough info though, but should there be any mention of this or should we wait until additional information comes out on this?

• I would wait. As an additional source, this AP story hosted on Yahoo News. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for the link. I've found only one article from a local news source in Bangore, Maine on the 4 missing sailors: [8]. Fox says they confirm the missing soilders, but again...you are right we should probably wait for more stories and stories that are objective.

Israel says Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship

Infiltration attempt reference?

IDF supposedly foiled a Hezbollah infiltration attempt. The reference given is

Title: IDF forces foil infiltration attempt on northern border. Jerusalem Post: (2006-07-14). Link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994586&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The link does not mention anything about this, nor did a search on the website for "infiltration" yield anything.

Anyone know about this?

--srostami 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed.

--srostami 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it. Apparently the page was reused for a more recent article, but I found a copy of it on some kind of a news board (as well as having read it at the time ;-]), and reposted with the new link. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new to this so maybe you can explain something to me. Now the link goes to the site you put down, which in turn references the same irrelevant article as before. I don't understand how this is different than the way it was to begin with. I could have a "story" on my personal homepage that says "UN members unanimously agree to blow up the Moon" and then link to a CNN article about breast cancer. This Lucianne thing doesn't strike me as a "reliable, verifiable" anything. At the very least, doesn't the original article exist somewhere at Jerusalem Post? It seems pretty shady to me that a news site doesn't store day-old articles.

--srostami 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct; I reposted it without the URL until it appears in the archives according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Affects on oil price

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

72h Ultimatum

We need a better source than [9] for that statement, especially when it's mentioned in the lead paragraph. The current source is (1) Ynet that reports about a news message of the (2) Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat that in turn has unreleased information of the (3) Pentagon that in turn gained information from (4) Israel. Quite some interpretations, translations and uncertainities accumulated. Sijo Ripa 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Its very important news. Yes, the source could be better, but its definately worth mentioning in the lead. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find a source for the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??

[10] ~Rangeley (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not much of a source for that information - it's second hand. But, with help from users in our Arabic IRC channel, I found the report Al-Hayat story that Ynet is qouting. Here's a Google translation. In short, the relevant part says "the source refused to confirm or deny rumors of an ultimatum". Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also kindly provided with a better translation of the first two paragraphs:

An authorized source in the US Defence Ministery warned yesterday that if Arab and international efforts failed to persuade Syria to put pressure on Hizbollah to release the two israeli soldiers and end the current escalation, that it would push Israel to strike vital goals in the Syrian territories.

The source refused to deny or confirm rumours in Washington yesterday saying that Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to accept what Israel requied to stop the activity of Hezbollah on the Israeli borders and to obtian release of the two israeli soldiers , or it will face serious consequences.

Hope that helps. Zocky | picture popups 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim of an ultimatum has been removed from the lead, but it's now in a lower section, referencing the second-hand Ynet story, which makes the claim soumd much more credible than the original Al-Hayat story. We can change the reference to go directly to the Al-Hayat story, but since that is in Arabic, we should probably provide a more accurate citation than we have now. Zocky | picture popups 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now done this. Zocky | picture popups 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation of Expatriates and Tourists

With the ongoing operations by countries to get their citizens out of Lebanon, I feel we should either put in this article or write a seperate one about each countries efforts. I don't know if this is happening or has happened as I'm new to the talk pages on wikipedia. Njjones 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It should perhaps be mentioned somewhere, since the UK are sending warships to the area for a possible evacuation (source for this = BBC News 24), as to where it should be mentioned I have no idea... Cryomaniac 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the US is considering an airborne operation out of Larnaca,Cyrpus using helos or planes. The closest carrier with helos (USS Iwo Jima) is in the Red Sea and days away due to Marines off shore in Jordan. I know some governments are moving their citizens from Beirut to Damascus and will fly them out from there, such as Spain. I doubt this would be allowed for the US due to harsh rhetoric being tossed around by both countries. Njjones 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran attempting to distract?

People in the media keep saying that Iran is directly responsible for starting this recent mess in order to create a distraction from its nuclear ambitions. Is this true? Or is it pure speculation? Where are they getting this from? Is there anything about it in the article? If so, please point me to it. If not, somebody put it in there. -Amit 67.22.216.150 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More like Israel is interested in conflict. Jews populace wants militaristic pose leaders like Sharon was, so the current Olmert-duo, who have almost nil military background (and consequently considered second class authority in Israel), want to show muscle power to gain domestic support. To meet the initial militants' demands and prisoner swap free the 300 women and 100 children younger than 15 years old, long held in israeli prisons without charge or trial, would have been easy and so the current conflict wouldn't even start. It has been done before several times to prisoner swap just a few jewish soldiers and spies for hundreds of imprisoned arabs. Why this way was not implemented now by Israel?

Foreigners cannot understand how much hatred the arabs and muslims have for the jews because of the palestinian prisoner problem. Besides the above mentioned females and youngsters, there are circa 8500 arab and muslim males long held in Israel without any charge or trial. Some of them have been held for 15 to 20 (twenty!) years now without any rights. The arabs want their many many prisoners back just as bad as jews want their 3 captured soldiers back.

Considering this, you need no Syria or Iran to explain why palestinians and other arabs are fighting. However, Israel has declared intention to make unilateral border drawing, so they hope to benefit from this war due to their huge us-funded military might. But they should know the only way to remove popular support for Hezbollah is to return to the pre-1967 borders and let the refugees come back. Current bombing only recruits more people to hezbollah. Even the moderate Lebanese PM Seinora is now calling on TV for ordinary arab people to become suicide bombers and never surrender!

It would be worth noting a great many people think that Iran is using this as a distraction. The fact that this began on the very same day that the deadline on Iran occured that the UNSC gave them does lend credence to the idea, and the fact that Iranian weaponry is being used, and 100 Iranian troops are said to be in South Lebanon only helps that out. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Threat on Central Israel

Israeli Home Front Command says that cities southern then Haifa (for example Tel Aviv) should be ready for an attack. [11] Máfiàg 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Use Citations + Disclaimer

1. If you update the number of casualties, please add citations, as diffrent sources report different numbers, and the number changes as the time passes. Also, can anyone confirm the 10 children noted on the page? Even arab Al-Jazeera isn't reporting that. --darkskyz 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
2. also should point out that in the infobox, (lebanese government account) appears at the bottom of the list of lebanese and hezbollah casaulties, but no such disclaimer is placed under the israeli list of casualties. this is actually a significant trend in both corporate and 'independent' media when using official sourcing. 'our' official sources, or those friendly to us ('us' being western, 'democratic', global north industrialized capitalist nation states or their client states e.g. israel) are assumed to tell the truth in casualty reporting, while 'their' official sources ('them' being 'non-democratic', global south developing/thirdworld nation states) are assumed to have motive to lie or be otherwise unable to give an accurate casualty report. the reason for this seems to hearken back in a cultural sense to the identity of the 'other' as suspicious and untrustworthy, and in a socio-economic sense to the need to see those nations as 'rogue states', while in reality many are only classified as such because their rebellion against their subjugation to the hegemony of Euro-American Empire is seen as unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

Children Killed?

There seems to be an edit war going on about noting that "several tens of children" were killed. Should this be noted? Are the sources even reliable enough? --darkskyz 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

is reuters/bbc reliable enough? I'd say so.--Jadelith 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "children" should be cited separately at all as I don't think there is a reasonable line on what "children" should mean. For example, what age separates "children" from "civilian"? Is "children", who is a member of Hezbollah, a "militant", "civilian", or "children"? Is unborn baby a "children", "civilian" or something else entirely? You can artificially inflate number of "children" by setting age high (like 20) and even including young enough militants. Claiming a large number of "Children" killed will be a great propaganda tool but an unverifiable POV.--Revth 09:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

the thing is, its possible to get the # of children killed in many other war articles, which shows the extent of damage done by the aggressor. I think it is fit to add that here as well, the major problem in this assault being Israel's bombs killing people who probably didn't even support hezbollah. we always hear the number of children killed in other wars, why not here? but I do understand that its hard to specify what is meant by children. I still think its safe to add them if we have sources.--Jadelith 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the phrase that said "...and killed 110 people, many of them civilians who were women and children" to just "many of whom were civilians. tacking on "women and children" makes it seem that much worse. They were civilians and not military, so I think we should keep it out. --Crucible Guardian 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BS nr's of dead children should not ever be hidden or restricted. However more are to come. Civilian casualties implies: civilians staying at military locations, that is wrong. I dont care about a dead children count, but not wanting to show the nr is not NPOV and is pro-israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk)

I think its clear on what the aggresors and apologetics are driving to achieve by down-playing civilian deaths particularly women and children by grouping them under a vague, unclear heading of mere civilians. We must all reflect on what the "Current" israeli barbaric, disproportionate, and genocidal response is doing to lebanon. The massacres from this government is well documented. No matter how direct or Indirect, God's chosen people are displaying what exactly they were chosen to do in this world. Even Jesus did not survive their terror.! Lets' face it, no matter how secular you approach this, it matters how the warring parties see this destruction deep down from their own religious perspective!!.

deaths in conflict

If there is, as one person stated, no way to tell the difference between a militant and a soldier, then they should definately not be combined under one category entitled "militants and civilians". This clearly distorts that level of civilians who may have been civilians. Since no such categorisation is added to the Israeli side (nor should there be), it should not be on the Lebanese section. I am removing this categorisation and reverting back to "1 militant" and 55 civilians killed. I assume someone found a reference when they put the original claim of one militant killed. There is no justification to label 55 civilians as possible militants. Do we label civilians in israel who may be a member of the IDF (due conscription and reserves) a soldier? No, of course not.

Israel separately counts casualties of civilians and military personnel. Since Hezbollah hides its deathtoll, it is clear that it's included in the Lebanese deathtoll. In simple words, if you write that 55 civilians were killed, you have to source it. Otherwise, it's 55 Lebanese killed. --Lior 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

civilian casualties: Lebanese govt numbers??

about the infobox: sorry guys, but I really don't see the point of doubting their numbers if reuters believes it here. and this is yesterday's numbers, not counting last night's two deaths. obviously, israeli casualties are israeli govt numbers, and lebanese casualties are lebanese govt nmbers. there is no need to be belligerent here. if reuters believes lebanese numbers enough to mention in their reports, I really don't see the point of doubting them here. So I'm deleting that comment.

if you don't believe the lebanese govt numbers because they're terrorists, than maybe we should delete the word "civilian"? you know, since they're born with ak47's attached to their bodies.. --Jadelith 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I doubt the Lebanese government's account is simple, because they have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties. The 52 number has seperately been reported as coming from the Lebanese government, not as a result of some sort of independent count. Given that there is both means and motive to mislead about the number of casualties, I think it is wise to note that in the infobox. This is the established precedent in other articles where death totals are coming from sources which are not perfect Wikipedia reliable source. I am going to put the note about the source of the numbers back in for the time being. It can be removed in the future once their is an independent count available. Bibigon 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as having to do with whether we "believe" Lebanon or not; as encyclopedia editors that's not our job. It's pretty standard in our articles to label official numbers as such if the sole source is an involved party and there's no independent confirmation. See, for example, Operation Dewey Canyon, part of the Vietnam War, where we label the official US Marine Corps numbers as such. I don't see why official Lebanese-government numbers should be treated differently. --Delirium 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, simple logic seems to be escaping most of our writers here. Lebanon is getting attacking by a Callous government, so folks carrying a Ak's should be carrying it regardless of whether they are Hezbollah adherents or not. They rather carry that to protect their families against what is seemingly an irrational, over-amplified response from a belicouse israeli government. Israeli as usual, is shamelessly justifying killing civilians by scapegoating Hezbollahs. What's next-- attack Pakistan or Iran because dissents have safe haven there.

I'm new to wiki so I don't know whether wiki has a set of reliable sources and a set of unreliable sources, but I read most of the tutorials etc and I believe I understand the philosophy behind wiki. AFAIK, the Israeli casualties are also counted by the Israeli officials, and they also have a "good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties". I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here, but you saying that Israel govt is trustable and Lebanese not is definetely not helping here :/ --Jadelith 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutrality and your nice response. I was sorry to read Bibigon's comments. CG 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are doubting the lebanese, we must also doubt the Israeli. I believe it looks a LOT better when both comments are gone, but if some people don't believe the lebanese, we should also do the same for the israeli numbers. I believe you will understand this. --Jadelith 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If one thinks that the Lebanese "have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties", then one could certainly make the arguement that the Israelis have an equally good reason to do the same. While I don't think the comment is needed under either nation, if we include it for one, it needs to be included for both.

I never denied that the Israelis might also mislead regarding the number of casualties. Please read WP:RS. There's simply no reason for the Lebanese government to be considered a reliable source simply by virtue of being a government. We doubt what governments say with regularity. Bibigon 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are using a classic case of diversion, intentionally, by judging a source while remaining silent on the flip side of the case. Again logic should tell you, 3 sides are at war here, scrutinizing one side, will first wholly discredit them, and remaining silent over the other parties perspective will implicitly create this false impression of their reliabitiy and accuracy.

In the casualties section some information was manipulated from prior updates. As well as removing the number of Injured civilians in Lebanon and more. Why is that? Please who ever is responsible for this should change it back to the correct information. Hiding facts isn't going to be in the good of anybody. Otherwise, can anybody clarify please. -- Omernos 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem is both of them would have reasons to either up or downgrade the nr of victims. My estimate is the lebanese undercount, iafap because they don't want to be cause to an arab outcry.( Since we don't like israel that much anyhow as a souvereign entity) Israel has the typical agressionist reason to hide their real casualty nr's, they don't want to distract or disencourage their population and armed forces.If i wanted to guess the more objective nr's i would stick to the ones given in gaza. onix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk)

"Damaged warship" in infobox (at least as long as it isn't considered a war)

In most (if not all) Wikipedia battle and military operation articles damaged and sunk warships are mentioned (of course only when sufficient information about such casualties is available). Just check for instance: Battle of Taranto and Attack on Pearl Harbor. War articles however do not always mention such casualties, see for instance: World War II or Falklands War. Nevertheless do even some war articles report about damaged/destroyed tanks, planes and ships, such as: Yom Kippur War. As this is still considered a battle/operation article, damaged warships should be mentioned. It's open for discussion once it's considered a war. Sijo Ripa 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Civilians"

Important : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html

While on the Israeli side the distinction is clear: 8 soldiers dies, 2 soldiers kidnapped, 4 missing and several were wounded. The numbers on Civilians casulaties are: 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

On the labneese side all casulaties are described as"civilians" . - How is that possible ? 60 civilians death and not one Hizbulla militia person injured or killed ? - Is Israel so bad at targeting ? Zeq 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah does not release casuality figures. The Lebanese goverment makes a distinction between civilians and military. Since they are not involved with any fighting, is it hard for them, or anyone other than Hizbollah to estimate how many Hizbollah militants have died in the fighting. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume that amongst the civilians counted, there were not many active militans. 83.161.4.134 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are aiming at cities, yes chances are huge that you are hitting 99.99999% civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me, really.

Actually, no casualties on Lebanese side are described as civilians or militants, presumably because the breakdown is not available. Zocky | picture popups 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Our article talks of civilian casualties. Undoubtedly some are. In fact, if militia are counted as being civilian because they are not members of the regular forces, even armed combatants would be listed as civilians. We should be careful about listing casualties as civilian. --Jumbo 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Three Lebanese Soldiers have been killed in airstrikes. The majority of Lebanese casualties have been civilian. Israel is shelling residential areas and densely populated areas indiscriminately.

This is a good example of propaganda in action. Israeli attacks seem to be targeted precisely. The attacks on beirut International are the minimum require to put the airport out of action by cratering the runway intersection and setting the fuel storage areas ablaze. Nearby assets such as the air terminal and passenger jets were untouched. It is in the interests of those opposing Israel to portray all or a vast majority of casualties as civilian, especially women and children. We should not kid ourselves that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from being twisted one way or another. Please - reliable sources for all statements. --Jumbo 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not like Heathrow to be bombed "to force Blair to deal with Al Quaida in the UK". Which is just what is happening in Lebanon.

Please, London does not have big building which have big "Al Quaida" signs on them. Nor are hundreds of Al Quaida missiles being fired from England at a neighbouring country. Nor will such actions be tolerated by the English government. Please don't compare things in that sort of way just to promote your own propaganda. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

London never bombed dublin airport to deal with the IRA. In 1982 Ireland elected to power a man believed to have helped supply the IRA, and it was well know that the IRA had safe areas in places such as Drogheda and elsewhere in Louth, but the UK never bombed Tallaght, or similar civilian areas. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the airport could have been stopped from operating simply by the air blockade, without doing any damage to the infrastructure. But this is not the place to discuss our personal opinions on propaganda or intentions of various sides. There are websites for that sort of thing, and Wikipedia is not one of them. Zocky | picture popups 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence from the 1978 and 1982 might seem to suggest that yes, the Israelis are that bad at targetting. However further investigation by the International Committee of Jurists showed that they were targetting civilians. SO no, they are not that bad at targetting - they know exactly what they are doing. Andrew Riddles 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

- *Actually, Israel first drop leaflets telling civilians to leave the Hizbula controlled areas before they are being bombed - this is why the casulties numbers are so low. Hizbulla also ran away in such cases. But surly, when israel target a rocket launcher this is a not a "civilian" who operates it.... Zeq 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, how reasonable and effective it is, to tell people to "leave" while in the middle of a military campain, and after crippling all of the infrastructure, is debatable 83.161.4.134 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If some country dropped leaflets in my country, telling me to leave because they were gonna bomb it, I would _join_ the militant organisation, as would any person who loves his relatives, friends and surroundings. Israel is _breeding_ militants.

Can anyone confirm the information on this blog post from a news site? She says that local TV reported that Lebanese civilians were allegedly stocking missiles in their homes. 68.239.119.190 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Desperate ones. Ever wondered why Israel has an advanced army? Massive donations by the US. That's all there is to it. The US is handing out weapons to Israel to slaughter Arab civilians who's only defence is indeed some pathetic bottle rockets. That is how sick our western civilisation has become...

They have an advanced army because if they didn't, they would have been wiped off the map long ago. Israel is surrounded by enemies (except Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel). I don't think Israel is sick for wanting to live. I do think the Hezbollah and Palestinian leaderships are sick for not wanting to live in peace. 68.239.119.190 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The number 5 link [12] I provided makes it clear. 103 Lebanese dead, all but 4 were civilians. 99 civilians dead and the other 4 are militants or soilders. To be fair though they are going after infostructure that the Israeli's believe Hizbullah uses or can use and the are warning the people. But, there is evidence to show 99/103 deaths are civilian deaths.--Jerluvsthecubs 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

see this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html Zeq 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, similar to the Battle of Jenin, when it comes to the Middle East, there is simply no reason, no reason at all, to trust "official" casualty counts counts. There is means, motive, and oppertunity for them to totally inflate the numbers of civilian dead, or to classify dead militia as civilians. There is a pretty well established history with drastically inflated body counts when it comes to Israel. However, right now, there are no independent sources giving these numbers. Reuters and all are just quoting the Lebanese governent, because there isn't any UN or IDF report to cite instead.

This is why I've suggested many times that we remove the casualty counts from the info box at least, and replace them with "Unknown" until some independent organizations can do these counts themselves. Right now, in the info box, we don't have room for debate, and we give the numbers an air of legitimacy by presenting them like that. In time, there will be more reliable numbers available. While having up to date information is important, having accurate information would seem to be even more paramount. Just my take however... Bibigon 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The article already states that the Lebanese casualty numbers are according to the Lebanese government... There is no source for the claim that some of them may have been members of Hesbollah. Until the truth of this is established, it is at the least unencyclopedic to make this brazen claim. 12.148.42.44 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There ZERO Hebulla casulties reported so far. mmmmm.... Zeq 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we make any specific claim. Merely that we refrain from giving casaulty counts until such time that reliable figures are known. Bibigon 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon his a democracy with an active free press currently freely scurrying around the country. Do any of these sources, and most, by far, are non-lebanese, give you any reason to draw doubt on the figure of civilians Israel has killed? Has Hezbollah ever denied that one of its members had died, or become a Shahid? The civilian deaths happen mostly in bulk, if I can be so crass about human life. A house of 12, all dead. A van is destoryed killing 15. Another house bombing kills nine. Et Cetera. Most of this is reported by the free press, and then confirmed by the government, and if you tune to Al Jazeera (If you have sky) though charred remains are the dead civilians. Hezbollah has no use of those infants. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the number of casualties

The number of casualties in the fact box is being changed constantly, both because of some people thinking it is funny to change them, and because different sources are used. What sources should be used? In my opinion, the best would be newsagencies like Reuters, AP, AFP, or official sites of Israel and Lebanon in english if that exists.

At the moment the reference used for the number of killed lebanese civialians has disappered. Some hour ago the fact box said 147 i think, now it says 99. AFP says 129. [13] --Battra 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war

When does this become a war?

The Christian Science Monitor is quoting several people as stating that this is now a war, not just a "border skirmish." [14]. Under what criterion does this conflict become an official war? --MZMcBride 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Official declaration of war by at least one side would be enough. On the other hand, war doesn't have to be declared. For example, America's Congress last declared war in 1942, but many conflicts since then are commonly called wars, so the issue might still be up. In this case, current discussion of possible "escalation" probably does mean war, but only when the "escalation" starts ocurring. Yes, I find it quite confusing as well.--Planetary 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest people to regester in the army or any branch of the military.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.131 (talk)

• Yahoo News, 7-14-2006
• Christian Science Monitor article, 7-14-2006

The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the above linked CSM article: "With Israel's declaration of war not just on Hizbullah but on the entire Lebanese government..." ~~Flora "Call it what it is, a War"

[15][16] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one. Hello32020 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Ynet, Olmert declared war

Robin Hood 1212 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Source? I have scanned Ynet, and the closest I find is opinion articles, not hard news.

--Cerejota 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I have searched Ynet and I haven't find nothing. Probably mr. "Robin Hood 1212" has misread the op article... dott.Piergiorgio 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah has declared war. But I don't think they have national authority. --Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

So the chief of Hezbollah calls it open war. That's fine and dandy, but does he have the authority to declare war? And what about Israel? How are they responding? Are they calling it war or another rescue operation? --Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

I think that if A: Israel does declare war, and since both sides say it's a war, we should change to article so, or B: Someone else declares war and joins the fray. Just my thoughts.--Planetary 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Should now be called 2006 Israel-Lebanon war

[17][18] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one.

Let's wait what mainstream media does. If it turns out that the only ones calling this "The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War" are one guy and Wikipedia — well, aren't we going to look pretty silly then. Weregerbil 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be called war. [19]

Considering the lebanese governemnt's army (if you could call it that) has pretty much been beaten to a pulp, leaving hezbollah to be the primary military force in the area, and the fact that nasrallah pretty much declared war, Id say nows a good time to call it a war. -Zer0fighta 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah isn't a government official in Lebanon is he? Does he have the authority in Lebanon to declare war?

We all know that posturing is a very important and useful tool in this region. Both Nasrallah and Olmert talking about "open war" is just that - posturing. When/if this becomes a war, we definately won't even need to be discussing it here -- it will be obvious to everybody.--WilliamThweatt 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, This should now be called a war, but let's wait and see. If nothing else, I'll see what they call it on the 6:30 news. Back in 10 minutes --Crucible Guardian 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you call this a war? Israel versus Hezbollah? Hezbollah is not a country. The country of Lebanon never declared war on Israel, yet Israel is attacking targets that can hardly be considered "Hezbollah Targets". The main road from Lebanon to Damascus cant be a hezbollah target. Bombing the Rafik Hariri Airport cant be a against Hezbollah. Israel will just keep bombing and bullying LEBANON for something a separate entity within Lebanon did. Capturing two soldiers did not cause this conflict. Israel's apartheid caused this conflict. --Erpals 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 1942 was the last us declaration of war, this is obviously not a war (..);) military agressions against neighbouring economys are acts of war. Have always been incite for wars. would lebanon war against the intrusion of their air space, territory, and the lives of their civilians , it at least to me seems they have a viable excuse to deploy weaponry on lebanese territory.

That they don't is both pragmatic and peacefull. btw... i think despite of the obvious and historic analogys, the security counsel would negatively judge any arab(lebanese) militant response, and so would western opinion. (the guys making wikipedia, amongst others) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk)

I think it is completely wrong to call this an Israeli Lebanon War. Ehud Olmert said he was at war with Hezbollah. He holds Lebanon accountable but has not declared war on Lebanon. Further Lebanon is not fighting with Israel. It takes two for a war. This is a "war on terrorism" if anything.

But who are the terrorists now? Those who capture soldiers? Or those who bomb civilians, destroy airports, roads, energy supplies, ...?

I think it should be called something different than a "crisis", since both Israel and the Hezbollah have declared war. This war (or conflict, whatever) isn't so much about the country of Lebanon, but of Hezbollah who controls it. dposse 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflict sounds appropriate (imagine two countries in Europe launching this level of violence on each other... the naming wouldn't be crisis I'm sure.) Tell me to get back to work! 05:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now a war, IMO

With the Hezbollah attack on an Israeli ship, I think the title should now read "2006 Israeli-Lebanonese War", or something like that. Beckstcw 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Beckstcw

i agree, especially now since both parties, Israel and Hezbollah are calling it a war.--70.39.205.84 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But that would make it the "2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War", wouldn't it ? The government of Lebanon is not sending troops, as far as I know. StuRat 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'United States war in Afghanistan' is not called 'US-Taliban' war. Hezbollah takes part in Lebanese government and Lebanon claims its forces are a legitimate Lebanese force, refusing to abide UNSCR 1559.--Lior 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban controlled the Afghan government completely (excluding Northern Alliance areas), while Hezbollah is only a minor party in the Lebanese government. There's a big difference there. StuRat 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban was never the recognized government of Afghanistan, they were seen as rebels. The recognized government was that of the Northern Alliance, an ally of the USA, yet it is still the Afghan War. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is the most significant armed force in Lebanon, using its grounds to attack Israeli towns. Had it been a minor political party, this entire bloodshed could have been prevented. You may personally object the Israeli actions, but it still doesn't change the nation's name from Lebanon to Hezbollah.--Lior 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The US was at war with the official government of Afganistan, which was controlled by the Taliban. The 400,000 members of Hezbollah do no represent the official government of Lebanon and its remaining 3.1 million people.

The Taliban was never the recognized government of Afghanistan, they were seen as rebels. The officially recognized government was that of the Northern Alliance, which was an ally of the USA - despite this, it was the Afghan war. Wars are named for where they are fought, not necessarilly who is being fought. For instance, the Battle of Normandy was not even fought against people who lived in Normandy, it was fought against Germans. Yet it was named for where it was fought. So too would this. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, using yours and Lior's line of reasoning, it should be called the The Israeli war in Lebanon.

If you want to call it the Israeli-Hezbollah War fine but I think it is completely wrong and pretty biased to call it an Isreali Lebanese War.

Its taking place in Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Much like the Iraq War is so named due to it being in Iraq, although the government of Iraq is infact on the coalitions side at this point. I am not sure that this can classify as a "Crisis" considering the scale for which it has reached. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But the US was at one point at war with the official government of Iraq (under Saddam). This is not the case here. StuRat 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference being that US declared war on the official Iraqi Government. This has not been the case in this conflict. Israel is not officially at war with Lebanon but with Hezbollah.

Nope, there was no declaration of war against Iraq by the USA. And as Lior pointed out, the war in Afghanistan was not even against the officially recognized government, it was against the Taliban - a group seen merely as rebels. The government recognized by the USA was the Northern Alliance, a side that has always worked with the USA during the war. Yet it is still the Afghanistan War, not the Taliban War. There is no POV issue by naming it the Israeli-Lebanon War, or 2006 Lebanon War, or anything of that sort. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban did control the government of most of Afghanistan, regardless of what was officially recognized, which really doesn't much matter, and either do official declarations of war. StuRat 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, using your logic then, it should be called The Israeli war in Lebanon

Ah, but the problem there is that it is not solely in Lebanon, whereas the US war in Afghanistan is (I have issues with that name too by the way, it wasnt just the US that invaded.) That is why I beleive it should be the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, as it is taking place in both nations. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Youre killing me :) ... I have a problem with Lebanon being named because the country and government are not fighting this war. A minority terrorist group is fighting this war and to include Lebanon as a combatant and include them in the name is misleading, unless you are referring strictly to the war taking place in Lebanon. It may not be a POV issue but it is still misleading.

Everything can be taken the wrong way, such as the above stated Battle of Normandy. Someone might think that it was against people who lived in Normandy, though it was infact fought against Germans. Thats why the old phrase comes in, dont judge a book by its cover. If you read the article itself you will find out what the battle was about - likewise, any confusion over what the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war is can be cleared up by reading the article. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a wager of 1 brownie point that if this turns into a full-scale war, it will be called the Lebanon war or some such thing, but let's leave the article where it is until sources come up with a permanent name for it. Zocky | picture popups 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? This has far exceeded a "crisis," compare it to the Cuban Missile Crisis where nothing happened. Not only has something happened, hundreds are dead, and hundreds of missiles, rockets, and explosives are going off. You have to lower your threshold for what is a war, something doesnt need to be on the scale of WW2 to be called one. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean that we can't decide what this war is called. We have to wait until politicians, media, etc. decide what to call it and then move the article to that name. Until that happens, this name is as good as any. Zocky | picture popups 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there could be something about why everyone is so reluctant to call it a war. I have seen numerous sources using and citing phrases such as "amount to war" or "amount to war crimes"; it seems there is no real distinction between what is going on and a war - other than an actual declaration of war?--Paraphelion 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The title is definitely biased. This is an agression agaist a sovereign country. The title of the article should reflect that.--tequendamia 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alles klar, but which country? --Lior 08:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

we already have a name: 1982 Lebanon War, why not use it?--TheFEARgod 10:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are so many Wikipedia editors so eager to call this a war? The very first day Israel started its operation a group of people created a page called 2006 Arab-Israeli War which speculated that the operations in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as Israel's fly-by into Syria, were all part of a new major war in the Middle East. Not until I put the page up for deletion, and after a lot of debate, did they eventually agree to change the title to 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict. I now see the same editors screaming that we must right now change the title of this article "2006 Lebanon War". Why this urgency? Please hold on. War normally means massive amounts of people and material thrown into a conflict, and in all previously Israeli conflicts which today are called wars rather than operations, Israel has at least done a general mobilisation and put a 100,000 people or more into uniform. So far they have only called in some reservists; a routine measure they have done whenever they have launched any kind of operation in the past. The situation is serious, but so far it's not very different from numerous operations into Lebanon that Israel has done in the past, like Operation Litani. There has until now been only one "proper" war between Israel and Lebanon during the past 58 years, the one in 1982, when Israel moved in with some 80,000 soldiers and at least 10,000 people died. Let's hope that will be the only war between these two countries instead of eagerly anticipating another one. Time will tell, but until it's official, let's keep the current title. Thomas Blomberg 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, your accusations are false. Noone said it was a full scale war between all Arab nations and Israel. The article was not made due to speculation it would get bigger, it was made because of fighting in Lebanon and Gaza. When the person thought of what to possibly name this, he came up with 2006 Arab-Israeli war. If you had an issue with the name, you should have brought it up in discussion and not deletion - even though it was renamed people dont understand and have continued to vote to delete it. Bringing something up for deletion is a last resort, and your doing so at such an early stage has severely set back its progress, as all discussion on it is about its deletion. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What we're discussing here, is why people are so eager to call it war. And, as a matter of fact, I first tried discussing the matter on the 2006 Arab-Israeli Wartalk page but didn't get anywhere. My main reason for suggesting a deletion, however, was not the name issue, but that I found the article to be a speculative attempt to turn separate operations into being one and the same conflict. Thomas Blomberg 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with ~Rangeley (talk). This is clearly a conflict between the country of Israel and the Hezbollah. Since both sides have declared war, this is now a war between these two, and i agree with the person who created this discussion. dposse 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is (just) a war, in the sense that the Lebanese Government (however tenuous that might be) didn't exactly give Israel permission for the attacks. If any othe rnation (Syria, Iran, Egypt, US, UK, etc) gets involved then it is definatley a war. Cryomaniac 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be updatded to show at least 35 civilians in Lebanon killed. The article on Wikipedia is actually biased toward Israel which is similar to the mainstream media. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060715/wl_nm/mideast_dc_358;_ylt=AlNNEi8KvDyXzXdzBjN_NfsUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVPUCUl

I see no reason to call it a war until either side calls it a war or maybe a mainstream source calls it a war. However it might be interesting, if sources exist, to include something about why the world at large is reluctant to call it away, despite Israel, Hezbollah and many other organization saying things like "[the conflict] amounts to war". I haven't seen any talk of that yet, but I haven't had a chance to look.--Paraphelion 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

but both sides have called it a war. It's in the introduction! dposse 17:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

DEBKAfile (www.debka.com) is calling it a war (see http://www.debka.com/pictures/Lebanon.jpg), for what it's worth UOSSReiska 07:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it a "conflict"?

That sounds like a good compromise to me. It's bigger than a crisis, but it isn't officially a war. It's an armed conflict involving Israel and Lebanon. 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, then, seems reasonable to me. It's clearly an armed conflict, and it clearly involves Israel and Lebanon. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the captured soldiers

POW/kidnapped/captive/hostage?

What should be the correct term for the captured soldiers? I don't think POW is correct, as Hizbulla does not adhere to the Geneva conventions with regards to taking prisoners of war, nor are they an army, nor was the capture during a war. So would the right wording be captured? kidnapped? taken hostage?--darkskyz 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A very well phrased question. We should ideally go with what the most significant usage is from external commentators. My hunch is that captive is the most likely. MLA 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Captive" or "captured" is probably best. POW is definitely not correct. (However, if the Lebanese army becomes involved, Israelis they capture would be POWs.) —Cuiviénen 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur on "captured". But POW status appears to follow from who the captured person is, not who did the capturing. And the guys captured here (like the fellow in Gaza) are covered by Article 4, so why shouldn't they be considered "protected" by GCIII? mdf 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually POW status is not who was captured, it is the group that did the capturing. This is because only parties that are signatories to the Geneva Convention are obligated to follow it. So for example, if Party 1 is a signatory to the Geneva convention and Party 2 is not, then if Party 2 captures a Party 1 combatant, then it is not obligated under the treaty to treat the combatant as a POW. This is exactly what happened in WWII when the Germans put British and US soldiers in POW camps and were (relatively) well treated, while Russian soldiers were basically put into concentration camps since the UK/US/Germany were part of the Geneva convention and Russia was not.

Eh? German treatment of Russian soldiers in WWII was a flat-out violation of the 1929 Geneva Convention [20] (see section 82). Article 4 of the GC III (1949) has nothing to say about who did the capturing (neither does the 1929 form). Article 2 says that signatories are bound only as far as non-signatories behave. I think it's fairly obvious that (a) a signatory will continue to insist, no matter what, on GCIII treatment of their soldiers held by the enemy, and, given this is "war" we are talking about, (b) should a mis-behaving non-signatory lose a war charges will be laid anyways. And to that extent, non-signatories are "obligated" "to treat the combatant as a POW". mdf 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We should probably go by what external commentators are saying, or use something neutral like "captive" or "captured". I don't think we're in a position to act as authoritative interpreters of the Geneva Conventions. --Delirium 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

yet kidnapped remains. I have seen several outside media sources use this word, but I don;t think that means it is NPOV. I am changing "kidnapped" to "captured."--Smallwhitelight 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed all instances of "kidnap" to "capture." If I accidentally broke links to news articles that use the "kidnap" wordin,g I will fix them in a short while. I considered leaving the POV language in the "reactions" section, but changed them pending review of the specific countries' wordings. If a country's official statement uses POV language, I think our inclusion should reflect that POV language in their reaction entry.--Smallwhitelight 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the need for NPOV and all, but using a weasel word like "captured" when you're talking about kidnapping is just pathetic and disgusting. Just because the MSM is too afraid to use the correct term doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be. When terrorists kidnap citizens of another country, why shouldn't you use the term "kidnap" ? I don't get it.

217.132.240.27 has been replacing every instance of 'captured' with 'kidnapped', against NPOV and against the clear consensus here. I'm going to begin reverting these changes. Damburger 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the use of captured not kidnapped as well.Hypnosadist 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, unsigned, anon user, if you think "capture" is "disgusting" and "cowardly," you are obviously the expert on NPOV and have no political agenda in your editing. Your inflammatory, unsupported, and anonymous charge does very little to sway the concensus opinion on NPOV language: "Kidnap" insinuates a criminal charge, a charge that is not considered acurate by all people involved in this conflict--not this discussion, but the actual shooting and blowing things up conflict. While you may not consider "captive" to be acurate or show sufficient bravado, it is a neutral term that is fully descriptive in all of its parts of speech and without any emotional or legal charge built into it. If you or other users feel that this is an anti-semetic view, then feel free to report me and those wh oagree with me; I am prepared to defend my self and my decision about the wording in this article. I don;t see any further benefit to this discussion; if you'd like to argue with someone, may I suggest the Yahoo! news boards or perhaps some other discussion forum .--Smallwhitelight 18:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kidnap: To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (dictionary.com)

"Capture" is an intentionally vague term used by the media. You can capture anything: a flag, a hill, your breath... but you can only "kidnap" people. And since this is done outside of war by an illegitimate Lebanese militia, it's not a case of "capturing" PoWs. --Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Smalllwhitelight - according to you then there is no such thing as kidnapping and anybody anywhere is subject to "capture". However those of us in the civilized world can ascertain the distinction. Capture implies a combatant within an existing conflict or in a disputed area. At the time of the kidnappings there was no state of conflict, as this was the event which triggered it. And unless you want to go out on a limb, where it took place is also not disputed territory. Should every border patrol in the world be subject to "capture" by your definition, every country would be in a state of war. And I think you should leave your personal insecurities out of this discussion too. --Craven Maven 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the circumstances, these were soldiers seized by militants. A military action, which met with a military response, not with criminal proceedings. "Captured" seems to be an appropriate choice, especially as it is widely used in sources. Zocky | picture popups 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

At this moment, the article again calls it a kidnapping, despite the above discussion that capture is the neutral term to describe what happened. There were suggestions that "capture" makes it sound somehow heroic. I said above:

The dictionary definition of "to capture" which applies here is: "To seize or take possession of by force, surprise, or stratagem; to overcome and hold; to secure by effort".

Another thing I found is from Legal dictionary. It's about ships, but it makes clear that a capture does not have to be legal to be a capture: "Capture is deemed lawful, when made by a declared enemy, lawfully commissioned and according to the laws of war; and unlawful, when it is against the rules established by the law of nations."

That should hopefully clear up any concerns. Zocky | picture popups 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we now know that the word "capture" does not have a heroic conotation when used in this sense (it may be different for capturing hearts and minds, but that's not what we're talking about), and that captures can be both lawful and unlawful, I think this matter should be settled. I'll go change the wording in the article, and would expect anyone who disagrees to bring strong arguments to the talk page before reverting back. Zocky | picture popups 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Again people are changing capture to kidnap and taking hostages, even though we have discussed this above, and it seems clear that "capture" is neutral while "kidnap" isn't. Everybody seems to be calling it a capture now, including the US president at today's news conference. Further changes of this kind should be reverted on sight, otherwise this will just go on and on. Zocky | picture popups 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

With the US President's intellectual weight weighing in for the use of the word "capture", I am willing to cede the point to all his intellectual peers and congratulate them on their precience. --Craven Maven 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did Hizbollah cross the border?

Does anybody know where the kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers initially took place? Jakro64 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

Fajr-7 missile

This is the missile Israel claims was used in the attack on Haifa. There is no article on it at the moment, so I set out to create one. However, I am having trouble finding information on any missile by that name, beyond the reports of it being used against Haifa. Theres plenty of information about a Fajr 3 rocket around. Is it possible the designation is wrong? Damburger 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Designation is probably wrong, as we're only familiar with Fajr 3 and Fajr 5, probably both capable of hitting Haifa. In fact, I have found no Israeli sources for a Fajr 7. Some Israeli news sources claim it's no Fajr, but the same kind of rocket hitting other Israeli towns (Raad or Katyusha or something). Personally, I think it's another exaggeration of Fox news. --Lior 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We aren't paid to think though. I'm creating a page on the Fajr 7 anyway, hopefully if the issue clears up the relevant information can be added there. I'd appreciate any help with this page that people can offer. We can only add to the wikipedia what the news organisations are reporting, even if it is nonsensical. Damburger 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If I have to create a wiki article for every weapon system mentioned in American blogosphere, wikimedia would have to raise my salary by 30% once more. We're into citing *reliable* sources. The Hotair post doesn't mention Fajrs, and the PeaceWatch post [21] only says Hezbollah has these Fajr-7 rockets. If a non-Israeli news source claims that Fajr-7 is "the missile Israel claims was used", I expect some Israeli source to say the same. This is not to say, of course, that Israeli sources are more reliable than others. --Lior 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The weapon system was apparantly mentioned on Fox News, and also by a thinktank cited in the Fajr 7 article I created. I agree its likely they got the name of the weapon wrong given that the Fajr 3 was only tested in March, but as I said until better information comes along we should just present what is being given out by the media, albeit with qualification. I'll have a look at changing the wording to reflect this. Damburger 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Do note that the NTI source you provided [22] talks of a series of military exercises titled Fajr-#, not of rockets bearing those names. There is no reason to believe that a guided missile have hit Haifa, rather than a ballistic rocket. On top of all that, the impact crater seems too mild to result from a 333 mm rocket. Then again, if they said so in the news, it's wiki worthy. Cheers. --Lior 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the links on the page Fajr 7 is to the military exercise, the other references missiles by that name possibly being moved into Southern Lebanon (which ties in quite strongly with whats been reported about this incident). If you want to discuss this further can we move it to the talk page for Fajr 7? Damburger 11:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is done. --Lior 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz in hebrew [23] is now listing the rockets that hit Haifa yesterday as Fajr-3. Also talks about other rockets Hezbollah have, Fajr-5 and Zilal-2 as well as an unnamed Russian 220mm rocket. --darkskyz 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew article you mentioned currently asserts Hezbollah made no use of its Fajr rockets. Google News found only one Israeli news source speaking of Fajr 7. This source says the following: "...Hezbollah spokesperson denied that his organization has fired missiles towards Haifa. Nevertheless they report that the missile fired towards Haifa is a Fajr 7 with a diameter of 336 mm, capable of carrying a 100 kg warhhead." Please have a look at the photos provided in this link. My untrained eyes assert this is no 336 mm rocket. Just compare it to the shoes near it. I can't tell whether it's 107, 122 or 152 mm, but 336 mm it certainly ain't. I think we can close the argument and remove the Fajr-7 speculation, but it's really up to you. --Lior 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We have the funding source of the Israeli rockets and equipment. Where does Hezbollah get thier funds for weapons. I have read that their source of funding for military equipment and other non-military articles comes from the country of Iran.

The missiles used by Hezbollah are Fagr (Dawn) type and Raad-2 and -3 (Thunderous Roar-2 and -3) type. Cionist army says the actualy Haifa missiles were of the Fagr type, but Hezbollah said in press release that only Raad-2 and -3 was used. Raad is very new type, the first ones were made in 2004 in Iran. One unguided missile hit a big oil drum in the oil refinery of Haia and one other missile hit the railway waggons depot, which is very nearby. The depot missile hit killed eight or nine people. Photo of the aftermath is here: http://index.hu/cikkepek/0607/kulfold/lebanon0716//.gdata/gp_11.jpg

What rocket type has hit the Israeli navy vessel?

Does anyone have any information regarding the type of weapon used? Apparently its a missile.... but guided....? Ryanuk 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz is reporting it was hit by an explosives-laden drone. [24] --darkskyz 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN reports that it was a missile, not a drone hittinh the ship [25] 89.138.118.113 10:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is sourced from the IDF, if it was a missile, surely it was guided somehow? At least when we thought it was a drone, that explained how it was so accurate. This is alittle strange, does anyone have any information on this? Ryanuk 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added to the main article that a Silkworm_missile was used in the attack. However i see no citations for this..... That is one hell of a missile to ship to Lebanon Ryanuk 11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ynet says it was an Iranian missile called C802."A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile". Máfiàg 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN is reporting that the Israeli ambassador to the US says that the C-802 missile used is Chinese-made. [26]--Paraphelion 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that the missile is Iranian made. 4 links are given as citations. The first is in Hebrew which I cannot read. The second is techincal data about the rocket which indicates they have been used by Iran and only says China and Russia produced them. The third is about Iran testing a silkworm missile. The fouth is a report about IDF claiming it was a explosive-laden drone, which has been redacted. --Paraphelion 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited the article to reflect the above - if someone can read the Hebrew article and see what it says that'd be great. I'm leaving the other cites/links for awhile so people can check them out. The last cite about the drone no longer seems relevant.--Paraphelion 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is referred to as "an Iranian missile," it is unclear whether that means supplied or produced. The C802 designation is included though, so perhaps that can be looked up. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it give a source for that and is it before or after the CNN? Not sure what to do.. combine both sources some how? Note that the CNN source also covers the Haifa missiles and says that Israeli military says that the Haifa missiles are Iranian-made. One of the other links [27], is about that type of missile in general and implies that the C802 is Chinese-made. --Paraphelion 08:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

China designed the missile, Iran produces them under license. 167.24.104.150 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know which Israeli Navy vessel was hit?

Does anyone know the name and/or class of the vessel? Sijo Ripa 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I discovered it was a missile boat. [28] Israel has three types (Saar 4 class missile boats, Saar 4.5 class missile boats, and Saar 5 class missile boats). Now I wonder which class it was. Sijo Ripa 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz in hebrew is reporing it is a Saar 5 class missile boat. [29] --darkskyz 00:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the news into the article regarding the missile hit on a civilian merchant ship, according to Israeli sources. [[30]] Any further information regarding this..... ? Ryanuk 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't which type the boat is, but Ynet has its name [31] (look at the bold gray heading) - heb: אח"י חנית. Should be INS Hanit or Khanit. According to the article INS Dakar (heb:אח"י דקר), the אח"י should be translated in this ship to INS too. Máfiàg 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's INS Hanit. Sijo Ripa 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Casus belli and Hezbollah raid

Most of the articles say 8 killed and two captured in the raid. This page says 3 kills.

In the initial raid, three soldiers were killed. When Israeli troops entered Lebanon on the tracks of the abducted/captured soldiers, a tank hit a land mine. The four crew memebers are currently defined as MIA, but I think that it is safe to say that they are dead. In the attempt to extricate the bodies from the tank and bring them back to Israel for burial, a further soldier was killed. This makes a total of eight.

The reason that there was such a fast attempt to bring the bodies of the tank crew back was two-fold. Firstly, Judaism (and also Islam) requires a speedy burial. Secondly, Israel was worried that Hezbollah would take the bodies and use them as bargaining counters. Cymruisrael 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that adding "military wing, whose civilian wing has a minister in the Lebanese government" does not belong to casus belli clause. Whoever interested in the group structure can click on Hezbollah link and study it. Can we shorten it to "Border attack by Hezbollah, killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers"? What do you think?

I emitted the "trying to free Palestinian prisoners" from the Casus belli cause. Palestinian prisoners were nowhere near the scene where the raid took place. Hizbullah captured two soldiers to use them as a ransom, this is discussed later in the article. 87.69.70.61 09:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This page was on my vandalism watchlist and I reverted b/c it was unexplained in the edit summary (sorry about reverting so quick). In any case, on the merits, it seems like the alleged ransom was integral to Hezbollah's purpose, so it should remain. Still, I'll probably defer to regular editors of this page on this point.--Kchase T 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do rephrase it then yourself if you won't let others do it. From the current phrasing it can be understood that the 'prisoners' were transported in the attacked humvees, which is not the case.87.69.70.61 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The casus belli here, as well as in the opening article, addresses IMEMC News as a source. IMEMC web site quote: Being a joint Palestinian-International effort, IMEMC combines Palestinian journalists' deep understanding of the context, history, and the socio-political environment with International journalists' skills in non-partisan reporting. The use of such a source for the casus belli definition is questionable. 87.69.70.61 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I will now add more on past prisoners exchange and the prisoners cause to the "historical bckgr" clause.87.69.70.61 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the operation

The opening paragraph says that the purpose of the Israeli operation is "to free the captured soldiers". Is that accurate? Or is the purpose to punish Lebanon and/or Hezbollah for capturing them in the first place?

William Jockusch 07:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And to prevent the supply of weapons to Hezbollah, who are using missiles to deliberately target civilians. Yes. But primarily for (and would not have happened but for) the kidnappings. Xtra 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats what the Israeli officials said, so yes. But we can add something like "but person a suspects that they have wider goals there", if we have that person a of course. --Jadelith 08:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a bias here :

"In an operation to free the captured soldiers, Israeli forces launched an offensive into Lebanon in which five more Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops were killed." - given with no source, taken as fact

"Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of the group, claims it is part of an ongoing plan to free Lebanese citizens and/or members of Hezbollah in Israeli prisons." - given with a source, not taken as fact but instead phrased a only a 'claim'.

Most of the news I have seen (US news sources) about Israel's goals focus on how Israel's response will be "severe and harsh" rather than on recovering the soliders. An israeli General is reported as saying, "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts."[32]. Given the extremely high civilian to military casualty ratio it seems reasonable to assume the kidnapped soldiers are not the main target, but instead civilians are, or at least reduce the phrasing to a claim, as Nasrallah's is, rather than implicit fact.--69.60.118.148 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

yes but we don't assume. we report what has happened and who said what. --Jadelith 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, the claim that the purpose of the operation is to free the captured soldiers should have attribution. William Jockusch 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

With no response to my latest, I have gone ahead and changed the purpose in the opening paragraph to "in response". I'm not 100% clear on the etiquette here, so if I'm out of line feel free to revert me. William Jockusch 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This article http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1150886009750&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull "Jerusalem Post - 'Lebanon can be shut down for years'" details several purposes of the air strikes and blockade according to senior Israeli military officials including A) Destroying Hizbullah infrastructure; B) Preventing future rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon and C) Preventing prisoners from leaving, and help from entering. The wikipedia entry seems to imply that the whole response from Israel is simply punishment for taking a soldier, this should be changed to reflect what Israel has now said is its purpose. Mathan 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WashPost:Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

"U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants. Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials. For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him. For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say...." From today's Washington Post. This should be mentioned in the article appropriately. --Ben Houston 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Convert to timeline-based article

As this crisis turns into a multi-day event, wiht numerous attacks and counter attacks, parhaps the "current conflict" section should be restructured in chronologial order rather than by sides, as this would make the timeline of the events more understandable, rather than a list of events on each side with no correlation between them? --darkskyz 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I think this is the most important thing to do right now for this article:

Seeing as the conflict does not look like it is going to end quickly Restructure Article to be timeline based over the current format mcwiggin 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Having an "Attacks on Israel" vs. "Attacks on Lebanon" seems to be unwieldy and vague. Almost none of the attacks and casualties have dates or times recorded. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Once the crisis ends (or evolves into something else) a more content-based division of the article could be used. Sijo Ripa 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article is significantly worse than the Operation Summer Rains article, which I think is a rather good read due to its structure. No offense to anyone, but this article has not come together well so far with the constant allegations of bias of POV, along with the constant removal of facts from the Infobox. But I think this would be a good way to work give the article some flow - a chronological order like that of Operation Summer Rains. Than perhaps this can be brought into a higher order of articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about staring to put it together at 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Timeline? -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah or Hizbollah - Need of being consistent

I've noticed that down there in the article, there are some "Hezbollahs" and some "Hizbullahs". I think that we should be consistent in naming those terrorists. So, which should it be? Personally, I'm inclined to "Hezbollah". --Terrancommander 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistency one way or the other is essential. 172.200.205.217 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding footnotes

Is it possible to have a button to hide the footnotes? There's nearly a hundred, and they take up about a quarter of the page. I've seen some pages with sections that can be clicked on to hide/show. --Iorek85 03:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Its good to have citations and references but this is sort of getting out of hand. sikander 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps

New Map

File:2006-Lebanon-Israel-crisis strikes-and-rockets.PNG

The map currently being used, Image:2006 Israel Hezbullah Conflict Map.png, currently has no source information and can be deleted. As it was posted by a new user, it is extremely likely that it was merely taken off a news site of some sort. I've created a crude map in MS Paint until a more professional, licenced version is acquired (Image:2006-Lebanon-Israel-crisis strikes-and-rockets.PNG). Please leave feedback as to whether it is appropriate and should replace the current map. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Put it up if we get some more supporters. Hello32020 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it too.--TheFEARgod 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have photoshop and can give it a go. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you also include a sampling of the Katyusha strikes? Many have penetrated significantly farther than the red "conflict" band, specifically at Safed where 2 people have been killed. Otherwise, it looks great. (check this Jerusalem Post map out for more info - I have others that I can supply) Tewfik^Talk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Better? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Map looks good. Good work, Rangeley. Sijo Ripa 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now it is slightly confusing. Could you clarify that those are areas subject to rocket attacks (in an NPOV manner - maybe specify what "conflict" means for each side of the border), and perhaps make note of Safed? Another minor point, the UN refers to the Int'l border as the "blue line" - if you don't mind.. ;-) Also, you can include it as soon as you like and tweak it with continuous uploads. Thanks Tewfik^Talk 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the map doesnt need to show everything. It shows the general area of where things are going on for reference, while the respective sections describe what exactly is going on. And what would I do about the border, exactly? Just make it blue? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if it works out visually; I wouldn't want to disrupt the image. I suppose you're correct vis-a-vis above, though I still think showing Safed would be significant. And by the way, how exactly did you get the basic map - did you get the background from somewhere or draw it yourself, or some combination? Tewfik^Talk 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I drew the map using some other maps as references for borders and city locations. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a new, more professional map. User:STREETasmyCanvas 4:00 pm, 14 July 2006 (EST)

File:2006 israeli-lebanon confli.png

Map of conflict as of July 14, 2006.

Sorry, just saw this. In any event, you should see if there is consensus from among others on talk to add it. I'll include it above. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. all maps are biased. none of them connotates beirut but teh talk is about the 60 miles zone. One clear thing on *all* these maps is it poses teh conflict as if taking place in palestine territory,for the *most* part, where its obviously not. you bunch of zionists:)onix80.57.243.72 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a more 'Encyclopedic' map of the conflict region(in SVG), based off of the CIA's maps, and those published above. I'll leave it up to someone more involved to put it up it will do the job.

New Suggestion

File:Lebmap.jpg

New suggestion

I thought the previous one was pretty good, but I used it as a reference using lower number of colors. Vector Illustration -- Full view for details. Please give feedback and discuss whether you like to use it or not. Hope it's useful. -- Omernos 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Best map so far in my mind. I recommend using it. In fact, in the name of being bold, I'm going to sub it in. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(EC) That's fine. I don't prefer either one. If we do use it, would it be possible to move the city names slightly offshore so as not to obscure the details of the map, which (I think) add to its visual appeal? Also, I still believe that "Safed" may be an appropriate notation, but I'll leave that up to you and others to decide. Good job, Tewfik^Talk 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That new one is excellent, good job. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They're all very good. I impressed with everyone who made those maps. --Elliskev 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the one up right now. Do we know where the Israili warship that got hit was located? That would be a good addition to the map. Also, a spot showing where the two israeli soldiers were originally captured would be good too.--Crucible Guardian 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Change map ASAP. The map put is totally wrong. Beirut is not where it is shown, that's Sidon (Saida) instead. Beirut is more to the north, right on the cape on the top of the picture! Fix this immediately. Ad vitam aeternam 09:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

15th of July version - Beirut's location fixed

>>I have changed and uploaded a new version, but I need to discuss the matter before uploading a newer version to the same file with you guys. So if you'd like please take a look at Image:Lebmap02.jpg -- Unfortunately, I had used a previous map as a reference and I fell into this geographical mistake. Please consider using the second (if somebody has the permission to upload a newer version to the first one) as I followed up to people who noted the right position of Beirut. Any modification is possible to the original illustration. Anything for Wikipedia ;) -- Omernos 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The map put is totally wrong. Beirut is not where it is shown, that's Sidon (Saida) instead. Beirut is more to the north, right on the cape! Fix this immediately

This user's right. Junes 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But I have changed the location, and I checked with the map it's not in Sidon's position any more. Why this hostility? As said I fixed it. Check the new smaller thumb under the image. Image:Lebmap02.jpg. Just check the NEW one and I'll fix it. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave at the moment so I need an instant reply. -- Omernos 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your new map is accurate. All the previous maps were wrong, so this was understandable. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The area of conflict map that is shown on the main wikipedia page should now include Tiberias. I know the map isn't perfectly accurate and is meant to give a general idea. But I believe Tiberias is farther south on Lake Kineret and the shaded region should be changed accordingly. I know there is a map of Israeli cities affected but it is not featured on the main page. Njjones 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Please POST a picture of the damages caused by a Hezbollah strike

Someone please post a picture of the damage caused by a Hezbollah strike such as the fires and damages in Haifa. --68.1.182.215 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Link added to Getty photo. --Lior 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Would be good if u can publish any pictures but that under GNU. In the german Wikipedia we haven't any photos bout the situation. And here the ones we can't use cause the License isn't clear. --Japan01 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture (Infobox picture)

Aerial strike

I put up the original picture, of the black and white aerial strike. It is better than nothing, but I still really dislike it. I am having trouble finding adequately sized photos that qualify for fair use, so if anyone can find a better picture show it here so we can try and find the best. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible to resize pictures. A bit too small or way too large pictures are as a consequence no problem. What sometimes bothers me is the current trend to put "clean" pictures of wars in articles, such as the video game like air strike picture. That gives the impression that human casualties are only a secondary event (they are almost invisible), which is IMHO not the case. Sijo Ripa 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think our best bet for a free photo will be either a photo from a Wikipedian over there (doesn't seem very likely) or something from an Israeli soldier (are they in PD as with US soldiers)? As for fair use, any rationale will likely be somewhat thin as every image of the conflict has great commercial value right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, AP/Reuters images are no-no's, however images from the IDF site will be able to be used. They are just a bit slow to upload them though. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed two pictures, one being AP and one being Reuters. It's a pity we can't use them, but we have to stay clear of copyright-violations. Thomas Blomberg 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-POV picture

Somehow the IDF picture of the three soldiers with binoculars keeps being placed as the main picture for this article. Why? I'd argue it is POV picture from Israel's side, especially since it is an Irsael government photo by fair use. Why not go with the more neutral map of the middle east conflict area which provides more info and is more NPOV. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion. It's a general problem on Wikipedia: Pictures most of the time come from the most military powerful/wealthy conflict actor (USA and allies, USSR, Israel,...). This actor is shown in a bloodless decent picture. This is a form of systemic bias, simply due to the fact that pictures of these actors are more widely and freely available. A map could do the job, but is often used elsewhere in the article and as a consequence doesn't add anything new/interesting. Sijo Ripa 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the map in the Attacks on Lebanon is better than the photo of ONE sides forces.Hypnosadist 00:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the only violation of NPOV is the constant removal of this image. Its completely illogical, I find the Israeli blockade highly notable and also find it to be anything but constructive to continually remove it. It is not in violation of NPOV to show an image of one side, it tends to be what happens. I think the most pertinent image would be of either Hezbollah Katyusha rockets or Israeli artillery being fired as this is where the war is at now. Unfortunately for us, no free images, or images qualifying for fair use are available depicting this. An image of the blockade, while not the top thing I would go for, is certainly pertinent and notable. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a split photo (one picture that consists of two photo's - one of each side) could do the job? (A map would be a duplication as it would be used elsewhere). Please don't start an edit war however. Assume good faith and respect the three-revert-rule. Sijo Ripa 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but again, we do not have many photos to choose from at this stage. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the image is trying to avoid POV taken too far, IMO. Since when did pictures of Israeli naval officers mean we were supporting them? How on earth is it POV? Until we get a better picture, (and by better, I mean by conveying the character of the conflict), why can't that stay?--Iorek85 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I still support a good map but let me explain the POV some people see in the Israeli naval officers photo. They see it as three Israeli's looking cool killing lebaneese people. Thats why they do not like it, this is not a important piece of the article but will take up a lot of time/energy because of the emotions involved. Support the campain for the NPOV conflict map!Keep frosty people!Hypnosadist 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

...Yea, no. Its an oppinion that they look cool. The picture itself does not imply a point of view, it is not saying these are the good guys, any more than a picture of Hitler in front of the Eiffel tower in the Battle of France is saying he was the good guy. It is simply a picture of Israeli soldiers in the naval blockade. Perhaps someone finds Hezbollah attire simply dashing - it would be unreasonable to call a picture of them firing Katyusha rockets a violation of NPOV, it would be humorous infact. The image of soldiers is completely within the rules, and above that it is the best photo yet for the task at this time. The map is better put in relevant sections, not at the top. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ascribing your own personal opinion to neutral pictures does not make them POV. Unless the caption reads, "The brave soldiers of the glorious Israel reluctantly but galliantly destroying the Islamic scourge of Terrorism" then the picture is perfectly fine. If you think they look cool, thats up to you. They're not even killing anyone in the picture.--Iorek85 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article is about an Israel-Lebanon crisis, it should have an illustration which is relevant to a conflict with both sides. Tautalogical arguments like "It is not in violation of NPOV to show an image of one side, it tends to be what happens," are bizarre. Wikipedia should aim to be deliver quality better than what tends to happen. Regardless of the POV-ness debate, that is simply not a good picture - it doesn't convey any information other than when you have a naval blockade, you need men looking through binoculars. :) -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I happen to find it an interesting picture, moreso than a black and white explosion. Obviously it isnt the best thing out there, just look at the yahoo images slideshow. However those are press images, and as you know cant be used. It isnt bizzare to state an image doesnt have to show both sides. While field battles tended to be painted and captured both sides charging at each other, we just dont have that type of stuff anymore. Look at the Yom Kippur War article, Egyptian soldiers crossing the Suez. The 6 Day War, Israeli soldiers reach the Western Wall. I dont think either of these images violate NPOV, they depict events that happened, and notable events at that. This image is relevant to both sides of the conflict, the blockade isnt of Cyrprus or something, its of Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think it is hard to capture in a single image an strict NPOV. Not impossible mind you, but hard.

Good examples have been given of other articles about conflict in which only one side is portrayed. So this is not a tautological nor a weasel words prima facie, but simply a difference between the spoken word and the picture.

For me what is wrong with the picture is that it is a sanitized, propaganda picture, of one side. I actually prefer the explosion photo over that. The 3 binocular photo doesn't convey conflict, war, mayhem, or is particulary newsworthy even. Its just three heroically looking guys looking via binoculars at space. It is so *yawn* boring and bland it says nothing. For all I care it could have been taken years ago. Only a public relations officer of the IDF can find it newsworthy!!!

So I think we must find a better picture, even if all we can find is IDF soldiers in combat operations. Please, an exciting, newsworthy, real (not setup) picture that says something about conflict an war... In that sense, I don't understand why someone removed the map, which was actually quite good as an image, and ultra NPOV. As such, I am putting the map up, hopefully it will become permanent, or something better than 3 guys posing with binoculars far from any real combat or action pops up. I care more, when it comes to this one picture about its POV than it being a picture of actual combat or war, rather than a boring posed propaganda photo. --Cerejota 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have sent you a personal message, but I will say it here too.

Your objections are without base. The image is not in violation of NPOV, or any rule. Take a gander at Battle of France. The picture isnt of combat, far from it. The picture doesnt contain both sides. The picture is staged. But its NPOV, its an event, it happened. Take a gander at Battle of Berlin. The picture isnt of combat, far from it. The picture doesnt contain both sides. The picture is staged. But its NPOV, its an event, it happened.

These two things, Hitler in Paris, Soviet flag in Berlin, are still the best picture available in my oppinion. It is not at all a violation of NPOV to show them, and it is not one to show the Israeli soldiers on a ship, that is a silly claim. A claim with more base is that its not the best picture for the job, I entirely agree. There are amazing pictures out there of dust flying from artillery being shot, the dust blocks the sun and creates a really cool look. I think that has been the iconic image, for me, of this (and Operation Summer Rains for that matter.) Its been a common scene, and is how most combat is played out. Another great image would be of Hezbollah firing Katyusha rockets. But the problem is that we do not have any images of these that are free, or fair use. So far we have 2 images to choose from, a low quality black and white explosion, or the blockade. The blockade is by far the better image. Its not the best out there, but its the best we have. The map should not go at the top, it is better suited in the context of the conflict section, much like other wars or combats in which images are available. Maps in the infobox are a last resort, something we luckilly do not need to resort to. I am still looking for better images, I was the one who found the explosion to begin with, along with the one who originally replaced it. If you can find a free image of artillery fire or katyusha fire of sufficient size, that would be simply grand. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference is that almost no one has a personal interest in the depiction of World War II, while due to the global public polarization around the Arab-Israeli conflicts many have such an interest. I think that 60 years after the last Arab-Israeli conflict would be ended, no such debate about a main picture of this page would exist. Therefore a comparison with WWII is not entirely appropriate. Because I don't have a personal interest in the conflict, I don't object the 3-binocular nor the map picture. I do still think that a split photo is the best and should be the long term goal (=once more pictures become freely available). Sijo Ripa 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While smart people can disagree, the map remains much more informative and useful than the government photo. Given the complexity of this issue (borders, sea blockade, multiple countries) I wonder why is there a desire to put in what amounts to a "mood" photo, rather than one that informs. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because a map is only used in the infobox as a last resort, never as a first one. I am not saying remove the map, on the contrary. I have placed it back into the context of the conflict section, a place where its information is more pertinent. The main photo's job is to provide an image of what is going on, the section right below that tells you where its happening. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A map is only used as a last resort? Is this policy or guideline documented somewhere? -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the precedent set by other articles, and a good one at that. And we have already clarified the only objections to the image are that of personal interests, not one's of NPOV. When a better photo arises, we will use it. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions that have not been made - it has not been "clarified" in that manner. Also, I think it's rather inappropriate to revert from the map to the photo by labelling it as "revert vandalism." [33]. That's two reverts on your part, and not for vandalism. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of bombings of Lebanon

I was surprised not to find any pictures of lebanon being bombed. Seeing those pictures will create some kind of understanding to what happens, and will change the point of view and make it more neutral. Eshcorp 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone doesn't want to add such a picture. In fact, I even think that such pictures were added, but had to be removed due to copyright violations. Freely available pictures are scarce. Therefore this is not caused by POV (and that's one of the reasons why I moved this comment down to the pictures section). Sijo Ripa 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, several images have been placed up depicting it, but they were deleted shortly thereafter for not qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Convicted Palestinian Prisoners

All Palestinian prisoners have been convicted in court, or currently undergo legal proceedings. They are not held as prisoners of war and never have been. This is a matter of fact, not of point of view. There's no place to write they're "allegedly prisoners of war" because they simply aren't. Israel used to hold several Lebanese figures as POW, in order to exchange them with Israeli POW held by Hezbollah, but these actions were banned by Israeli supreme court. It is not been done for ten years or so, and has never been done with Palestinian prisoners. There is certainly no place to say that there are thousands of Palestinian POW in Israeli prisons, even if one objects Israeli policies. There should be some minimal sense behind the continuous edit war over the POV of this article. --Lior 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several articles mention that the Palestinians are held without any charge. Also, you're attributing to that statement to a source (see the end of the sentence) which says nothing about them being convicted. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please name one reliable source reporting that a single Palestinian is currently being held by Israel without charge. The fact that Hezbollah radio uses the POW terminology still does not imply it is reliable. Hezbollah radio was also the first to "report" the Mossad was behind the September 11 attacks, and no wikipedia article cites this as a fact. --Lior 05:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"The prison service says that of its 2,700 security prisoners, about 1,250 are being held on remand and 1,450 have been convicted. The IDF holds 2,900 prisoners, including 970 who have been convicted and 1,400 on remand or arrested on judges' orders. There are also at least 530 "administrative detainees" in IDF custody, who are held without charge or trial for renewable six-month terms." [34] So I really don't see how you can classify all of them as "convicted prisoners." BhaiSaab ^talk 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, we're making progress. We're left with 530 detainees held under 'administrative detention'. Their detention is approved by a judge every six months in the face of evidence linking them with terrorist activity. You are right about them been unconvicted, and I stand corrected for that. They're not held as prisoners of war, do not serve as baragain chips for future negotiations, and never have been released in any prisoner swap. Administrative detention has been argued against by civil rights groups and the procedures for applying it have been stiffenned. It exists in other Western countries (as mentioned by BBC, it is derived from British law). Anyways, there are no prisoners of war in Israeli prisons, neither Palestenian nor other. Hezbollah demands the release of thousands of Palestenian prisoners, and one Lebanese prisoner, the killer of two small girls and their father. --Lior 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"In remand" doesn't sound like they were convicted. Also, Israel has in the past engaged in prisoner exchanges with Palestinians, including the one mentioned at [35]. Zocky | picture popups 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Those held "in remand" face legal proceedings, as noted above. They have to be brought in front of a judge and face charges within 24-48 hours (soon about to be 96 hours in extreme cases). Hezbollah has never released its Israeli hostages (or bodies) in exchange for fresh detainees, only in exchange of prisoners. The prisoner swap you cited followed a war and included prisoners of war. The fact that convicted prisoners were also released in the 1980s has been gravely criticised, leading to the current change in Israeli policy. I accept your current edit (i.e. "Palestinian prisoners" instead of "convicted Palestinian prisoners"), yet Hezbollah (or Hamas) won't accept week-long detainees and Israel won't release administrative detainees, leaving convicted Palestinian prisoners as the only source for potential agreements.--Lior 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the 2650 people held on remand back in 2003 were arrested in 48 hours before the data was obtained, but that's a question for another article. "Prisoners" is good enough here. Zocky | picture popups 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that within 48 hours they were faced with charges, hence not held without charge. This is dangerous ice I'm walking on as possibly some of the 2650 have not seen a judge on time, but that's a mishap, not a policy. As long as legal proceedings go on, they're on remand, not convicted. Some are later released and some aren't. Have a nice day.--Lior 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to B'tselem IDF held 3,111 Palestinians in January 2006 and IPS held another 5,127, whereof more than 1,000 were not yet serving a sentence [36]. If you add up all those not yet serving a sentence (they have not been able to get figures for the number of sentenced IDF prisoners, but previous years' figures indicate that slightly more than half of the IDF prisoners are not serving a sentence), you get a total of some 3,000 held without a sentence and 8,238 held in total, whereof the overwhelming majority are imprisoned for political reasons [37]. Unfortunately B'tselem doesn't have any more recent figures, as the Israeli Prison Services have stopped providing them with the monthly figures they had before. Also, B'tselem points out that they have no statistics on Palestinians held by the Israeli Police. Thomas Blomberg 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see how the fascinating B'tselem data you provided argue against what I wrote. Let's Look at January 2006, beginning with IPS figures: There were 4,019 prisoners serving sentence. There were 105 detainees (I assume this refers to those not faced with charges yet), 950 detainees faced with charges and awaiting for their legal proceedings to end, and 53 administrative detainees. Now let's look at IDF figures: a worrisome number of 741 administrative detainees, and 2370 other prisoners and detainees. Please note, that from January 2005 and on, the vast majority of individuals in these three categories were prisoners serving sentence. But let's follow your suggestion, that only about 1200 of the uncategorized 2370 individuals are prisoners serving sentence. The number of detainees held by IDF and not faced with charges is still supposed to be about a 100. This sums up to about 200 individuals being held by Israel without charge on January 2006. 200 out of 5,127 is no overwhelming majority, it's about 4%. I don't see how you infer that the "overwhelming majority are imprisoned for political reasons", unless you take all non-criminal prisoners to be political prisoners. B'tselem does not report that there are thousands of political prisoners, not as far as I could figure out from the link you provided. Needless to say this has nothing to do with my original assertion, that Israel currently holds no prisoners of war of any nationality.--Lior 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that some arab and muslim people are now spending 15th to 20th year in israeli capticity and have never been charged or tried officially, they are in total limbo forever. That amounts to 1/3rd capital punishment, considering the average life expectancy of arab males is about 60 years, so jews took away 1/3rd of their livetimes.

Even the israeli politicians are recently admitting there are 20-year-long held palestinians and in press they said some those, exactly the ones deemed permanently phyisically unfit, might be released if arabs behave and bend. It should also not be forgotten that Guantanamo Camp X-ray idea was conceived by a US military comitte, whose lead advisor was the jewish army officer who designed the administrative detention scheme against the palestinians. 195.70.32.136 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the name of the article

Operation Just Promise

Was the name of Hezbollah's military operation not of Israel's. Robin Hood 1212 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it's Fulfilled Promise - the promise to help release Palestenian prisoners by abducting Israeli soldiers. But I don't feel like hunting for sources now.--Lior 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SOuces say True Promise, althought this could be a problem with translation...--Cerejota 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Change name to 'Operation Change of Direction' ?

I can't find any reference for that. (added by Nachmore) edit. Delete? --TheYmode 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Wikipedia calls it שינוי כיוון - Change of Direction. But it doesn't have a citation there. Máfiàg 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia* Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

he:שיחה:מבצע שינוי כיוון

What is Hezbollah?

Excuse my ignorance - but I don't think that the article is very clear... but what is Hezbollah? What is its exact status within Lebanon? Does it have official rights to represent / fight for the Lebanese people, represent the Lebanese government, etc? The reporting of the crisis talks about Israel vs. Hezbollah and it's not clear how Lebanon as a nation fits into this. The opening paragraph of the article is on the lines of "Hezbollah did this... so Israel did this". I am confused as the two actors appear to be Hezbollah and Israel, not Lebanon and Israel.

I would have expected there to be talk of the Israeli armed forces and government, and the Lebanese armed forces and government... is Hezbollah the Lebanese army? Is it a militia movement within Lebanon supported formally or informally by the Lebanese government? is it a rogue organisation distinct from the Lebanese government? Why is the Israeli army attacking "Hezbollah" and not "Lebanon"? (but clearly attacks are being made on civilians in both countries). Why isn't the Lebanese Army responding to attacks on sovereign Lebanese soil? Has Israel officially declared war on Lebanon (or vice-versa) or is this a very public guerilla war? I was under the impression that Israel and Lebanon are two sovereign nations and this all seems quite confused. Help appreciated with any of these questions... cheers! --mgaved 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)