Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Damage inflicted on Lebanon

Hello there,

I am preparing the Turkish Wikipedia page for the conflict and I am not an active contributor to the English one. I was reading this article to see how English Wikipedia has choosen to write it. I see a lot of POW problems with this English article. The unimaginable damage inflicted on Lebanon is not properly described in this article. Plus the figures for the dead and the wounded are several days old and needs to be updated. I fear that the contributors of this article has taken a pro-Israeli stance. I hope this will be corrected. --85.104.143.135 12:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article used to have more information on the damage in Lebanon. But recently, coincidentally right after the Megaphone software went online, the article has lost much of that information (esp. pictures). Maybe we need a sub-page of the main article that is focused solely on the damage in Lebanon, and one for the damage in Israel to keep it NPOV. That way, people will have no reason to cut things out for summary purposes. --Epsilonsa 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats an excellent idea. --Gregorof 03:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, summarising is only there when you do have a subpage. So you want a page for casualties, a page for the attacks by Hezbollah, a page for the attacks by Israel, a timeline of both sides attacks, and a page for the damage in Lebanon and one for Israel? This (month long) conflict will end up with more pages than WWII.

Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

isn't enough?

As for the actual complaint, I agree. The NPOV lovers have reduced the article a bit, making it more of a 50:50 either side than pointing out the vast majority of the damage is in Lebanon. Iorek85 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of damage has been inflicted by Isreal we must look at the principul, Isreal has a far more powerful military force and so logically in its hunt for Hezbollah will inflict more damage than Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah is deliberatly aiming at Isreali civilians with small, unaccuart rockets. Now just imagen if the roles were reversed... P.S. the Iranian president has called for Isreal to be wiped off the map, just putting the Isreali campain in prospective. --Jedi18 16:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't put anything into perspective, except maybe that you are thinking in a POV mindset. Showing the damage done in Lebanon is not for the purpose of making Israel look bad. like you said, the IDF is more powerful than Hezbollah and is thus doing more damage. People are requesting that the damage be proportionately reflected as that would put things in perspective. --Epsilonsa 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We should report that the damage is disproportionate. That doesn't require that we allocate space to each side in exact proportion to the damage done. A summary will do, we don't need an exhaustive list, at least not here. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important for us to express the disproportionality of the damage. We should express it in whatever amount of space it takes to express it properly. This means that if it takes a long, 12 paragraph article to express all the damage in Lebanon, we take 12 paragraphs. If it takes 2 paragraphs, we take 2 paragraphs. The same for Israel. I agree with Ben in that I think that we don't need an exhaustive list on this page, but I do think that it is important to have a list of all the facts we can get, whatever they may be, on some sort of side page. It's quite relevant to express as much as we can somewhere on Wikipedia, because, as someone who used Wikipedia a great deal before I began editing, I think it's a great starting point for more specific research. If someone wants to examine all the damage in the conflict, both Israeli and Lebanese, they should be able to see as many things as possible here, which will give them an adequate starting point. Jedi18, Wikipedia is not the place to decide the principle of this matter, because trust me, there's a lot more to this matter than what's happened in the last four weeks, and it we would never be able to reach a consensus as to whose principles are most justifiable. Anyway, my main point is that we should be reporting whatever facts we know, because even if that means writing more about one side than the other, that doesn't compromise the NPOVness (ok, that's not a word but still) of the article. In fact, it prevents the possibility of POV because solid facts, expressed in a neutral tone, can't have POV. That's my opinion at least.--Nibblesnbits 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper "proportionate" response for Israel when Hezbullah has sworn their "total destruction?" Given the scandal of the media's fraudulently doctoring and staging photos to show damage even worse than it is, I'd tred lightly here. You wouldn't want to make Wikipedia as disreputable as Reuters or the New York Times, would you? --12.74.187.195 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, this discussion is not about how "proportionate" Israel's actions were. That is not for us to decide. It's about how much of the facts to report. I would hope that all Wikipedia editors would tread lightly with any information and try to make sure it is accurate before adding it to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that well-documented facts shouldn't be reported. So like I said above, whatever facts we know of, we should report. We should try to make sure that our facts are as accurate as possible, and as complete as possible.--Nibblesnbits 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

War has never been about "proportionality". The inclusion of proportionality in a war article just doesn't go. Any realist knows this. ~~Firebird2k6

Prisoners of War

How about we all forget about the words abducted, captured and kidnapped and simply use POW which stands for prisoner of war for those of you not familiar with it. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at a "state of war" before this 2006 conflict started so we can all just use the neutral term "POW" to determine prisoners from both sides. Fedayee 17:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Highly unacceptable. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at state of "ceasefire". Hez doesn't respect any legal status anyway. Hez kidnaped the soldiers, not Lebanese army. Flayer 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no problem with "captured" (nor either of the alternative terms), but "Prisoners of War" is just plain inaccurate, save maybe in a purely technical sense. 89.1.68.175 21:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of kidnap implies illegality, the group operates illegally under UN Res 1559, the act was illegal as they crossed an international border, it was during the course of a cease fire, the soldiers were captured to force a prisoner swap (ie ransom) also illegal under geneva convention, they are being held for more then a week without a neutral international organization being made aware of their location adn status, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have not been able to contact their kin after 1 week of capture, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have had their lives threatened, also illegal under geneva convention. Stating captured is highly POV because it labels the actions to be legal as capturing soldiers is legal, however kidnapping implies ransom and illegality. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, putting this up for a vote merely illustrates the absurdity of this debate.

What Hezbollah did was patently illegal, no ifs, ands, or buts.

They illegally crossed into Israeli territory, and illegally abducted members of the IDF.

Everyone on Wikipedia could participate in this debate and posit a contrary point of view, but that wouldn't alter the facts on the ground.

No matter how much the apologists for Hezbollah's actions, or the actions of rogue regimes like Syria and Iran, want to contest the notion of truth, or replace it with some post-modern, Edward Said or Michel Foucalt-type subjectivity, they cannot alter essential, indisputable facts.

It's just that simple.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Speaking of illegality how come you guys pick and chose your resolutions? OK there is one calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah... What about resolution 242 calling for Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupies? I bet you dont want to talk about UN resolutions anymore.

Two wrongs do not negate eachother, saying Israel is in land it was suppose to turn over does not make Hezbollah all of a sudden not a militant group that the UN ordered disarmed. I do not understand why people keep arguing this point as if you can go in front of the UN and say, "he broke a resolution first, so I thought I didnt have to follow them either" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the semantic dispute. Tewfik^Talk 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

haha semantic dispute. i havent seen anything more ridiculous in my life. You apologists will do anything to defend israel. The resolution, regardless of this alleged semantic rubbish, was passed to instruct israel to withdraw from all territories it occupied in 1967. Trying to analyse the text like it's a shakespeare sonnet just shows the bad faith of you guys- the context in which it was issued makes it clear israel should withdraw from all land it occupied. Next thing you guys are going to say , is that the resolution refers to a person called Israel who stole a DVD called the golan heights. Rm uk 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth this is an important part of the article to show to readers that it was illegal. No where in the article does it say these actions where illegal. Thus these key words would show it. --Zonerocks 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole talk section is full of POV and original research. People, regardless of what we thinka are the facts, we aruled by something called

. That means we cannot simply take one POV and push it. That means we must, like it or not, consider "apologists for Hezbollah" whoa re editors as part of the community: the language and hatred expressed to them here is disheartening. Basically, any editors who so much as mentions a belief in the illegality of Hezbollah's action is choosing a side in the POV and cannot claim to be part of writing an NPOV article. Please keep that in mind.

We can, I say we must, mention who considers Hezbollah's actions legal and illegal, and when and if the UN expresses any proper declaration in this respect include that. But this article cannot have an NPOV presentation and tone and at the same time say any actions by any side where illegal as a statement of facts. We must klimit ourselves to show facts and let the readers reach their own conclusions, as easy as that. That my friends is NPOV.--Cerejota 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, legality or illegality is problematic because it implies that an act is condoned or proscribed by some law. The issue of what law to use will usually result in a POV one way or another. I think where no law applies, it could be said to be "alegal". Another issue is that words like "captured" or "kidnapped" may be viewed a little differently, in terms of their connotations, in different English-speaking cultures. 71.123.31.93 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With all respect cerejota, you are sadly wrong. Look How can you say on this talk board and basically say " Hey let's misrepresent the facts to be fair to those that support Hezbollah, or the NPOV people, or the Im against the conflict period." It's unfair to our readers to misrepresent the facts, and by keeping the word 'Captured' your misrepresenting it. So by putting 'kidnapped' we are being very fair, because the fact is, these guys were kidnapped. --Zonerocks 06:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No thats the issue: the "kidnapping" is a disputed fact because one sise of the POV denies there was kidnapping, rather a taking of POWs in combat. See? You are unwittingly destroying neutrality, and disrispecting the intellingence of the same readers you claim to respect by calling it a "kidnapping". "Captured" doesn't misrepresent facts: the fact is the guys were taken by force against their will. It is a disputed fact if this action was legal under laws of land warfare (ie POWs) or illegal (ie kidnapping). Again, I have no problem with a discussion of both POVs (Kidnapping vs POW) in a section, but I do have a problem with kidnapping being used as part of the NPOV presentation of the events.

I think people who are pushing for "kidnapping" need to calm down and really think if they want to start an edit war over this, because one will assuredly happen. I am just asking people to have common sense and understand both the spirit and the letter of the NPOV policy.--Cerejota 12:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not aware of Hezbollah actually making that claim. Even if they did, it is not balanced to present both claims merely because two claims have been made. The claim is presented as the extreme minority position that it is in world consensus. How we should characterise that is certainly up to (this) discussion. And there is no reason to fear any edit wars. If we reach a new consensus, we will behave towards it the same as we have towards previous ones. Tewfik^Talk 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Er... for those quoting resolution 1559 as evidence that Hezbollah was 'acting illegally', what about the 40 that Israel is currently in violation of? Doesn't that mean that the IDF was 'acting illegally' too? Cynical 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question of information, and not contradiction: which SC resolutions is Israel currently in violation of? Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Picking just one SC resolution on, say Jerualem: SC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 [Adopted at 1426th meeting (13-0-2) (2 abstentions were Canada, U.S.)] Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967; considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change the status; and urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem. MX44 10:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I misinterpreted, what I said above was incorrect. Israel may not necessarily be in violation of 40 resolutions at this present time, in fact the situation is that there have been 40 GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolutions which criticise Israel's actions. I don't have an accurate number for the number of Security Council resolutions (which, unlike GA ones, are legally obligatory), but I think it would be accurate to say that the resolution quoted above by MX44 is not the only one of which Israel is in violation

• The Palestinians still don't have a state
• East Jerusalem is still controlled by Israel (whatever the rights and wrongs are, the UN and international law says that East Jerusalem is Palestinian)
• Israel still maintains settlements in the West Bank (again, whatever you think about whether the settlements should remain in any two-state solution, they are at the moment illegal)
• The security fence/separation wall/apartheid law/anti-terrorism fence (insert your preferred POV of choice) - same as the above two
• Israel still controls the Shebaa Farms area, which according to
  WP:NPOV

Sorry for what I wrote before, as I said I had misinterpreted the information (not from that site - that is just a link I dug up to clarify the situation). Cynical 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A list of UNSC resolutions against Israel can be found here. I count them to 84. Although many of these have in part been followed by Israel, like the very odd Resolution 337: On Seizure of a Lebanese Airliner (15 Aug, 1973), tecnically it is none (because they all include reminders back to earlier resolutions like the ones from 1967 - 68.)MX44 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware Cynical, but if I understood it correctly, the link you provided seems to make the case that Israel's noncompliance is not as it seems. Of course, it also makes a case for apartheid S. Africa, but like most things in this debate, this chapter seems to be extremely complex. Thanks for entertaining my curiousity [both of you]. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody point to a peace treaty which would make Hezbollah's initial attack illegal? Israel and Hezbollah were at war all along, there was only a cease-fire and breaking cease-fires is not illegal. If it was, we would have to call every Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory in last 6 years illegal. 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an illegal entity in the eyes of the UN, you cant have a ceasefire with a group that technically should not exist. Even this ceasefire is with Lebanon not Hezbollah. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm ... If it was Hezbollah that attacked Israel a month ago, and Israel were going after them, then a cease-fire with Lebanon is about as helpful as a cease-fire with ... say Greece? If not Hezbollah/Israel have agreed on that they are the parties central to this conflict, then there cannot be any serious attempt of an agreement on any cease-fire. MX44 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably why the last UN resolution went so well ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these objections is true. No more is Hizbullah an illegal entity for not complying with 1559 than Israel is an illegal entity for not complying with 242. Geneva conventions explicitly mention militias as parties to conflicts, so Hezbollah can be a party to wars and treaties and cease-fires. It certainly was in existence and fighting Israel in 2000, and when Israel withdrew it was a unilateral withdrawal, without an agreement of any kind from Hezbollah. Border skirmishes continued all along, with frequent breeches and incursions from both sides. At no time were Hezbollah and Israel at peace. Hezbollah's attack on Israeli soldiers may have been stupid, counterproductive, malicious, even evil, but that doesn't make it illegal. Zocky | picture popups 13:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You state "No more is Hizbullah an illegal entity for not complying with 1559 than Israel is" this is obviously a misunderstanding because Lebanon was to comply with the resolution not Hizbollah. Hizbollah is not even recognized in the resolution specifically, it calls for all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed and disbanded. Hence any militia still operating in Lebanon is donig so against the UN resolution. You keep stating things like "without an agreement of any kind from Hezbollah" but they do not get a say, they are to be disbanded as per the UN resolution. Why would the UN say Hezbollah needs to have a ceasefire if they arent even suppose to exist? Hence that cease fire and this one are both with Lebanon not Hezbollah. So if you read the resolution, no militia can operate in Lebanon legally, hence their an illegal entity. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of talk about nothing. The ideal state of the world where sovereign countries control their territory is not the reality on the ground. Per conventions, the distinction between state armies and militias is irrelevant for establishing whether there's a state of war or not and who the sides are. Note also that UN never called for Hezbollah to be disbanded, only for the militias, including Hezbollah's militia, to be disarmed.

The argument that the other side is acting illegally is used by all sides in all conflicts - if both sides thought everything was legal, there would be no conflict in the first place. The article shouldn't prefer Israel's line that Hezbollah is illegal to Hezbollah's line that Israel is illegal, nor the other way around. Zocky | picture popups 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You said "UN never called for Hezbollah to be disbanded, only for the militias, including Hezbollah's militia, to be disarmed." Which still proves they are acting against the UN resolution ... Hence firing rockets, attacking anyone with a weapons is against the UN resolution, how can unarmed people fire weapons? As "ideal state of the world" I really dont care what you think is ideal, however the fact remains the UN said Hezbollah needs to disarm, instead they just attacked another country, sounds like the broke the resolution. As for Israel being illegal, the UN recognizes them as a state, the UN does not recognize Hezbollah as a legal militia. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if they're acting against the resolution? Israel acts against UN resolutions all the time, but it doesn't make every action it takes illegal, and neither does it for Hezbollah. Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are not understanding, the groups existence is against the resolutions set out by the United Nations. If you have a specific problem with this please clarify what that is so I can possibly address it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I think that Zocky's point (correct me if I'm wrong Zocky), is that it is inappropriate for us to suggest that we should express a preference for one point of view over the other. "The article shouldn't prefer Israel's line that Hezbollah is illegal to Hezbollah's line that Israel is illegal, nor the other way around." This is exactly right. Let's put it this way. There are two points of view here. There's the view of pro-Israelis. They say that Hezbollah crossed into Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers who were, at the time, showing no signs of agression. Supporters of Israel feel that Hezbollah's actions came during a time of peace and were intended to incite violence. The other viewpoint is the view of those who support Hezbollah's actions, or at least, do not feel that they were any worse than Israel's actions. They feel like Hezbollah's actions were perfectly acceptable and that there was no "time of peace" because it is hardly peace when a foreign country continues to occupy a country's territory (i.e. Sheb'a Farms). Zerofaults said that Hezbollah violated the geneva conventions by not allowing the soldiers to contact their families. However, someone who feels that the taking of the soldiers was at least equivalent to Israel's taking of Lebanese and Palestinians as prisoners would argue that Israel often fails to allow its prisoners to contact and see their families. So you see, there are two sides. There is no consensus as to who is right or wrong in this conflict. Thus, we are not in a position, nor should we ever be in a position on Wikipedia, to decide what is legal and what is illegal. All we can report on legality or illegality are claims by the parties (including only somewhat involved third-parties), and the decisions of courts. Even a decision of a court cannot be reported as a fact. It has to be reported as a decision of the court. So as far as we are concerned, we must try our best to craft our language such that it does not suggest any POV. So, I feel that kidnapped suggests the pro-Israeli perspective. I feel that calling them POW suggests the pro-Hezbollah position. I think that calling it capture still has POV, but I think that it is the closest to not having POV of any of them. Those are my thoughts at least. Sorry if they're stupid.--Nibblesnbits 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is two points, however two wrongs do not negate eachother. You cannot go in front of the UN and say, "well they violated the Geneva Convetion first". If you want to say Israel kidnapped all those other people that is fine, but negating the fact that these people were kidnapped simply because others were kidnapped makes no sense. We are not attempting to decide right or wrong, saying Manson killed lots of people so he broke X law is not deciding right from wrong, its stating a fact. The problem here is that people want to use a less factually correct word because they feel the most factually correct word is POV. However there are two sides, captured implies a legal action where kidnapped states an illegal action for ransom. Perhaps a middle ground is to say they were taken for ransom as that is the most factually correct statement and does not use either word or imply a legal point. As for calling them POW's that is clearly POV is kidnapped is POV since it implies the actions were taken legally, POW's are not illegal captives but legal captives. It further justifies all actions by stating there was a state of war, which there was not. By the idea of not wanting to state legality you cannot say kidnapped (though most accurate because of ransom) captured (promotes legality ie POW) or POW itself as it justifies the attack in general as implying there was a state of war. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they negate each other. I'm saying that, if we call the actions of one kidnapping, and the actions of the other capture, then that would be POV, because that might be the view of one side, but the other side views it in exactly the opposite way. "If you want to say Israel kidnapped all those other people that is fine...." Other editors would not allow this, and thus it would be POVed to express the actions of Hezbollah as anything different from Israel's. Look, all I'm trying to say is that we should use the same word for both sides and try to make that word as POV-free as possible.--Nibblesnbits 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone taken without given a reason and without being charged with a crime, and especially not taken by an authority with power to enforce laws is obviously kidnapped. If these Lebanese were taken from Lebanon against the will of the Lebanese government and have not been charged or convicted of a crime, then they are certaintly kidnapped. I would not advocate any different. So your problem isnt with POV, its just that you feel since one factual statement is the victim of edit warring, that you should make another similar statement a victim of edit warring. We do not leave content out of an article simply because we cannot get our way with a different statement. You are almost advocating a WP:POINT violation, to disrupt an article to prove a political point that those other people were also kidnapped. If you want to bring a poll and can show they were not convicted or charged with a crime then I will surely state my support for labeling those people as kidnapped as well. However do not drag other issues into that one to make political points. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. I really wasn't trying to prove a point, I was just trying to say that we should try to stay consistent throughout our articles on this matter, that's all. In other words, I am saying that we should make neither statements victims of edit warring. I really don't care which word is used here, as long as we agree upon it or at least can live with it. Sorry if I came across some other way, but you make a good point--Nibblesnbits 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli

"Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling resulting in death of eight and capture of two IDF soldiers"

Didn't the cross-border raid result in the death of three IDF soldiers, not eight? To my understanding, the other five died while trying to retrieve their comrades. This comment seems a bit misleading. Coolintro 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Cerejota 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't. Eight soldiers died in this attack, not three. It is highly irrelevant that they have tried to save their comrades - that's what soldiers do while under attack, you know? I suppose for you guys to write that the other five were killed in the attack they had to stand still and wait for Hizballa bullets, not trying to do anything against the attackers, right? What an immoral crap... Aleverde.

We already discussed this, you must be new to this talk page, we earlier decided to keep that. Because there are other news report where they where 8 where kiled at the same time. --Zonerocks 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the article states that three were killed during the raid and the rest were killed trying to rescue the kidnapped soldiers. Coolintro 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We already agreed on this cool. Because it doesn't matter, Ehud Olmert gave his reasons for it, and that is mentioned. --Zonerocks 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We havent agreed on anything. I mean, most editors here would either make this a Hezbollah propganda page or an IDF recruitment page. I learned recently that calling consensus in this page is impossible. All we have is lulls between edit wars. And of course, that upsurge when the megaphone rings...--Cerejota 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Casus belli" mean "cause of war'? This is a conflict, so it is the wrong word -- Kendrick7 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it is the infobox layout itself that is misleading... -- Kendrick7 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

8 is important. I believe the rescue happened before the larger scale operation, so additional 5 deads may have contributed to the escalation. Also, "cross-border raid and shelling" suggests shelling in direct relation to the kidnapping, while in fact it was also on civilian areas. Again, that contributed. ehudshapira 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Events leading up

What do events in March have to do with this, especially unfounded allegations? Perhaps we can go back to the 1982 invasion? The direct cause was the Hezbollah action. There is a millenium of internecine battles and strife in the Levant; it is out-of-scope for this article.

The above post was not tested on the words kidnapping or capture, and can be enjoyed without guilt

-- Avi 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the entire history of the Israel-Lebanon conflict, but this article is specific to 2006. I find a rocket bombing/exchange between the two (three, four, whatever) sides six weeks prior to the current conflict perfectly relevant, and this section could be expanded. What's unfounded here? -- Kendrick7 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is specific to the recent conflict, not all of 2006. The events that led up to the July/August 2006 conflict could be correctly argue to have begun 1000 years ago. This article is about this conflict, not all of 2006. -- Avi 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for 1000-years of pre-history. But that that last cease-fire lasted only six weeks, that at least provides context. Are you sugesting, six weeks from now if hostilities recommense, it would be an entirely different article, with no mention of this whole ancient July/August spat?? -- Kendrick7 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but I think that it is eminently reasonable to treat this conflict as beginnning with the world-wide accepted cause of Hezbollah's actions, and not allow the pre-history to crep in, becuase there is no limit once that starts. -- Avi 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying (I wrote the article on

Loki's Wager, don't need to tell me about slippery slopes). But the introductory paragraph already dates and gives the causes of the this conflict. We could easily say something like, "while the conflict between Israel and Lebanon goes bad X years, this conflict began after a ceasefire of six weeks", or some similar disclaimer. The actors and the modus operandi are the same, it does inform the reader that tensions were ongoing, etc. so I don't see the unrelevancy. -- Kendrick7

19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I am REALLY MAD, How distorted is that section. That is pure biased bull. It should be automactically deleted. Did anyone here actually check the links? I went to the leaders page and that the refernce or the link is from may 26 2005. That's right may 26 2005. This should be automatically deleted. This is unbelieveable. Are there any objections. I will leave objections open for two hours. --Zonerocks 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Zone, following the link does give the date of "May 26, 2006". The 05 in the URL is for May, not 2005. I think we can all use a bit of a breather here, and

WP:AGF is helpful (though I admit, difficult at times). 8-D -- Avi

20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is official notice that I have extended your 2 hours to 72,000 hours, which puts the deadline sometime in 2014.--Paraphelion 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse him. He's having a hard enough time with his years anyway. These events were 2006. Kendrick7 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, now, Kendrick, everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Let's try and keep even the semblance of

20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Kendrick (regarding the relevance of the events leading up to the current crisis). Events such as rocket exchange between the two sides ARE important to getting full story. There was also mention of kidnappings of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, as cited by BBC that seemed creditable but have since been deleted- apparently without discussion. Considering the write up by Seymour Hersh [2] (discussed above), the issue of the beginning of this conflict should include an entry about events leading up to it. Otherwise, it's as if those events never took place, which is incorrect. Niaz 03:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Palestinian issue is part of

2006 Israel-Gaza conflict; Nasrallah explicitly states in his press conference that there is no connection. The Hersh claim is so far not widely reported, and in any event, it is hardly notable enough to warrant inclusion in this bursting-at-the-seams article. Sometimes I wonder if we should put a FAQ at the top of this page. Tewfik^Talk

04:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is confusing now that it mentions this previous cease-fire. I understand that there was such a cease-fire, but it belongs elsewhere, in historical context, not in the intro paragraph. Claymoney 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in the historical section, though I wouldn't be the first to imply May is exactly "history." That there was a previous ceasefire is relevant to setting the context and scope of this article at the outset. I'm not sure how it is confusing -- Kendrick7 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be worth some salt. Apparently, the war was in Israel's mind long before the kidnap. More information can be greaned from this article. [3]

Seymour Hersh allegation

I came across a number of articles on Google News related to this [4] article in The New Yorker. I've placed a reference to it in the section on the Israeli response to the initial attack, but I'm not sure that is the right place for it. Can anybody suggest something better? Damburger 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, we can't include analysis of what may or may not be in the future. As for the actual claims of collusion the report, from what I read about them they are far from mainstream. If that is an accurate assesment, then they would deserve extremely minimal, if any mention. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very tenuous excuse for trying to keep it out of the article. His allegations have little to do with the future - they refer to events that occured before 12th July. Simply because they also mention a possible future strike on Iran doesn't make it a crystal ball. And it doesn't give you an excuse to censor. Damburger 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik gave an equally tenuous excuse when I first posted to the talk page on 09:30, 14 August 2006 that the Hersh allegation was a very relevent story to the timeline of the conflict. If this was just some press commentator behind the story then perhaps I could understand the skepticism; but since this is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, who exposed the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, and Abu Ghraib, then there is serious reason to include it. Perhaps Tewfik should read Seymour Hersh to understand this. Repeated resistance to inclusion of such relevent material is distinctly POV behaviour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fig wright (talk • contribs).

How does the story change the timeline - do you/does he contend that it the conflict didn't start due to Hezbollah action? In any event, we don't include speculation, however famous its collector, as part of "what really happened," but just uncontroversial, widely reported facts. My repeated resistance stems from my concerns about the article's quality and size. Assuming that the passage still deserves a mention, it wouldn't be in the main article, but rather in the subarticles. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa - your addition focused on the claims of what may happen in the future, which is why I discussed that aspect. Nonetheless, what I said above holds true. Many noncontroversial and mainstream passages have been removed to subarticles; assuming that this is even something that could be included, it is unlikely to go in the main article, and certainly not more than the slightest mention.

Now for the sake of clarity, what specific point to you want to include? Tewfik^Talk 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not including a "point" I'm quoting a news story which is quite prominent when you do a Google News search for 'Israel'. I did not focus on what would happen in the future - I merely quoted a section reporting what US plans were. Quoting (alleged) plans by the US does not constitute crystal ball gazing. Damburger 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not crystal ball, perhaps,but it may very well not be notable. Can we have confirmation from multiple sources, maybe? -- Avi 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, you and I disagree on POV, but we agree on wikipedia, at least until now. :P --Cerejota 04:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this one of the articles you are talking about? - "Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon' ". [5] It seems very relevant to this article.--Paraphelion 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What nuclear installations? Iran's nuclear energy installations? The USA and Israel have gone mad. They really are going to start something very serious if the USA invades Iran. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a general chat forum Matthew, please leave comments like these to your talk page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matthew... I don't know what you are talking about, did you mean to reply to me?--Paraphelion 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now who is the hypocrite? First you blabber on on how liberals are the devil, and now you want to ban soapboxing... like to have your cake and eat too don't ya?--Cerejota 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the conflict still ongoing?

The first sentence of the article should be changed to the past tense and the word "ongoing" removed. If this isn't in fact the end of the conlflict, and it fighting resumes, we can simply change things back.Nwe 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Avraham beat me to it by a few seconds. Stephen B Streater 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The last cease fire lasted six weeks, this one has lasted almost two days. Practically a record! I just past-tensed most of the article, and besides, I think if things fall apart again it would have to be a new artcle. -- Kendrick7 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. You misunderstand the word ceasefire and its definition. There was a ceasefire during WW1 at Christmas time in 1915, when fighting resumed the next day it was still WW1. A ceasefire is not an end to the war in and of itself, but temporary stoppage of fighting. The conflict is still ongoing. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding the scope of this article, or at least how it was explained to me

here. This article begins with the breach of the May ceasefire, and as such should end with the commencement of this August ceasefire. I originally thought it should cover all of 2006 too. This is perhaps one conflict in a larger war. I believe Israel and Lebanon are technically still at war and have been for dozens of years now. -- Kendrick7

22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is ungoing, the end of the conflict will be the day israel leaves, they claim in 10 days, once they are gone, it's over, there will be some more casualties. Also, is there one good administrator here who will watch out for removal of important site, too much bias. what is victory? Israel's goal was to destroy Hezbolla militia, did they do it, not at all, except destroy Lebanon and people who have nothing to do with this war, including Christian areas. Hezbolla on average fired 150 rockets daily, on Sunday, last day of conflict 260+rockets, if this is victory, then I do not know what defeat it, let's remember the moral arguments, the descturcion of hospitals, infrastructure, homes and bridges (like warsaw 39 and 44), all those places had nothing to do with hezbolla but served mostly general public, therefore this argument is self evident and others can contradict it in their world only. As far as the ceasefire goes, it was broken by israel when they bombed hezbolla claiming they were in danger, that needs to be marked, so far 9 hezbolla fighters killed, i think one israeli, sending bombs in south lebanon, not across border is not provocation.When will hezbola disarm ? They will not, except they will not have arms in the south from the Litany river, that does not mean they will not be there, like rebuilding homes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.0.137 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

First of all we aren't ones to decide what victory is and is not. Secondly, not attaining your goals set at the beginning of the war doesn't necessarily mean your enemy has won. One could just as well say that since Israel killed 4 times as many Hezbollah members as IDF soldiers that died they won the conflict. IMO there was no winner to the conflict but there was definitely one loser and that is Lebanon.

Yonatanh

23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we describe the cessation neutrally, without alluding to whether "the conflict" continues or not, and then decribe any future hostilities based on our persepective when they happen. Tewfik^Talk 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Two cases in point: the fighting in the

First World War ended on June 28, 1919, not November 11, 1918 when the Armistice went into effect. (That's why most war memorials list 1919, not 1918, as the end date of the war.) In other words, the end of the shooting is not the end of the conflict. -- ChrisO

23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very premature to state that this conflict is history. When the Lebanese Army and the strengthened UNIFIL force is in place, and the Israelis have withdrawn to the other side of the border, we can assume that there will be a longer period of nomajor military activities in the area. At that point this conflict can be regarded as history, as any renewed outbreak of major hostilities would be labelled as a different conflict. However, if hostilities start again before this happens, the current ceasefire will just be a temporary break in the same conflict. So, let's stick to "ongoing" for now. Thomas Blomberg 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right - remember how many ceasefires there were in Bosnia? -- ChrisO 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why isn't the start of this conflict 26 May? -- Kendrick7 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it didnt begin then? The conflict described in this article began on July 12th when Hezbollah launched its raid. Its still ongoing, ceasefire doesnt mean the conflict it is over. Please read the article on ceasefire. It means a "temporary" halt in fighting, not a permanant end to the conflict. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It began then by your definition. There was a ceasefire 28 May, then hostilities resumed 12 July. You seem to want it both ways. -- Kendrick7 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50416 Here] is the relavant footnote. -- Kendrick7 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Kendrick here. It doesn't make sense to say that a conflict is ongoing if it began as a breach of a ceasefire and a new one was declared. It's status now has returned to its status before the begining of the conflict. 124.186.6.253 00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the page on the

Korean war gives the date of the end of the war as the date of the armistice. An armistace can be a date for the end of a conflict, though I wounldn't claim that it's definitive. 124.186.6.253

00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on whether it is considered the end or not. We have the ability to see that the Korean War ended then, if fighting occurs again it would be considered a different war. But the Vietnam war had a ceasefire in 1973, fighting then resumed later and it was considered the same war. We dont have enough knowledge to know if this is the end or not, the press isnt calling it the end, its merely a "shaky ceasefire." We have to leave it alone for the time being and see what the press, and experts determine. Because the May event was so small and because it is pretty much entirely forgotten (surprisingly, I had never once seen it mentioned in support of the Israeli rationale by anyone on TV, though it seems like something that could be used to strengthen their argument,) we dont consider it part of this because noone else does. We arent writing history, we are merely recording it. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the current status of the conflict, it is impossible to know whether the first sentence should say "is" or "was". I have therefore changed it to a grammatical middle ground, "has been". Grammatically correct? Probably not. Could we just leave it that way as a compromise anyway, for a little while? Please? The tagged word "is" looks really bad. 6SJ7 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Or we can just remove the tag. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You could, but you know what would happen then. I won't change it, but you know that others will. I was just trying to propose a compromise, but other than that I do not think it matters very much which word is used. Since there is no POV issue here, I would be satisfied in the knowledge that no matter which word is there, within a few weeks it will be clear which word is correct, and that is what the article will say. (To those who think they are going to quote this back to me about some other dispute, note the condition that there is no POV issue.) 6SJ7 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I still say dating this conflict from the end of the last ceasefire to the start of the current one eliminates any POV issues. It makes for nice logical and factual bookends to the article. It's not like there can't be more articles. Otherwise, it becomes a real open ended muddle. If we extend it forward, we'd need to extend it backwards too, and then there would be endless "who started it" debates. I don't know why she swallowed the fly! I mean, if the best counter-argument is that we should write whatever the TV tells us, that's a pretty lousy starting point. Anyway, I like Tewfik's current grammar solution for now. -- Kendrick7 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my grammar is off, but does is necessarily have to mean that the conflict is ongoing? Isn't it possible for the sentence to be phrased in present-tense without applying that tense to the subject? In any event, like Rangeley, I'm not sure that the tag actually adds anything. Tewfik^Talk 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Special Ops Chief Killed?

Shouldn't this be added to the article?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750941.html

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I am having trouble with this sentence:

"Thank God, no one in a leadership position has been martyred…even though we hope to be martyrs one day," said Sheik Naim Kassem, Hezbollah's deputy leader.

— Naim Kassem, [6]

Isn't that a contradiction? Unless they wish to choose the time and place of their martydom, I guess. -- Avi 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Added. Flayer 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Air and Naval blockade

There is no mention that this is still enforced by Israel

Disclaimer in the Intro to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Loathe am I to add yet another discussion to the already overloaded talk page, but the constant addition of an unneeded disclaimer to the this comment in the intro of the argument needs to be settled.

"The conflict has killed hundreds of people, mostly Lebanese people (with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians), damaged infrastructure across Lebanon, displaced more than a million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel."

Some people have been arguing it's POV without the disclaimer.

Even if you include Israel's highest estimates of Hezbollah dead, and the lowest estimates of Lebanese civilian dead, the statement still holds true. I can't revert it back, but it'd be nice if someone would. It's rubbish to deny the fact that Lebanese civilians have been hit the most in this conflict - whether you want to blame Hezbollah or Israel for that is up to you, but "with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians" is patent rubbish, since we have the figures right there. Iorek85 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not a fact.

It's your subjective opinion.

There were over a million Israelis who were bombarded with thousands of rockets for over a month, and hundreds of thousands of them who became essentially internal refugees because of the reckless violence of Hezbollah.

The fact that more Lebanese died does not mean that they were hit "harder," only that the infrastructure of Israel is more robust and advanced than that of Southern Lebanon, which sustained almost all of the major structural damage and loss of life during this conflict.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It should really just say "people". The casuality and their exact country of original, civilian, irregular, or enlisted status, is counted for elsewhere. I think this paragraph is really trying to explain the tragedy of the whole mess -- Kendrick7 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How anyone could claim that this was an equal conflict on both sides baffles me. By any measure, be it environmental, casualty figures, evacuations, physical damage, monetary, or sheer amount of explosives used, Lebanon came out by far the worst. Kendrick, I'd agree with you, but the purpose of the lead is to summarise the main points of the conflict - to lump everyone together (while each life is equal in value) hides the fact that the conflict was unequal. I'm not assigning any moral to that here, anyone can argue its justified or its not, but the lead presents the view that both sides were equally affected, and that's just not the case. Somewhere in that lead it should point out that Lebanon has suffered the most damage/casualties. Iorek85 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That Lebanese civilians were the biggest losers should be made clear, though I appreciate Kendrick's point. Is there perhaps a less crass way of getting the point across than "killed hundreds, mostly Lebanese" ? Maybe thats the only way... Tewfik^Talk 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Passage moved from intro (POV news analysis ; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and introductions aren't place for editorializing. This is why I removed the following passage: "But key conditions for a lasting ceasefire may be difficult to meet. For example, two Hezbollah members have said that their militia would not disarm south of the Litani River, according to a senior member of the Lebanese cabinet while Israel has said it will stop withdrawing from South Lebanon if Lebanese troops aren't deployed there within days"

The invisible comment (just for editors) saying "please don't remove this, it is very important for negotiations of cease-fire" not only enforces the POV of this statement but its objective. Without going into any details, the objective of disarming the Hizbollah is nothing new. The new UN resolution certainly states it again, but Wikipedia is not a daily news report. ANy person aware of the Middle East context knows that this revendication is nothing new, and to put the blame of an eventual failure of the cease-fire on this point is without any doubt a personal opinion. Doubtlessly the Hizbollah will argue that any failure will be due to Israel's refusal to withdraw from Lebanese territories. Tazmaniacs 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it belongs in lead or not is a matter for discussion, but it belongs in the article, sans any editorializing, of course. I have slightly re-written the paragraph to be factual without opinions (I hope) and placed it in the "fragile" section, where it would belong if we have a consensus that it is not proper in the lead. -- Avi 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Wiki is not a "crystal ball", this is a "current event". Speculations and predictions are made throughout the news and media. Why not mention some of the more supported "crystal ball predictions" with references? --71.200.61.10 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets be clear, the spirit behind policies are much more important than the words. the spirit behind the frowning upon crystal balling is because it is very very very very hard to find crystal balling, projections and futurist analysis not linked to specific POVs, and as we all know NPOV is the one policy we cannot disobey. So even if I am open to be flexible, and I think you have a valid point, I think any crystal balling should be frowned upon. And in the specifc, mention of the continuing violation of Hezbollah of a UN resolution opens the door to a debate, not central to this page, on Israeli violations of multiple UN resolutions, not to mention the Oslo Accords.

If one is to pull and

WP:IAR

. In particular, I think crystal balling is bad because this is a current event, and hence predictions can change from a minute to the next, not to mention they are dime a dozen and there is no way we can have both balance and a readable article if we start to play Nostradamus.

As a matter of fact, there is an increasing campaign among wikipedians to have ALL current event entries removed to Wikinews. I am not fully convinced of this, but their points seem valid, in particular because current events tend to be a cesspool of policy violations, uncivility and POV wars, and moving them to wikinews will immediately reduce the incidence of such things here (with the concurrent lost time in procedural, admin and 'crat work etc). Of course, wikinews would have all those problems to itself, but I am not a wannabe journalist, am a wannabe encyclopedist.--Cerejota 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the murder of Rafik Hariri?

Has Syria been cleared of this crime? Will Syria ever be investigated now that the UN wants Syria to support the international peace keeping force? Many have stated that Iran wanted this conflict to deflect attention from its problems with the UN over its nuclear program. Could Syria also benefit in that the UN investigation of Syria will also be deflected? Let's debate...

15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No lets not debate, this is not a general chat forum. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)