Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yahuddi (talk | contribs)
102 edits
Line 300: Line 300:


The figure of dead is being widely reported ''as'' 750, and that figure is being attributed to him as an official figure of dead civilians so far. I'm not asking that it be changed, just clarifying the previous editors mistake. Probably some journos capitalising on headlines after the 2nd Qana massacre. [[User:82.29.227.171|82.29.227.171]] 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The figure of dead is being widely reported ''as'' 750, and that figure is being attributed to him as an official figure of dead civilians so far. I'm not asking that it be changed, just clarifying the previous editors mistake. Probably some journos capitalising on headlines after the 2nd Qana massacre. [[User:82.29.227.171|82.29.227.171]] 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I read in a BBC News article that the health minister said there were over 750 deaths... someone keeps changing that when I source and change the casualty figure... thats why this article has POV issues, because the truth cant be told without some people getting offended.... [[User:Yahuddi|Yahuddi]] 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


==Discussion about whether it is a war==
==Discussion about whether it is a war==

Revision as of 12:55, 31 July 2006

Template:Todo priority

Archive

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12

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

Discussion on Pictures
Discussion on POV problems

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions


Latest Developments

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

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

War (Israeli official statement)

Amir Peretz mentioned a state of war [2]. Many agencies mention war. Why not change now to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War or 2006 Lebanon War (like 1982 Lebanon War)

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

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

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

Israeli "war" usage

I removed the following:

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

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

Yet more evidence that the article should be renamed to "war", not "conflict". And by the way, you were right to remove that obviously pro-Israeli crap from the article. What's up with people adding in such un-encyclopedic stuff, complete with improper capitalization, as if copied out of an email message? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel government didn't formally declare war on Lebanon or even 'in' Lebanon yet [5], here the official term used is "security situation" [6]. One government difficulty appears to arise from conflicts classification as a "war" and payment of compensation/monetary aid to war affected people/regions.
The term is think the original editor meant was probably "war of the straits".

"Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz announced that the current conflict between Israel and the Hizbullah would be recorded in history as Milhemet Bein Hameitzarim" [7]

Whether this announcement was in public or in private or in which history it was to be recorded is not clear from the article. Apparently this period is a 3 week period of mourning for the destroyed Temples incl. festival of Tisha B'Av. This mourning period is known in Hebrew language as "Bein hametzarim" or "The Three Weeks" , meaning "between the straits."
I believe that status as 'conflict' is fine, use of the "straits" moniker appears not to have taken off, add to this the alleged reluctance of Israeli government to confirm status of conflict means it shouldnt probably be included. Its worth noting that the conflict is also called the "re-engagement war" here [8] demonstrating that there will be fluctuations and names from pundits too which might gain wider currency than "announcements".
There is also the problem of wikipedia being used to endorse some symbolism to the conflict which until some moniker (if any) sticks to it might generate the wrong impression [9]] 82.29.227.171 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"War" Poll

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

  • Oppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Oppose. Israel is not at "war" with Lebanon. It's at war with Hezbollah, so renaming to "Isreal-Lebanon War" would be inappropriate. Lebanon has officially disavowed Hezbollah's actions and want a cease fire (as stated in the main article). Hezbollah is only a party within Lebanon and was formed in Iran and receives funding from Syria and Iran (also referenced in the article). I suggest leaving the title as it is and calling it a war when quoting or paraphrasing someone who already did so. mhsia 13:31, 7/27/2006 (EST)
  2. Oppose. This is part of the War on Terror. I oppose despite Emile Lahoud's statement that he "respects Nasrallah" and if Lebanon "reaches the point of no return" then the Lebanese will fight alongside of Hezbollah. He also commands the military and is a former general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchouli (talk • contribs)
  3. Oppose. We have already had a poll like this. Once again its not a war. Its certainly not a war between Israel and Lebanon and I certainly don't believe you can have a 'war' against a random group. It is, and should remain, the preserve of nation states. --Narson 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I oppose changing to war, on the basis that it will provoke the same on Wikinews :-). Seriously though, the UK goverment was never in my memory reported as having declared war on the IRA, and I wonder if declaring war on a terrorist organisation is anything more than a variation on declaring war on common nouns - a soundbite that mainstream media can serve up to the public. --Brianmc 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I don't like voting in polls but thought I'd continue to oppose the addition of war until it's commonly perceived/declared as war. I was moved to vote as the definition we have on wikipedia of war is very surprising to me. MLA 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Like MLA the term isnt current andto oppose the addition of war until it's commonly perceived/declared as war. I was moved to vote as the definition we have on wikipedia of war is very surprising to me. MLA 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Rush to have conflict reclassified to suit a POV which isnt widely held or citable. 82.29.227.171 10:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I think that 2006 Lebanon massacre is the most accurate title for this conflict. Tell me to get back to work! 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strongly mega-oppose A war is between nations. Lebanon has so far refrained from entering it. Furthermore, the only sources one can find who call it a war are partisan sources. Not even the UN, arguably the people who have the last call on calling a conflict a war, are calling it a war. I think wikipedia will do a lot of harm to its credibility if this was catalogized as a war, when no reliable source is calling it so.--Cerejota 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "War" (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Support. There is definately territory(that is the issue in here), both Israel and Hizbollah can surrender, and/or collapse. And since this is after WWII, no declaration is needed.
  2. Support. Territory, check. Leading person or organization on each side, both of which can surrender, check. After WWII, check. Full scale assaults - organized use of physical force and weapons - by both sides, check. Insane99 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This is a war certainly, waged by participants willing total destruction of the enemy. But change the name also....2006 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Because this is definitively a war, fought on all three spheres of warfare (land, air and sea) and the local impact is definitively that of a war, and the mounting casualties definitively show that isn't a "conflict" but a full-scale war. dott.Piergiorgio 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Meets all the criteria to be a war. Hypnosadist 14:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Invading a country with infantry and tanks supported by airpower, killing several hundred civilians and destroying their homes, is outright warfare. The Lebanese people are a party in this war, whether their government acknowledges it or not. Also, Dutch media, notably NOS, call it a war. Qwertyus 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. "conflict" seems like an understatement and does not render well the use of heavy weapons by both sides for more than 2 weeks now. could the bombing of civilian houses and facilities be justified in any other context than full-fledged warfare? besides, the Israelian Cabinet itself spoke of "act of war", held the Lebanese government responsible and threatened to go further than southern Lebanon [10] Sadly, "Israel-Lebanon war" does seem appropriate Laurent paris 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. It's a full-scale war, with both sides overtly targeting both military and civilians. Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq were considered more than just conflicts, and this war, with Israel acting and promising to bomb down Lebanon 20 years back, has at least a comparable scale. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. following our definition of war: War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons (Israeli tanks, Hezbollah's missiles) and physical force by states (Israel, Lebanon) or other large-scale groups (Hezbollah). Israel stated to drive away Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. So, this conflict involves both territory and an organization that can collapse. After World War 2 it's no longer common to 'declare war'. Mauro Bieg 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support The words "state of war" have been used by Israel. Furthermore, a war need not be between nationstates. The current war in Iraq is no longer between the US and Iraq, it's between the US and Al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia, however you spell that.Umlautbob 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Israel has invaded lebanon territory its a war, even the UN says so.Br2387 10:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments relating to the poll:

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

Including Hezbollah in the name

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

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

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

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

No. Use the example of the existing name in 1982 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this compromise The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006) any thoughts.Hypnosadist 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TheFEARgod. Conflict or TheFEARgod's use of War is Neutral. The examples used to cite use of the term "war" are of concern. Should Hezbollah sources which refer to fighting as "Sixth-Arab-Israeli war" make it sensible to use that? Each side aims for certain propaganda/morale advantages when using term "war". Why are editors so eager to have this article renamed to a war? I can understand the reasoning behind the arguments but what is the rush? 82.29.227.171 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is bombing Israel, so the conflict isn't only taking place in Lebanon, you'd need to include both places or use a broader term like "The Middle East" Omishark 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the title again: "Israel-Lebanon conflict." It does contain Israel.
Also, this morning, NPR referred to this as "the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict." I'm not sure how other media outlets are referring to it, but if they're also using "Hezbollah," then that's what we should do. ---DrLeebot 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the Combatants

Earlier discussions

Please don't edit these archived discussions

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Earlier discussions


Israel Massing troops

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

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

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions

Lebanese Casualty Figures

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

What we do know from sources is :

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

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

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

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

317 injured[7]

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

I removed a reference to an attack on the city of Qana made ten years ago. While the attack committed recently was probably the source of international criticism, I doubt that the Qana attack of ten years ago has much relevance.Di4gram 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Casualities

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

I asked that it be cited for you. 82.29.227.171 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Casualties?

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

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

lebonese civilian causalties

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

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

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

Right now the listed number is 750+, so I will change it back to the 523 number due to a lack of any discussion about that number. TewfikTalk 16:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanese Health Minister Mohammed Khalifeh told DPA that he feared the death toll would reach 750 as a result of the Qana bombing.

'The death toll may increase because we believe a lot of casualties are still buried under the rubble and our volunteers are unable to retrieve their bodies due to intensity of the shelling in their areas,' he said.[13]

The figure of dead is being widely reported as 750, and that figure is being attributed to him as an official figure of dead civilians so far. I'm not asking that it be changed, just clarifying the previous editors mistake. Probably some journos capitalising on headlines after the 2nd Qana massacre. 82.29.227.171 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read in a BBC News article that the health minister said there were over 750 deaths... someone keeps changing that when I source and change the casualty figure... thats why this article has POV issues, because the truth cant be told without some people getting offended.... Yahuddi 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about whether it is a war

Earlier discussions

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

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

Air strike on Qana

The relevant page of this article states that Israel claims that the house that collapsed was not targeted. In fact in an IDF briefing, July 30th, the IDF made it quite clear that the building was targeted. The General who spoke said that had the IDF known that civilians were in the building at the time they would not have ordered the strike. Further more the IDF claimed that while the building was struck between midnight and 1 am, the building had collapsed only around 7:30 am, hinting but not claiming that explosives that were in the building may have caused its collapse. I don't know if there is room for what the IDF claims but at least the first part(Israel basic claim) should be changed.

Civilian attacks

I think the page about civillian attacks is too long. to quote every single senior human rights official about possible war crimes is "problamatic". If you adopt the perspective of UN officials weren't war crimes committed in every single war? how many civilians were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are there any targets that the United States did not attack in these places that Israel is attacking in Lebanon? was the american "response" any more "proportional"? and yet looking up these wars on wikipedia you will not hear about "war crimes".

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Earlier discussions

Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers

    • Captured?
    • Captured vs abducted vs ???

Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon

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


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

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


Which side of border original Hezbollah raid happened on?

Yeah, yeah, I know there's an extensive archived discussion of this somewhere: 1) I'm too damn lazy to find it, and 2) I want to add my own little bundle of sticks to the bonfire.

I guess I'm ready to go along with the mainstream media's version of this, that the raid occurred in Israel. (I'm talking about the "capturing the 2 soldiers" part, not the "chasing the captors back into Lebanon" part, so puleeze, let's not confuse ourselves any more than absolutely necessary, OK?) That's after reading this account on my favorite website, Antiwar.com. In it, the Israeli dissident and peace activist Ran HaCohen debunks the "captured within Lebanon" version of events. It's well documented, with links supplied to the relevant articles. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about weapon types

Earlier discussions

IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions

There are reports that the "bunker buster" munitions that IDF/IAF took receipt of are tipped with depleted uranium [14]. This should probably be flagged up in the article somewhere due to the problems some experts have cited with contamination from these weapons particularly with reference to Gulf War syndrome.

Here is the original article with the report and I realise the source is suspect (prisonplanet) [15], but I recognise the video clip- it is from a documentary called Beyond Treason [[16]] and it is credible testimony from the expert Dr. Doug Rokke. Anyone have time to write a paragraph on this in the casualties section with appropriate links to the longterm health effects of these IDF/IAF weapons? 82.29.227.171 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something on this- where in the article is it meant to go? There is no weapons section. The concern with the weapons is 1) their longterm health effects 2) indiscriminate nature (when expended they pulverise and contaminate a wide area). With those specific concerns in mind it would probably belong in the civilian casualties section until any decomination effort begins (assuming there will be a pause in activity for it to take place). 82.29.227.171 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added details to child article Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and 1 line into main article under Environment damage area. 82.29.227.171 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Earlier discussions

Please do not edit these archive discussions.

Begining of conflict

I have added following edit to the "Begining of conflict" section: "Following the Isreali air-attacks on Lebanon in which some 60 civilians were killed [22] intended to pressure Hesbollah to release captured Isreali soldiers,..." With supporting source [17]

Tewfik has in two instances removed the edit justifying it as being discussed before here [18] and here [19]. Both of those discussions talk about the where were soldiers captured. Obviously I am not disputing nor discussing that issue in my edit but I am pointing out the order of events, in summary that Isreal began air assult following the capture of soldiers. Why is this being removed? Am I missing something here?--Dado 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think a timeline section maybe beneficial here as there seams to be misunderstanding between what I am pointing out to and what you are responding. From the source that I provided following is a timeline

  • 24 June - Israeli military captures two civilians from Gaza
  • next - Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldier (whether in Israel or Lebanon is irrelevant at this point). Their official position is that the captures are conducted in response to capture of 3 Lebanese citizens by Israeli forces before that. Analyst position (and Chomsky is quoting Financial times here) is that the capture of Israeli soldiers was intended as a sign of solidarity with Palestinians and a tactic to force Israel to fight on two fronts.
  • next - Israel launches air-attack campaign against Lebanon killing 60 civilians.
  • next - Hezbollah retaliates with Katchusha rocket attacks on Israeli positions and Haifa injuring at least 13.

What sources show the order of events differently? I hope you see why I find the current version of the article a bit misleading and simplistic while other sources show that the situation deserves to be viewed from a bit bigger time perspective.--Dado 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I will say has already been discussed in the archive, but for convenience's sake:

  • We know that the events in Gaza happened, however it is original research to make a connection between them and this conflict.
  • The side of the border is very important, and I've already cited the UN, EU, G8, and Al Jazeera support of the Israeli version.
  • The Lebanese prisoners are included later in the article, but they are not part of the casus belli, else each side could cite 50 years of causes. Rather, the convention is to state clearly the event that started things, and discuss context later.

I hope that I've clarified the issues, though if you have any further questions, I'll be happy to discuss. Before you continue though, I highly encourage you to read through the archives that I cited above, as this has all been explained in detail previously. Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of the conflict

The current start of the article gives the impression that the conflict was a result of the Hezbollah operation to kidnap Israeli soldiers. As far as I am aware the situation is far more complex than this. This statement[20] by Noam Chomsky claims that the Hezbollah operation was a response to the abduction of 2 Palastinian civilians on 24th June. Whether or not this is the case I'm sure it can't be as simple as what the article implies, which is that nothing was happening until the Hezbollah operation and that this is what's responsible. Kernow 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kernow,
I suggest you review the Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Begining of conflict section above, as well as the archives linked to there. I hope this will clear everything up. Thanks, TewfikTalk 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have skim-read the archives about this and I'd just like to leave a drive-by comment. I think that this "Casus belli" field is inherently POV and shit-stirring on any article about any war, and therefore should be dropped from the template. How can you summarise the cause of any conflict (which sometimes have a very long pre-war history) in a few words and expect everybody to agree? It's simply ridiculous.

Failing that all opinions should be represented. PizzaMargherita 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that we cannot summarise all the causes of the conflict, however there is a convention of including the casus belli, which is the legal initiation of hostilities by whichever side. The US may have been agitating the Japanese by denying them scrap and other resources, but the bombing of Pearl Harbour was an "act of war." So to here, despite all the nasty things the Lebanese/Hezbollah say that Israel had done to them, the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers. TewfikTalk 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, and for much of the begining of the conflict it was generally accepted that this was the causus belli. Yet, as is the case with 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, as information emerges, the causus belli of the encyclopedic article might change to match the information. So I think we must not be dogmatic about it.
However, those who allege the causus belli was an Israeli incursion into Lebanon have the burden of proof, as the bulk of the veriafiable and reliable sources, and even official Hezbollah communications, do not question this causus belli as it stands. This is why I support it continued inclusion as is, but think a paragraph must be included alluding to the sourced alternative.
Nevertheless even in this respect, things are not clear: It can be argued that the causus belli is the continued existence of Lebanese prisioners in Israeli jails, which forced Hezbollah to capture Israeli soldiers in order to use them as leverage in an exchange. This is were the Pearl Harbor analogy breaks down:
The USA and Japan were not involved in open armed conflict, nor had been involved before Pearl Harbor in one. However strong their disagreements, they where diplomatic not armed.
However, Israel has been involved in conflict with Lebanon since its founding, has been involved in its internal affairs, and wields strong political influence in Lebanon. It also occupied southern Lebanon for over 18 years, which is more than the entire lifetime of more than one wikipedian. This could also be considered a causus belli.
So you see, its not as simple as saying "So to here, despite all the nasty things the Lebanese/Hezbollah say that Israel had done to them, the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers". And "Lebanese/Hezbollah" don't say nasty things. Israel is doing nasty things, however you want to deny it. That Hezbollah is also doing them is a fact that doesn't diminish the former.--Cerejota 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We've been over this before. Unless you can provide overwhelming evidence, or at least a number of relaible sources (Noam chomsky is not one) then it should stay as it is - with the global consensus in the infobox and the dispute noted in the relevant section. --Iorek85 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as to the article editing but see above.--Cerejota 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An 18 year occupation might be a casus belli (I don't know enough about international law), but an 18 year occupation certified as ended by the UN is not a casus belli. I also think you may have misunderstood my analogy, as I haven't denied anything. Good day, TewfikTalk 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that we cannot summarise all the causes of the conflict, however there is a convention of including the casus belli
To that I say, fuck conventions. There are such things as bad conventions. There is also a convention about archiving talk pages without making such a confusing mess, but people are free to break them, in this case with horrific results. If DNA reproduced itself following the convention we would still be amoebae. PizzaMargherita 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

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

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

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

Article is too long

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

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

Some ideas:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike on UN chapter removed

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

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

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

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

POLL

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

  1. Support. Reaper7 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. - Change my vote - I thought it had just been summarised, not completely removed.--Iorek85 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Object. It was not removed, it was put in a relevant subpage for article size reasons.--Cerejota 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. comment The sub pages are used as an excuse by pro Israeli editors to remove sub articles they don't like to pointless exclusive pages no one will ever look up individually. The UN attacks should remain imo. Reaper7 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. The fatalies should definately be in there and probably an image as it was extremely damaging incident for the UNOrganisation. 82.29.227.171 19:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen cerejota (pro-islamist) do the same with the article summmary. Where it once mentioned that "samir kuntar" was in prison for killing a 4-yo child after killing her father, cerejota removed it and relegated it to some dark corner of wikipedia to prevent that little known fact from seeing the light of day Shakespeare Monkey 08:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to please apologize for describing me as "pro-islamist".
I am not such a thing.
Since this bears clarification, I will soapboax: I am agnostic, from a catholic background, and view all religion with interested detachment. Furthermore, I have an utter contempt for all attempts to join politics with religion, but also a keen understanding that when religion is part of a national or ethnic identity, this contempt must be tempered.
In my personal opinion, Israel as it exists today is the same as Iran as it exists today: Parlamentary theocracy, based upon the imposition of a State Religion, and with clear violation of the human rights of all of those who don't follow the State religion. The council of mullahs vs the council of rabbis.
I view Islamism and Zionism as exactly the same thing, and a salient fact of this conflict is the utter contempt that both Zionists and Islamists have for civilian lives, including that of their co-religionists. The facts support this assertion.
That is not to say I belive in a plague to both houses: Israel has demonstrated since the day it was founded to be a militaristic society based around a constant need to make war with its neighbors, and in fact has batustanized the native arab and palestinian population (and to a lesser and more complex extent the Druze). The treatment of the Palestinians stands as clear, unavoidable example, however the facts of the matter are tried to be twisted.
I dream of a day when the State of Israel is susbtitued with a Palestine with jews, christians, muslism and druze living in peace, in a secular, democratic state, with separation of religion and state. I dream of a day when the same exists whenever theocracy rears it ugly head, like in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent, the USA. My political beliefs, hence stand in complete opposition of both Hezbollah and the Israeli state, and closer to that of the Israeli refuseniks and the Arab secularists.
So no, I am not a pro-islamist, and I feel offended for your decription of me as one, and ask you to apologize. In any case, I am pro-humanity.
Of course, I have many times been attacked as pro-Israeli, and I take the same offense.--Cerejota 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What part shoul be moved

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

It could be possible to remove the "Previous prisoner exchanges" section into the child article for that- it details them all. 82.29.227.171 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also think the International Reaction section could be slimmed down- the image is also non neutral- creates an impression that the protests were some religious issue and/or specifically that Muslims have a problem with the bombings. 82.29.227.171 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Lebanon

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

Negotiations for ceasefire

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

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

I dont think this is important so much, various players are ignoring the UN. 82.29.227.171 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aims section

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

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

I've shrunk them down a little, but they still take up a lot of the page. I don't have any skills in andvanced wiki editing - I was wonrdering if someone could put them in two columns, so it would have one column for Israel and one for Lebanon under each heading - ie Blogs Lebanese|Israeli, or just put the lot of them in two columns. Thanks. --Iorek85 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction

I removed it for two reasons;

  1. Israel is not part of the International reaction. Internation reaction refers to other nations reactions to the conflict. I can see some sort of argument for the inclusion of the propaganda as Israel is trying to influence the international reaction, but even then, it could go in the main article.
  2. We're trying to keep this article as short as possible. It's still over 60kb despite our best efforts - every little bit counts.

I'd ask, then, that if you really think it belongs, could you just summarise it into a short sentence with a reference, instead of a small paragraph with a heading. Thanks. --Iorek85 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Done, and placed in the more appropriate "Israeli response" section, as this is the response of the Israeli government pertaining to its military actions in Lebanon. AdamKesher 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better there. Nice work. :) --Iorek85 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Earlier discussions

Discussion about the status of the article

Earlier discussions

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Discussion about the talk page

Earlier discussions

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

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

The discussion refractoring on this page is a total mess

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

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

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

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

Summary

  • I am GOING THERE!
  • Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV
  • edits by banned editor
  • Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?
  • Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185
  • Just ban the vandals already!
  • Fork for deletion
  • Someone has vandalized the article again
  • Opinions on civilian attacks??
  • Am I the only one concerned with article quality?
  • User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism
  • Salvage French
  • Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG
  • Adding Links
  • Where are the kidnapped soldiers?
  • New page
  • Video of the shot up ambulances
  • Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah
  • By Hezbollah
  • Disproportionate in what moral universe
  • Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about the talk page

Summary

  • Mediation
  • Changes in AP story on July 12
  • Pictoral bias?
  • Attacks on United Nations personnel
  • Claims about captured Hezbollah
  • July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Bad footnote

It seems that footnote 8 is messed up, it should be about evacuation of Isreali cities, but is instead about the Lebaneese evacuation, can anyone find a proper source for this? This footnote is from the infobox. FireCrack 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy

Where incidents of this nature belong in the article isnt clear as alleged attacks on food convoys/the fleeing havent been addressed so far. [Syrian] Red Cross drivers won't take aid to Lebanon [21] Aid convoy hit in Lebanon as UN accuses Hezbollah

"A soldier in the UN force in south Lebanon (Unfil) which reached Rmeish yesterday told Reuters that carrying aid into the south was highly dangerous as Israeli strikes often landed very close to the UN vehicles."[22]

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

Alleged convoy attack 'Marwahin' 15th [23]82.29.227.171 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Video of actual convoy attack outside Qana 30th [24] 82.29.227.171 23:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now appearing in Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC analysis of the effect of the war

I went over the link below and BBC seem to have done a good job on analysing the problems Israel is bound to face in executing this mission. Of cause, some will say its biased, but then time always have a way of validiting/anulling?? analysis of events that have future signficancy. [25] [26]

Nassarallah image gone means petetz image gone.

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

Two more Un observers die

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

Drat, I hate it when CNN does this. It took what, three days to find a source for the Lebanon Anti-aircraft quote.--Rayc 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[27] says 2 indian UN wounded when IAF bombed their post, perhaps they died of their injuries? 82.29.227.171 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And they blew up a road to Syria [28] "Late Saturday evening, a road leading from Damascus to Lebanon, reportedly close to the Syrian-Lebanese border, was targeted" 82.29.227.171 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On ABC an UNIFIL spokesperson is reported of saying, that two UN soldiers were injured during an Israeli air strike. If you cross check with e.g. Google News you receive more than 1000 likewise hits. Therefore this information should be included in the article. --Attraho 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But has anyone found if they died? CNN now saying they were only injured. --Rayc 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UN press release today says that they are "moderately wounded" [29]. The press releases from UNIFIL Lebanon appear to have stopped for the minute but you can press releases through un.org 82.29.227.171 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, trying to fix intro

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

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

Unbalanced info box

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

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

Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?

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

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

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

No, I believe in differentiating between an army that does it utmost to avoid civilian injuries and a cowardly, terrorist organisation that hides behind women and children and deliberately targets civilians. Also, if you want to talk about unequal equations, why not discuss the fact that the Hizbollah captured/abducted/kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and then asked for the release of hundreds of prisoners. Cymruisrael 10:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some at Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 10:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

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

I agree, the category has been removed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral

3 arguments against its inclusion off the top of my head:

1) Hezbollah have also been sendings warnings to Israeli residents to leave areas that are going to be bombed by them. Unless an image of the warnings can be used then the IDF leaflet is probably going to appear non neutral to a lot of people. I havent been able to find such an image, if you got one then it should be included.

2) The common argument ive heard when these leaflet drops are brought up is that if Lebanese get on the convoys to flee they get shot at, so people dont leave. Again leaflet doesnt put that POV. Article has no section on reported attacks on convoys either.

3) It is IDF produced and therefore non neutral by definition. The leaflets, and the refusal of residents to heed them is being presented as a justification for bombing/reason why civilians are being killed, while I understand its not that simple, thats the POV the leaflet is supporting. 82.29.227.171 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The leaflets have nothing to do with what happens to the civilians if they try to leave. They are warnings from the IDF. If you have a citable source for Hezbollah's leaflets, list it. If Lebanese get shot at because of the leaflet, that doesn't change the fact that such a leaflet exists. Furthermore, the leaflet is not supposed to be NPOV. Is there a rule that says it should be? Di4gram 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source [31]
The aspiration is for a neutral article through neutral POV and where that isnt possible- balance of POV. Having IDF material of that nature in the article when (for reasons of space etc) no balance is going to be made for the surrounding issues then its just non neutral.
As the user who removed the image indicated- consider putting it into another article where there is space to balance it. Most likely it will fit into the article about the incident well. A good starting point for figuring that out might lie here Qana Massacre. 82.29.227.171 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a picture does not take a significant amount of (kb) space on the page, as it is only linked to, and thus should not be consideration. TewfikTalk 19:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got a picture to balance the IDF? There is one in the source article but its copyrighted. I mentioned space as the editor who removed the photo commented "too many images, move to appropriate sub-article" [32] - I thought the policy now was to slim down the article to its constituent parts like the UN section got 'slimmed'. 82.29.227.171 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant facts

Should this article be a place for irrelevant facts? The Qana reference, as I mentioned somewhere above (where it is undoubtedly lost in other conversations), seems too unrelated. Someone immediately reverted my change and said it "provides context". Excuse me? I think that in the 60 years of this God-forsaken conflict, there is enough "context" to fill fifty articles, and it certainly does not belong here. This is specifically about the current (2006) conflict, and not about what happened ten years ago. While I don't mind if there is a brief historical section, I think that history should be placed in it and not in other parts of the article. What happened ten years ago is horrible, but it is not relevant to the recent bombing, and it doesn't seem to be relevant to international criticism either. It seems to be an excuse to add in just one more mark against Israel's civilian casualty record, or at least muddy the waters.Di4gram 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Lebanon had recently recovered from both a bloody civil war and a prior Israeli invasion and occupation of sourthern Lebanon before the current conflict started is of course relevant. Sanguinalis 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral

Off the top of my head here are some reasons why not to use it in a neutral article ie. why the image currently used is POV and distortionary and how it creates a number of misleading impressions namely:

  • That protests against the conflict are muslim or orientated around religious issues.
  • That protests against the conflict are disorganised/small in nature/isolated groups of individuals.
  • That protests against the conflict are "anti-israel", "anti-jewish", "antisemitic" etc.

I suggest a more suitable image be used which isnt POV, and preferably one that isnt of Americans or nations uninvolved in the fighting. Plenty of Lebanese were protesting along with some Israeli. 82.29.227.171 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image is a bad choice for representing the worldwide protest. Furthermore it doesn't even have a free license. I took away the image. (Image:Muslimprotests.jpg) --Battra 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, but maybe more discussion is needed? I will look for another in the meantime. 82.29.227.171 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the person who uploaded the image "Muslimprotests.jpg", Bingman06, just had removed the previous image "Sydprot.JPG", so I put back the earlier image, though it might be possible to find even better pictures. --Battra 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and work. 82.29.227.171 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately

IDF going to suspend airoperations for 48 hours, effective immediately, to coordinate humanitarian efforts and investigate Qana incident Just reported on CNN at 508pm EDT 30-July-2006. Going to add it to the page. Bsheppard 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (This is Bsheppard 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) and I don't know who put this opinion below but it wasn't me. Just FYI.)[reply] 

These guys are guilty and now need time to probably come up with some storyline, an edited video may be, to clear their name....barbarians...
Hay barbarians have effics, man. Enlil Ninlil 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added suspension of air operations to main page

I went ahead and added the latest on the 48 hour cease of air operations. Available at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#IDF_agrees_to_cease_air_operations_for_48_hours ... citations following. This hit the wires at just after 5. NYT has it as a news alert at 517. CNN has a news alert at 508. But no link. So just waiting for that.

Added citation from cnn.com and nytimes.com Bsheppard 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to past tense, and the part about Northern Command needs cited- not in article. 82.29.227.171 10:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible War Crimes

Please add your comments to my proposal for some paragraphs about possible war crimes (translated from the German Wikipedia). I will have to further check the sources on my own before publishing. Correction of language mistakes is appreciated, too. RolloM 0:31, 31 July 2006 (CEST)

Without explicitly suspecting one side, the United Nations analize the events in the conflict for war crimes. The U.N. see responsability of Israel and Hezbollah for many avoidable victims, mainly in the civil population of Lebanon. Primarily, the number of Lebanese civil victims, which amounts to about ten times the number of victims of Hisbollah, is critizised. The involved combatants are bound by international law to protect the civil population.[8] On July 20, U.N. High Commissionor for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, condamned the killig of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories. On July 21, The International Commission of Jourists (ICJ) has accused Israel and Hezbollah of having committed war crimes. On the occasion of a visit of destroyed Beirut quarters U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland called the attacs of resident areas by Israeli air forces violations of international humanitarian law. He also blamed Hezbollah for "mingeling with women and children" and thereby for being jointly responsible for the civilian victims of Israeli military strikes.[9]

Israel seems to bomb civilian Lebanese buildings withouth necessity. This reveals from a instruction to Israeli air forces reported by a high-ranking Israeli army officer in Israeli military radio: "Dan Halutz, Chief of Staff of the Israeli air forces issued the command, to destroy ten multistory buildings in the southern suburbs as answer to every rocket attack to Haifa." [10]

Regarding the attack to an unarmed and marked observation post of UNIFIL local U.N. officers declared "The attack started in the early morning. We called the Israelis at least six times. They continued artillery bombing and in the end they sent an aircraft that bombed the post from the air. In that moment, towards 7:30, the contact broke off. A Chinese, a Finn, a Canadian and an Austrian were dead." U.N. Secretary-General Annan described the incident using almost the same words.[11]

On July 24, Lebanese President Émile Lahoud blamed Israel for using phosphorus bombs.[12] Israel contradicted, the arms used in Lebanon would not violate international laws.[13]Jawad Najem, surgeon in a Tyrus hospital claims to have treated woundeds with phosphorus burnings. Following a BBC report also other physicians in south Lebanon suspect burnings they treated were caused by phosphorus.[14]

Human rights organisation Human Rights Watch blames Israel for using cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians.[14] Israeli forces admitted the employment of cluster bombs, but declared to use such ammonition in accordances with "international standards." [15] During such an attack on July 19 to the village Blida a 60 yeards old was killed, a 45 years old lost both legs and further eleven people, among them seven children were wounded.[16]

In the meantime indices increase that Israeli air forces attack ambulance vehicles on purpose. At least ten Lebanese vehicles carrying the red cross symbol were attached, causing death of more than twelve injured and rescuers.[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] A survivor of such an attack reported an Israeli helicopter had followed the vehicle for a certain time and fired later. [22]

On July 24, Hezbollah attacked and destroyed two Israeli Merkava 4 ambulance tanks bringing injured soldiers to shelter. Two Israeli soldiers were killed and four more injured.[23]

Information about numbers of victims in agency notifications partially depend on official sources of combatants. Israeli Vice President Shimon Peres doubted the Lebanese government notifications of high numbers of civilian victims.[24]

What exactly is a war crime? Israel says that Hizbollah positions its weapons in civilian areas. Is that a war crime. There is no guidence system in most of Hizbollah missles so it has virtually no way to prevent them from hitting civilians, hospitals, schools, etc. Is that a war crime? Israel hits a UN position. Is that a war crime? Civilians are killed in a building targeted by Israel planes. Is that a war crime? What if the civilians were there, not because they were prevented by leaving for force. Is that a war crime?

Of course, the answer to all these questions requires the questions to be valid and the facts to be known. Until this war, and it is a war, not a conflict, is over and the truth is learned, it is all speculation at best, and propaganda at worse. I thought that Wikipedia was about facts, not speculation. Let's leave the question of war crimes until this war is over and independent parties can sort facts from fiction. --user:mnw2000 05:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this may belong in Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? 82.29.227.171 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ "Sydney Morning Herald - Israeli air strike kills 54". Sydney Morning Herald. 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea". BBC. 2006-07-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300". Chosun Ilbo. 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Israel hints at full-scale Lebanon attack". Associated Press. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "45 killed in new strikes". News24. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Israel pounds Lebanon". Reuters. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Israel launches new strikes in Lebanon". CNN. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ SpiegelOnline:UNO erwägt Untersuchung wegen Kriegverbrechen 19. Juli 2006
  9. ^ tagesschau.de: "Aufhören, sich feige unter Frauen und Kinder zu mischen" 24. Juli 2006
  10. ^ Der Spiegel: Heftige Schlacht um Hisbollah-Dorf 24. Juli 2006
  11. ^ n-TV: Getötete UN-Soldaten: Die "Panne" war wohl keine 26. Juli 2006
  12. ^ Naharnet: Lebanon Accuses Israel of Using Internationally Prohibited Weapons Against Civilians [1] 16. Juli 2006
  13. ^ azonline.ch: Libanon wirft Israel Phosphoreinsatz vor 24. Juli 2006
  14. ^ a b BBC: Israel urged to shun cluster bomb 25. Juli 2006
  15. ^ n-tv.de: Hisbollah-Dorf eingenommen - Israel setzt Streubomben ein, 25. Juli 2006
  16. ^ Human Rights Watch: Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon (englisch), 24. Juli 2006
  17. ^ The Australian: Civilians killed as Israelis target ambulances, 26. Juli 2006
  18. ^ Reuters: Six Lebanese Red Cross medics injured in strike , 23. Juli 2006
  19. ^ The Guardian: Red Cross ambulances destroyed in Israeli air strike on rescue mission (englisch), 25. Juli 2006
  20. ^ Time: Where No One Is Safe (englisch), 25. Juli 2006
  21. ^ The Age: Agonies anew for team on the side of the angels (englisch), 26. Juli 2006
  22. ^ Der Spiegel: Lebanese Victims: Please Don't Ask any more Questions (englisch), 25. Juli 2006
  23. ^ Time: Israel's New Battle Plan: Grinding It Out (englisch), 25. Juli 2006
  24. ^ SpiegelOnline:Peres zweifelt libanesische Opferzahlen an, 20. Juli 2006

SOME ISRAELI KEEPS..

Changing the death toll figures to 523 at the same time as still using the BBC quote that claims the death toll of the Lebanese civilians is in the 750's. It is really pathetic, and can we block the member's IP? He is really trying to hard to be pro israeli. Reaper7 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe they will not ban you for saying this!Racist!

The Lebanese Health Minister's statement defined the upper limit at 750. Above on Talk, there is a detailed calculation of how the 523 number was achieved. TewfikTalk 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've mentioned this "calculation" a couple of times, but I can't find anything like that here. Where is it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here --Iorek85 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, what a joke. I give up. Reaper7 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Israel people/sites

I got a SPAM email with a link to this page:

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html

It's on Hal Turner's website, and some images have his name on them. Is he really claiming that the Israelites did these things? Did they? Are these photos legit? Did he even put up this page? Why the spam on it? Is Lebanon or their allies using spam like this to try to sway people's opinion on who is in the wrong? If someone could look into it more, that would be great. Rob 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hal Turner is a neo-nazi/fascist of some kind. I dont believe those pictures are from current events in this article but by looking at them some clearly show IDF/scenes from the region. There are actually more/just as graphic images from the present conflict available [33] for example and they have been appearing on various anti-war protest sites. 82.29.227.171 07:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article itself looks relatively good, but a lot of its sub-articles aren't in such good shape. Check out {{Israel-Lebanon conflict}} for the rest of the sub-articles (in the current conflict). I did some cursory examination and they weren't so good. At the minimum they all need to have the nav template and some decent introductory text that links back to this, the main article. One of them I could tell was just a straight move from a previous section on this main page, and as such, it lacked context entirely. --Cyde↔Weys 06:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moving casualties

I propose to move casualties to a seprate article because the article is too long. We can add the statistic of Foreign nationals and UN casualties in the table of casualties.--Accessible 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Iorek85 08:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=66847152"