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)

Anyone think it is appropriate to add Iran to list of combantants

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)

Lebanon or not?

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 • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 : [3]--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)

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)

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)

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)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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 • contribs) 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 • contribs) 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 • contribs)

"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)

Hey this extremely bias

There is no citation to support that other countries or "leaders" blame Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. Israel is the only country to make this claim.

"The international reaction to the crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel. At the same time, many leaders have stated that Hezbollah initiated the crisis and Lebanon shares responsibility for letting Hezbollah operate within her jurisdiction. Many nations have also expressed concern of a possible escalation of the conflict. [76]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.112.57 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. The citation given does not support the claim. I have removed it. --Elliskev 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the citations? Clicking the little numbers does nothing. Where can I find the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??

---

From International reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis:

The Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller said that the Lebanese government has to take responsibility to prevent further terror attacks from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Bill Frist said that the Lebanese government should uphold its responsibility under a U.N. resolution to make sure its territory isn’t being used for Hezbollah or other groups.
--JWSchmidt 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese government was supposed to disband the Hezbollah militia. They didn't, instead, they let them run amok in their country. So what are people to think? That the government should not be responsibile for organization they sheltered despite attempts by those other world "leaders" to stop them? Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Most people know that the Lebanese Government was not and is not equipped to deal with Hezbollah. Any attempt to disarm them would have created civil war. Moreover, Hezbollah has a better funded and better equipped military than Lebanon. Many people in Lebanon see the Hezbollah militia as the only armed forces that can defend them from Israeli incursions.

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 • contribs)

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)

POV resolution

OK. So what's not resolved? Can we maintain a list so we don't keepthat ugly and redundant POV tag up forever? --Elliskev 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV description

Do we really need this gory description:

"one of whom was shown on Lebanese and Arab television to have been decapitated, while all that neighbours could find of their baby's body was its head and torso"

in an encyclopedia article? Equally gory statements can be made to describe deaths on the other side, but they have no place in an encyc. article.89.138.118.113 07:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. 71.123.235.70 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

This is discussion of events/supposed events and source searches.

Israel says Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship

Report (Fox News): Iran Rev Guards fired missile at Israel

The link given to Pifactorial contains a video of it,[4], and it also says CNN reported the story. This is certainly interesting, but so far Israel hasnt really commented on it. Its cited as from Israeli intelligence, so its possible that Israel is trying to keep it quiet before they can certify it. Rangeley 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have roughly what they said at 7:02 should i post it?Hello32020 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure Rangeley 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Report around ~7:02 on FNC: Shep, Israeli inteligence is working under the assassumption that it was a alfowlger(Don't know how to spell)-7 missile that struck haifa earlier today...it is a missile with a 50-mile range it has never been fired at Israel before, it is Iranian made shep, reportely developed with the help of North Korea and China. Israeli inteligence again is again working under the assumption that is was fired by Iranian revoultionary guard units based in South Lebanon who worked side by side with Hesbalah. (Rough spelling, paraphased) Hello32020 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Hezballah haz Fajr-7 missiles:

Hizballah has up to ten thousand rockets, mostly katyushas, but also some Iranian-made Fajr-7 rockets capable of reaching a range of over forty miles. Fajr-7 rockets are considered by Israel to be strategic weapons because their range can put at risk approximately 1.5 million Israelis, in cities as far from the border as Haifa and Tiberias. [5] --Pifactorial 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a page on the Fajr 7, if such a thing exists. I'm strongly suspecting it might be a case of mistaken identity. I'd appreciate any help getting some correct information for the article. 86.137.62.213 11:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Fajr7 missile does exist. I heard this name in the news a lot. Máfiàg 12:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone posted these developments with sources on the article page yet?Hello32020 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Do you think we shouldHello32020 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)?

Okay i added itHello32020 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice definition of strategic weapons that... it explains the attacks on airports all over the world... evrything that can go 50 miles can endanger millions, so cars too should be abolished as strategic weapons. (in my opinion a strategic weapon is a weapon that with a few apllications has a major strategic impact. (so not firing 1000 fold the nr of fajr7 rockets that exists. Still, its not evry polite to fire rockets, tehn again, its not very polite to maintain the state of israel, its outright wrong how the palestineans are treated, and it's likewise sad, the world makes it UN policy to forget that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

Ehud Olmert's 3 Conditions

Can we get a source for this one? Yossiea 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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 [6]. 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: [7]. Fox says they confirm the missing soilders, but again...you are right we should probably wait for more stories and stories that are objective.

Syria ready to go to war?

[8]

Probably needs a better source. This seems to suggest that Syria may go to war, and if that happens then the shit will really hit the fan. I'll look around for additional sources.

Found one - Reuters. [9]

Not good. I'll try to edit it into the article. Mysticflame 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Infiltration attempt reference?

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

65. IDF forces foil infiltration attempt on northern border. Jerusalem Post: (2006-07-14).

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

Anyone know about this?

--srostami 05:42, 15 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 [10] 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)

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 • contribs)

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)

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)

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 • contribs)

"Civilians"

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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.

• 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)

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.

What kind of moron fires bottle rockets at one of the most advanced armies in the world, and then is surprised when home base is leveled off the map, AND then goes on to blame the other, better armed side, for killing your buddies? Oh, that's right, a Mooselimb.

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)

"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. 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)

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." [11]. 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 • contribs)

• 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"

[12][13] 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

[14][15] 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. [16]

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 • contribs)

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, ...?

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)

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 [17] (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)

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 [18] 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 [19] 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 [20] 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 unreliable 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)

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. [21] --darkskyz 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN reports that it was a missile, not a drone hittinh the ship [22] 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)

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. [23] 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. [24] --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. [[25]] 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 [26] (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

Hezbollah Motive

I think it is worth noting in the article that Hebzbollah's motive is actually complete distruction of Israel. [27] As it is read, it makes it seem like Hezbollah's entire purpose is to regain a 20 sq km parcel of land from Israel. Masterhomer File:Yin yang.png 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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."[28]. 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)

Explanation needed

I think the article needs more explanation of the right of a country (in this case Israel) responding militarily in a general fashion against another government's (Lebanon's) assets after an attack by a specific non-governmental organization within the other country. It is an unfamiliar concept in international relations to many people, I think.

I know the U.S. action against Afghanistan in 2001 is somewhat analogous, but in that case the U.S. seemed to be trying to overthrow Afghanistan's government, whereas in this case it is more a matter of reprisal (or is it? this is where explanation is needed).

The lack of an explanation of this concept may affect the NPOV of the article, since if people do not understand what principles are involved they may think that Israel is acting irrationally or unjustifiably rather than by established principles of international/military practice. It might clear up some of the arguments I'm seeing in the Talk page. --Cam 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of raids against 'a specific non-governmental organization within the other country' is actually all but uncommon, ethiopia-somalia and sudan-uganda (i think) have loads of these incidents. It's a side effect of the (also israelian) ethnic cleansing policys, when you push a certain people(ethnics) into another territory they will naturally agitate from there ( compare the dutch queen in brittain (ww2)). any resistance movement supported by the west is called a "shadow government" in this context actually;)

Now about established principles: It's an established principle that governments and military authorities understand the results of their cause of actions, and actually its common sense these institutions are there to anticipate them. So regarded israel will have anticipated hezbollah reactions. Quitte possibly to a wider extend then any member of hezbollah herself. Thus reasoned israel has no excuse at all. therefore established principle is: the status quo decides what history will tell us. onix80.57.243.72 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"The fighting began at around 8 AM on July 12, 2006"

Clarification: Is this local time? -Litefantastic 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. corrected accordingly. --darkskyz 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Though as this is a continuation of Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, is it really fair to claim that "It all began when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers"? Israel is just using that to justify further actions in Southern Lebanon just as they did in 1982 and 1967. I think to start out the article in such a fashion displays a bias towards Israel in the opening paragraph! 209.101.103.133 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Flora.

Well, you might as well say it all began in 1948 when israel was founded or when the first jewish settlers came to israel some 130 years ago. However, the current hostilities started with the Hezbollah attack. --darkskyz 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Casus beli infobox

I changed the casus beli in the infobox to a less awkward one, does "Border attack by Hezbollah's military wing killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers, in attempt to release Palestinian POWs held by Israe" seem NPOV enough to everyone? --darkskyz 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Main Source

The Hezbollah and the other arab terrorism organizations have been hostile towards Israel for years. Two israeli soldiers were kidnapped in the Gaza Strip (among the two Gilad Shalit) and two in Lebanon. Throughout the last decade Israel has suffered many terrorist attacks, and it is time to take action and to make the terrorism units such as the Hezbollah and the Hamas to disarm. Israel, as a country, has a total right to defend itself in a matter of attacks, and may I mention that it was Lebanon who had started this combat. Israel's requests (a disarming of the Lebanese terrorism unit Hezbollah and the return of the two kidnapped soldiers) seem very relevant, and show that Israel wants to stop the terrorism. But, the core of the terrorism is not laying in Lebanon. Actually, Iran is the one responsible (and is very well know for it) for supporting terrorism. Almost all the weapons that Hezbollah and other terrorists own are continuously coming from Iran. And still, western "peace supporting" contries such as France and so, believe that the UN chairmen should keep talking and talking (instead of DOING, and to finish the terrorism organizations off), and thus blaming Israel for Lebanon's situation, we've all been in this scene before... I believe that the US should take action if they really want to put an end to terrorism (in which the UN has proved itself for doing nothing and only incouraging terrorism with their rediculous meetings) by attacking its main source, Iran.

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Split the article?

This article is getting quite large, so perhaps it would be a good idea to split it into a list of the Israeli attacks, and a list of the Hezbollah attacks? Damburger 11:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for the moment. The article has many pictures, references and templates which make it quite large. The article text however is not too large for the moment. Sijo Ripa 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not split things such as this up. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah/Iran mess in Background section

Can't we just get rid of all of it? It's relevant at Hezbollah, but not so much here. --Elliskev 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Structure

This article needs an overhaul in it's structure. People are adding comments in a hurry leading statements to be repeated FOUR different times in random places leading NO sense of structure or timeline.

This article really needs to be locked for unregistered users and new users as it is quite a heated topic and could easily get out of control.--Ddahlberg 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikidates

A minor point in all this, but could we put double square brackets around dates in order for them to show up correctly for readers? This is a non-US topic, so it is inappropriate for dates to be listed in US format (eg. "July 14th" rather than "14 July") Putting dates into correct wikidate format such as 14 July 2006 ensure that they show up in a reader's preferred format. --Jumbo 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Restructure events?

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)

Discussion about status of the article

Can a semi-protection be put on the article

For example one user just changed captured to kidnap in like 5 seconds. While that one is arguable there are a lot of other vandalism in the article that is not. Times Square lebanon thing for example. 74.137.230.39 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is absolutely necessary, I guess we should. But it should only be temporary and be as short as possible. Lets get concensus though. Hello32020 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Although if its only small things that can be quickly reverted or changed then I don't agree Hello32020 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go for semi-protection. I had to do a massive revert because of people vandalising links. Damburger 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree with semi-protection (sad my accounts only 2-3 days old) Hello32020 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just take a look at edits history, I just came here and all I've been doing is reverting. 74.137.230.39 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope older users take my suggestions on the talk page. Is there a tag that says "This article may need semi-protection...visit talk page" Hello32020 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've listed it for semi-protection, in the future you can request protection by either directly approaching an admin or posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, <fontstyle="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik^Talk 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've approached two admins but neither seem to be logged in right now. 74.137.230.39 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I found one instance of vandalism in the last 30 minutes. Am I missing something? -Ganeshk (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have slowed up a bit. Articles generally will fluctuate but this suprises me. When I was on, I saw numerous different vandals. On one other note, is it really wise to take off the NPOV template. While little things have been heavily discussed, I doubt many have had a chance to step back, and make a decision on whether or not it is neutral. I don't know but it wouldn't be a bad precautionary template to use. That's just my opinion of course. 74.137.230.39 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now linked from the front page, so it is unlikely that semi-protection will stick. I also find it ironic that an anonymous user is asking for semi-protection ... you do know that would you prevent you from editing too, right? My recommendation is to register an account immediately. --Cyde↔Weys 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I realize that it will prevent me from editing too. I don't have much to add to this article at this point, for the people that do constant vandalism makes it difficult to expand, and clear up. 74.137.230.39 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Page has recently been semi-protected Hello32020 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the historical section there needs to be some explanation of the fact that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah, nor had the ability to disarm them. When reading the article it appears bias without that mention. I am not a strong writer, so if some one could take a crack at it, I think it would be a valuable contribution towards balance.

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)

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)

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

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)

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." [29] 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 [30]. 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 [31]. 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 [32]. 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)

Lenaneese held w/o trial in Syria

There are hundreds of Lebaneese held by Syria. Hezbulla never chalnged that, called for their release or kidnapped any syrian soldiers (who until recently were occuying Lebanon) or Syrian intelegence people (still in Lebanon).

Discussion about the name

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)

Kidnap/capture once more

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)

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)

Syria Ultimatum

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

[33] ~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)

"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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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)

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)

- *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)

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)

see this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html Zeq 16:49, 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 knew to the talk pages on wikipedia. Njjones 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)