Talk:2006 Lebanon War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:49, 11 August 2006 edit69.196.164.190 (talk) →Index of Illegal Weapons Used Illegally by Israel against civilians in Lebanon ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:30, 4 November 2024 edit undoVice regent (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,050 edits →Add Lebanese Armed Forces to infobox?
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	<center><div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10% 1em 10%;">
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	</div></center>
			{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
	{{Talkheader}}
			{{Article history
	{{controversial}}
			\|action1=GAN
	{{calm talk}}
			\|action1date=5 January 2007
	{{todo priority}}
			\|action1result=failed
	{\| class="infobox" width="150"
	\|-
	!align="center"\|]
	]
	----

			\|action2=GAN
	\|-
			\|action2date=9 May 2007
	\|align="center"\|
			\|action2oldid=129162794
	]</br>
			\|action2result=listed
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	]</br>
	\|}

			\|action3=GAR
	'''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.'''
			\|action3date=9 September 2007
			\|action3result=kept
			\|action3oldid=156798093

			\|action4=GAR
	<big>''']'''</big></br>
			\|action4date=22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
	<big>''']'''</big>
			\|action4link=Talk:2006 Lebanon War/GA1
			\|action4result=kept
			\|action4oldid=386142774

			\|action5=GAR
			\|action5date=02:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
			\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/2006 Lebanon War/1
			\|action5result=delisted

			\|currentstatus=DGA
			\|topic=War
			\|otd1date=2009-08-14\|otd1oldid=307751039
			\|otd2date=2010-08-14\|otd2oldid=378896574
			\|otd3date=2013-08-14\|otd3oldid=568558146
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|
			{{WikiProject Military history\|B1=y\|B2=y\|B3=y\|B4=y\|B5=y\|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes\|Post-Cold-War=y}}
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Lebanon\|importance=High}}
			}}

			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive index
			\|mask1=Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive <#>
			\|mask2=Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 49
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			== Lars Adaktusson as a neutral source ==

			In the Media coverage section, there's a section where Lars Adaktusson is used a source with him only being described as a journalist. Adaktusson is in fact the current chairman of the ] and was previously the chair of pro-Israel lobby organisation . I feel this information should be included if he is used as a source. ] (]) 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

			== End date ==
	==Discussion about the name of the article==

			Ceasefire was August 14, but the war officially ended on September 8 just saying that info box should include that. ] (]) 06:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
	===Earlier discussions===
	*Earlier archives;
	** Consensus for ''2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis''.
	** Name change from ''crisis'' to ''conflict''.
	**Poll for changing the name of the article, either to war or Hezbollah.
	*];
	**Latest Developments
	**"War" Poll (This Poll is closed now - 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)) (results below)
	**Time to rename article to "war"?
	*]
	**Including Hezbollah in the name
	**Israel-Hezbollah
	*]
	**War poll results - 9 Opposed, 17 Support.
	**Requested move II: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon - results - 14 Opposed, 7 Supports.
	*]
	**Requested move I: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict - 15 Oppose, 13 Support. (1 outside closing time)
	**Requested move III: 2006 Israel-Lebanon War - 12 Oppose, 6 Support.
	**Requested move IV: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War - 9 Oppose, 8 Support.
	**Lets get organized
	**Sources using the term "war"
	**Requested move V: 2006 Israel-Lebanon Sectarian Violence

			== Misspelling of hezbollah under "hezbullah prisoners" ==

			title says it all ] (]) 08:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
	===Why we shouldn't call it war - yet===
	Misplaced Pages attempts to be such a strange beast as an up-to-date encyclopaedia. This means that the naming of articles covering ongoing events will always be difficult. According to ], "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Not until the dust has settled after this conflict, will we know what the majority of English speakers will recognize it as. It may become known as the "2006 Israel-Lebanon War", but it may just as well end up being called "The Lebanon Crises", just as the 1956 conflict over the ] is known as the ], although it was a conventional war involving more than 500,000 soldiers from four countries, and resulted in 1,650 soldiers being killed, 4,900 being wounded and 6,000 being taken prisoners. Likewise, the 1978 Israeli attack into Lebanon, when they moved into Lebanon with 25,000 men and occupied the area south of Litani River, is today just known as ], and the two week conflict in 1996 is today just called ], although it involved some 30,000 Israeli soldiers and caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee. Nobody called the first world war ] until the second was over. In fact, nobody called it "The Great War" until it was over.

			== Add Lebanese Armed Forces to infobox? ==
	At the moment, the ongoing military conflict is being called lots of different things by the involved parties as well as the media. Most of the English-language media seem to label it "XX Crisis" or "XX Conflict" in page, section or TV news ], and are avoiding the word "war" in headlines while it often appears in article texts and interviews. As long as that is the case, I see no reason why we need to change the name of the article. Some people seem to want to add the word "war" as they think that "conflict" is somehow too mild, considering what is happening. However, that in itself is a POV regarding the word "conflict", as this is frequently used as a descriptive word for war, as war is a conflict and the word conflict isn't a measure of the size or seriousness of the war. A text about WW II which starts "The Second World War was a conflict which involved..." is therefore perfectly correct.

			There seemed to have been several confrontations between Israeli army and Lebanon army during the war:
	After an intensive debate the first couple of days (with some people screaming "WAR" immediately), we ended up with the current name of the article. It's reasonably accurate and encompassing, and it is in line with the Misplaced Pages ]. Eventually, the final name will evolve in the real world, outside this forum of obsessed nerds who spend all to much time in front of their computers (including me), and then we'll use that. But for now, let's concentrate on more important matters. Regards ] 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
			*Israel attacked Lebanese Army Barracks.
			*Israel attacked Lebanese Air Force base
			*Lebanese army opened fire on Israeli helicopters trying to land
			*According to this , supposedly 49 Lebanese soldiers were killed.
			''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

			:As far as I'm aware, neither Israel nor Lebanon said they were at war with eachother. If they were, surely there would've been a lot more attacks than these few incidents. There were similar incidents between Israeli and ] soldiers, but we don't name UNIFIL as a belligerent. Your source for the airbase strike says that it "'''could '''draw the Lebanese army into Israel's war with Hizbullah guerrillas". We'd need something from Israeli or Lebanese officials, or from mainstream news outlets, saying that they were actually at war with eachother. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree with all of the above diatribe by ]; which, as an ''obsessed nerd'', I naturally find more than somewhat disconcerting!] 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
			::The above sources are all reliable as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream outlets". Secondly, many times in history countries often participate in a conflict without declaring they are. No one is saying that Lebanon declared war on Israel but rather, the Lebanese forces participated in the conflict as a belligerent. In fact, the infobox currently lists Iran as a belligerent even though Iran did not explicity declare war on Israel, nor vice versa. Finally, 43 dead Lebanese soldiers is too large an amount to simply ignore.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
	::According to Thomas's logic, we would have called the ] (from 1954 to 1962) an "operation of public order" until 1999 (date at which the French National Assembly — and therefore the state — recognized for the first time that it had been a "war", and not only an interior police affair). But if I provided numerous English-speaking sources, and first of all from ], ] and ] which are the main sources of all medias, be it CNN, Fox News or whatever, which are using the term "war". I'm not even speaking of foreign medias, some of whom of course spoke of war the first days. But when ] and ], whom are respectively Prime minister & Minister of War of Israel, speak of "war", I honestly believe that using euphemisms and ] is a lie at worse, and a mistake at best. I am not engaging myself in the question of the ''title'' of the article, which is yet another debate. But it's a war, and both sides (whichever they might be) have clearly stated it. ] 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			:::It is really unfortunate that this discussion is being spread across several talk pages simultaneously. ] (]) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::: No need for a long discussion. Take the tag and put the sources in its place.] (]) 10:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

			::::: It is original research to suggest that the LAF was a belligerent over a few isolated incidents. Do we add UNIFIL as a belligerent in the ] too, for good measure? ] (]) 12:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	: Oh, wikipeadia! First thanks for one of the few examples of well-reasoned, non-soapbox, stick-to-the-basics contributions. May I gain your wisdom. Now, I do beg to differ, and have divided my response into what I arbotrarily consider your main points:
			::::::Can we take that conversation to ]? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 23:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Also, what exactly does the word "]" mean to you? If it implies being engaged in combat, then RS support that. Or are you suggesting that ] must always be a requirement for being included in the infobox? Finally, can you also comment on the fact that the infobox also includes ], ] and even ] as combatants? The Lebanese Army lost more soldiers than all three of these parties combined. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 00:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::<s>Agree with @]. If there are no sources supporting the claim that Lebanon's army was a belligerent, adding it based on personal opinion or analysis would violate WP:SYNTH and be a own research. I'm removing it. ] (]) 08:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)</s> Sockpuppet.
			*I looked into the ] investigation, which concluded that "Insofar as Israel was a war with Lebanon, Lebanese army soldiers are combatants under international humanitarian law."<ref>{{cite news \|title=Why They Died \|url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/05/why-they-died/civilian-casualties-lebanon-during-2006-war \|work=Human Rights Watch \|date=5 September 2007 \|language=en}}</ref> In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who has considered Israel's killing of Lebanese soldiers to be a war crime.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

			== POV tag ==
	:#'''The lets-not-get-ahead-of-ourselves argument''' - This one I think is weak in making a case. If at some time in history this is known as a "Crisis" and not a "War", we can always change it back. This is wikipedia my friend, its very easy to correct.
	:#'''The Naming Conventions argument''' - You have a valid point there, but titles are not exempt of other policies, such as ] and ]. If all the reliable sources (and of course all leaders of the combatants) can be verified as calling it a war, then why don't we? I agree there where those in the start who screadmed "War!" when the world screamed "Conflict!", but now you are their mirror image: you want to get stuck with "conflict" when the world screams "war"! One must recognize when the time is up. Almost a month ago this ''was'' indeed a conflict. Now it's indeed a war. Wake up and smell the spent propellant!
	:#'''The Headline argument''' - This is your best one: after all we speak of the wiki equivalent of a headline, and at least my impression tends to be the same as your. But here ], ] and ] come into play. First, there is not verifiable source that says that headlines are overwhelmingly "Crisis" or "Conflict" but the text "war". We shouldn't base a decision on content solely on original research, because we would be in violation sacred pillars of wikipedia. So then all we have is the sources themselves, which means we should cite from them, which means not relying on their headlines. And the sources say war. Read the sources in the pages and sub pages and see for yourself. Lastly it is a verifiable fact that all combatants are more or less unambigousy calling this a '''war'''. If the participants form all sides call it a war, and this is verifiable, then we must follow. Even NPOV requires that we do this.

			The lede has major POV issues. It gives only six lone sentences to the Israeli role in attacking Hezbollah, Lebanon and Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and dedicates the entirety of the last lede paragraph (which should focus on legacy of that war) on how -repetitively- no one disarmed Hezbollah. There is also POV language how "Israel responded" and "Hezbollah then launched." Nine sentences are dedicated to highlight how the war started with Hezbollah's actions. These are the actionable things that needs to be addressed for now. ] (]) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	All said and done, right now, the title expresses not an NPOV view (ie one balanced between combatants), but a minority POV that this is not a war. Its as if the title for "]" were "]". Not quite weasel words (as this implies lack of good faith) but borderline. Maybe chipmunk words.

			:I agree the article has issues and is a pretty wideranging edit by {{u\|Galamore}} without much of an explanation. It should be reverted. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	BTE I am not a nerd, obssesed or otherwise. Am a Geek. My obssesions are much more satisfying ;).--] 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			::It seems like they just went ahead and reverted several users' edits perhaps because they didn't like one or two things, which seems disruptive to me.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

			:::I think we can restore the previous second lede paragraph as more neutral, at least relatively speaking. ] (]) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	::I don’t know if any of you have been watching CNN, but ever since Israel crossed into Lebanon last night they have been saying “war.” They have been saying the word “war” every other second. So if you are saying you do not want to call it a war because the media does not you aren’t watching the news. Right this second on “The Situation Room” (On CNN) the scroller reads “New blasts in southern Lebanon after Israel Okays wider ground <b>war</b>.” ]</font><sup>]</font></sup> 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
			::::Ok, I've undone that change and restored the second lede paragraph. I agree its more neutral.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 00:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

			:::::I reverted the second lead paragraph to the long-standing version because the new one introduced POV issues and odd framing. Hezbollah's aims since 2000 based on one analysis aren't lead-worthy in an article on a war. This paragraph should focus on events immediately leading to the start of the war, not interpretations of Hezbollah's strategy since 2000. ] (]) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

			::::::Why would Hezbollah's military objectives not be relevant? It sure feels more relevant than mentioning the brand of vehicle Israeli soldiers were in (]) that you added. I already gave one scholarly source:
	First of all, a quick comment to ]: If Misplaced Pages had been around in the 1950s and early 1960s, we would definitely not have called the Algerian conflict the ], as that would have been considered extremely POV, and we would have had thousands of hysterical Frenchmen and Algerians involved in frantic edit wars, just as we now have thousands of fanatics from both sides trying to prevent the creation of NPOV articles about the current conflict. We would probably have called it the '''Algerian Rebellion''', but even that would probably have been considered POV by many on either side.
			::::::*{{Cite book \|last=Wahab \|first=Hadi \|title=Hezbollah:A Regional Armed Non-State Actor \|publisher=] \|year=2022 \|pages=69}}

			::::::Here are some more scholarly sources:
	In answer to ], the term "ground war" signifies that hostilities are taking place on land, as opposed to in the air or at sea. It doesn't necessarily mean that a state of war exists. Similarly, the word "war" is often used to describe military actions, as any type of military clash can be considered a war, because the combatants are engaged in "warfare" and use "weapons of war".
			::::::*"After 2000, Hezbollah entertained this legitimation by pointing to issues relating to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict that remain unresolved—namely, the area designated as Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba Heights, occupied since 1967; the Lebanese prisoners detained by Israel...The party’s prestige was enhanced by the prisoner deal that took place in January 2004, through which Hezbollah obtained from Israel the liberation of 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, as well as the mortal remains of close to 60 militants, in exchange for 1 Israeli hostage and the bodies of 3 soldiers. This operation confirmed the party’s conviction that the only way to obtain the liberation of the Lebanese prisoners still held in Israel—among them Samir Kuntar, detained since 1979 as a result of his participation in a commando attack by the Palestine Liberation Front—is to exchange them for Israeli hostages. (p28)" "The hostage Taking of July 12, 2006: Keen on defending the Lebanese legitimacy of its ar- mament, Hezbollah raised its voice over two issues in particular: the Shebaa Farms and the Lebanese pris- oners held in Israel. In a speech delivered on April 24, 2006, at a ceremony marking the twenty-eighth anniversary of Samir Kuntar’s detention, Hassan Nasrallah pledged publicly to act for the liberation of the detainee, announcing that it would take place “very very very soon” and hinting at an imminent “resistance action” toward this end. (p31-32)"

			::::::**{{cite book \|last1=Achcar \|first1=Gilbert \|last2=Warschawski \|first2=Michel \|title=The 33-day war: Israel's war on Hezbollah in Lebanon and its consequences \|date=2015 \|publisher=]}}
	However, the issue here is whether we should label the whole conflict "war" or not. There are two important issues to consider:
			::::::*"Hezbollah’s attempt to redeem its wa‘d al-sadiq (“faithful promise”) to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails...Hezbollah’s dramatic operation of July 12, 2006, was yet another attempt to deliver on its wa‘d al-sadiq."
	#'''Should we change the current descriptive title to another descriptive title,''' by simply changing "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" or something else with a lowercase "war"? It seems that many think so, because they (wrongly, in my opinion) think that the word "conflict" somehow is a weasel word that diminishes the gravity of the situation. The word "conflict" doesn't measure the gravity of a conflict. It can be used to cover anything from a minor disagreement between two persons to a world war. However, almost any other word for a conflict, including "crisis", contains a measure. You can't very well call a minor disagreement a "crisis", nor can you call a world war a "crisis". Similarly, you can't call a full-blown war a "disagreement" or call a minor disagreement "war". Consequently, "conflict" is the ideal NPOV word, while "war" definitely is POV, as it carries a measure. There is nothing wrong with the current article name, and it doesn't attempt to diminish the gravity of the situation in any way. Stating that "conflict" is a weasel word just shows that some people don't know their English well enough.
			::::::**{{cite book \|last1=Norton \|first1=Augustus R. \|title=Hezbollah: a short history \|date=2018 \|publisher=] \|location=Princeton Oxford \|isbn=9780691180885 \|pages=120-121 \|edition=Updated and expanded third}}
	#'''Should we change the current descriptive title and instead give the conflict a proper name,''' by changing "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to "2006 Israel-Lebanon War" or something else with an uppercase "War"? Definitely not! If we were to call this conflict "Something War" at this stage, we would be the first in the world to give the conflict a name. Not only would that be against the Misplaced Pages policy, which states that we should use established names for military conflicts, but as we are at the top of the Google hit list, such a decision would carry a great responsibility, as we would actively influence the perception of what this conflict should be called. That's not our job. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a policy institute or a bloody "think tank".
			::::::*"For years, Hezbollah had attempted to carry out Nasrallah's wa'd al-sadiq (faithful promise) to liberate Lebanese fighters still held in Israeli jails."

			::::::**{{cite book \|last1=Matthews \|first1=Matt \|title=We were caught unprepared: the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War \|date=2008 \|publisher=Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center \|location=Fort Leavenworth, Kan \|isbn=9780160798993\|page=28-29}}
	What's important, when considering the name of this article, is what ] the TV news programmes and the newspapers are currently sticking on the material about the conflict, as their banners is the closest equivalent to a Misplaced Pages article name covering a developing story. Their headlines change by the hour, while their banners (if they have any) are static identifiers of which news category the articles or news pieces belong to. CNN, BBC and Sky News are all still using a banner saying "Middle East Crisis" when covering the Lebanese conflict, while Fox News have opted for "MidEast Turmoil". As for newspapers, both The Times and The Independent have banners saying "Middle East Crisis". Unfortunately I don't have access to any other major English-language newspapers right now, but I'm pretty sure hardly anyone have the word "war" in their banners yet. I agree with ], that when all the reliable sources, and all the leaders of the combatants are calling it war, then we should do so as well. But that is not yet the case. Not even Siniora, who has better reason than anyone else to call it war, has yet done so. This may change at any moment, however, following the hawks' killing of the doves in the Israeli cabinet this afternoon (well, actually yesterday afternoon, I just realised). So those who want to call it war may very soon have my support - but probably only for a new descriptive title. Good night. ] 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
			::::::*"Dubbed “Operation Truthful Promise” by Hezbollah, the raid fulfilled Hezbollah leader’s Hassan Nasrallah’s longstanding aim to take IDF soldiers hostage in order to pressure Israel to release remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons, and to seek the return of the disputed Israeli-occupied Sheba` Farms area to Lebanese control. Immediately following the raid, Hezbollah stated that it would return the abducted soldiers to Israel through “indirect negotiations” resulting in a “trade” with Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli prisons."

			::::::**{{cite book \|title=Why They Died: Civilian Casualties in Lebanon During the 2006 War \|date=2007 \|publisher=] \|page=37}}
	FOR EVERYONE THAT THINK IT ISN'T A WAR YOU MUST SEE THIS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPd-yubPdx4&mode=related&search=
			::::::''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

			:::::::I reverted the banned sock's reversion of the second lede paragraph, but it still needs work. VR, seems you have read up on this war, so it could use a review from your side. ] (]) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
	--] 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Very good! ] 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Nice. Hopefully not all medias follow CNN. ] 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Discussion about casualties==
	===Earlier discussions===
	*]
	**Israeli casualties, Earlier discussions, Displaced Israelis, Other, Civilian vs Military casualities, Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed, "Report of Attack on Canadians Unconfirmed", possible solution to the "civilians" edit war.
	*]
	**Civilian casualties, Warship is not a casualty!, Casualty figures, Lebanese Casualties, Attacks on UNIFIL, Missing from the casualties section, Israeli soldiers killed.
	*]
	**Archived info from discussion of lebanese casualty figures, Israeli Casualities, Amal Casualties?, Lebanese Civilian Casualties
	*]
	**Lebanese Casualty Figures, lebanese civilian casualties, "treated for shock", Hezbollah casualties and Lebanese casualties:, American casualty.
	*]
	**Infobox fatalties, question about hezbollah casualties
	*]
	**Syncing the two tables, Displaced persons, Israeli casualties during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Lebanese Civilian Casualties, Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC
	*]\
	**Israeli casualties
	**Israeli military equipment losses during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
	**1 000 killed according to Lebanon

	*Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. ] 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

	=== Israeli/Lebanese casualties ===

	Although the figure for people dead is (more or less) undisputed, we have a slight problem with figuring out the number of wounded/injured people and the severity of those cases. This is partially because "injured" is a grey-zone unlike dead (which is or is not!)

	As numbers are running up, I would like to ask: Can we skip the injured, and let people deduce for themselves the numbers of injured from the numbers of dead? ] 08:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I say "yes". I told it before: I, as Israeli, have no idea how many Israeli injured since the begining of the conflict, not mentiioning how many Lebanese injured. It is a grey-zone indeed, and we should not report the number of injured at all. ] 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:: I also agree here. There are big issues with what "injured" means. Lost a limb? Slightly upset by a bang in the distance? ] 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:OK, I will wait another 24h for other editors to voice their opinions before doing anything "bold."
	:There is also the "dead" vs "missing" figures giving me a hard time calculating anything reasonably. ] 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:On second thought: The "missing" may or may not be dead/wounded/whatevever, so if I sum up the dead, that will be it! ] 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (feeling uneasy, summarising tragedies to statistics)
	::I think we should just keep dead. Injured can mean anything and missing can lead to duplicating figures. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::I think that was what intended to say, but to clerify: Agreed! :) ] 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	::::Isn't it strange for you to start by claiming that "the figure for people dead is (more or less) undisputed", although Reuters has reported that Lebanese claim 1000 dead (including 1/3 children) but that here some tireless editors decided 500 would be better? ] 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, that would be the "lesser" part of undisputed, but the lower numbers always comes with the qualifyer "at least." What can be said is that Lebanese gov now claims 1000+ dead and Israel claims 100+ reports as of today: ''More than 1,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the month-old conflict, the Lebanese government has said. More than 100 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also died.'' This is also in line with what reports: ''The war has cost the lives of at least 1,005 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and more than 100 Israelis.'' detailed the Israeli figures yesterday to be 36 civilian and 65 miltary, but since then 15 more Israeli soldiers have been killed. ] 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	===Death Toll===

	I have to agree with you about the death tolls. We need to do a better job about handling the death tolls. For example, right at the beginning, Where it says cause belli: It states this "Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three other IDF soldiers" Do you see the error? "killing three other IDF soldiers" It was eight not three. Then under that it gives terrible statistics. Now come on. The deaths grow every day. We need to update this. But because there are hooligans who do stupid crap, we have to have censorship on the pages. So We can't keep it up to date, and that is the other issue.

	The other five were killed in "hot-pursuit," but belligerence already existed by then, so I don't think they can be included in its cause. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Israel gave there reasons for the cause of it all, and that is the reason. Zonerocks22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Could you provide a source please? Thanks, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font>

	LOL, of course, wikipedia israel lebanon conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately." --] 05:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:My mistake for overlooking. In any event, there must be a subjective definition of casus belli, and I have a feeling it wouldn't include the 5 latter casualties. As opposed to many other parts of an article, a casus can't just be what is claimed by one of the combatants, but should be the international consensus. In this case (while the sources I checked weren't clear and I haven't the patience to conduct detailed research now), I'm not sure that the 8 are in the consensus, though the initial raid and barrage seem to be. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== RE: Updating death counts ===

	We need to be able to keep up with the death counts. Also fix the beginning where it says cause belli: fix from 3 deaths to 8, to understand what im talking about, scroll up to death counts and read that. --] 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Great job Fixing that number from 3 to 8.--] 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== "Estimates" from the tourism minister, etc. ===

	Do we need to include every prominent Israeli's "estimate" of the number of Hezbollah militants that have been/will be killed, when the IDF is releasing solid, confirmed kill numbers? I know of at least three different "estimates" from varying ministers (including the tourism minister, whose was the highest), and various editors keep removing any "estimate" save the tourism minister's (including removing Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz' 300 estimate). If we are going to include "estimates" in the infobox, we need to include them all, or decide to stick with only the confirmed kill numbers the IDF is now releasing. Also, if editors wish to only use a "+" figure ("300+," "500+") to cover all estimates, base estimate used ''must'' be the lowest. Thanks, ] 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	good point, look at the beginning when lebanon said 1000 dead in the first week. That was defitnley a wrong number. Then CNN saying one Hezbollah Terrorist was killed in a week and a half period. --] 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Update on lebanese civilan deaths ===
	This needs to be updated, it is 3 days old so let's update this quickly. Over 1000 lebanese civilans have been killed . Again I'll reiterate the need to stay on top of casulties, captured, and wounded people in this conflict. So let's update this in all areas that it needs to be updated. --] 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:"Over 1000 Lebanese civilians have been killed."

	:First of all, we don't have confirmation that a thousand Lebanese people have been killed.

	:There might be a thousand Lebanese who have died during these hostilities, there might be less.

	:There might be more.

	:My point is that the figures are constantly fluctuating, and that to assert definitively that x number of individuals have been killed-especially when there have been so many attempts to manipulate media coverage of these events, and when it is impossible for journalists to report from the actual scene of battle-is not a productive exercise.

	:Furthermore, your implication that every single Lebanese citizen who has been killed was a civilian is patently absurd.

	:I don't think even Hezbollah is making that ludicrous allegation.

	] 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	LOL. Sorry I forgot to post the link. Here it is. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07082006/323/1-000-killed-israeli-raids-lebanon-official-tolls.html --] 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::The Israeli or por-Israeli editors want the article to be unlocked so you can put more ISraeli propganda on it. You are trying to sound unbiased by saying you want to adjust the number of civilians murdered by Israel, whenin reality you are going to make adjustments to the causes, the history and so on. Will you add all the recorded and verified cases of Israel and the Israeli military using illegal weapons and braking international laws too??? ]

	:::Rest at ease. No matter how cleverly he disguises his true intentions, he can never hope to appear as unbiased as ''you'' do. --] 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I checked the protection page and saw someone wants to take off protection, im against that, because there are idiots like you who will put propaganda on the article. There are also ways of editing the article without taking off protection.
	] 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


	Since this war started the pro Israelis have constantly been undermining the page and trying to put the lower figures, I gave up years ago. The Best joke was when a couple of days ago i saw the figure back to 537, LOL. When are we going to add a section about the well documented attempts by israelis to change sites just like these to help their cause?
	<span style="background:#800">]
	]</span>

	==Discussion about the structure and general content of the article==

	===Earlier discussions===
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	**Article Size, Suggested Sub Articles, Why is there nothing on the gaza strip?, Hezbollah campaign, Historical Background, Relevance? - small posts about Russian language source, "Free Lebanon" and Robert Fisk, Operation Truthful/True/Fulfilled Promise?
	*]
	**Format of infobox (labeling of civilians, soldiers),Relevance?, "not sure as to the relevance.", External Links, Too many links - what stays?, Various sections about evacuation, International reaction, Infobox gives me a headache, Nothing is mentioned about foreign nationals being evacuated,
	*]
	**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
	*]
	**Article is too long, Strike on UN chapter removed, POLL, What part shoul be moved, External links, Aims section, External links International reaction
	*]
	**Casualties table
	**Length
	**Attacks on Civilians

	These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.

	===The article is too long===

	I moved some part of article to ], Because the length of this this article was more than 60 Kb.--] 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	This article becomes too long . Please add what you want in the main articles and try to shorten this article. I prefer to strat from "Targeting of civilian areas " and "Historical background " parts.--] 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


	Great idea in theory, but you can't just cut the bottom half of the section off - you have to leave behind a summary and keep it balanced. Thats why I reverted your change. I've had another go at removing some stuff, feel free to cut it down some more if you think there's still some excess in there - as you say, we've got to get it down to about 60kb. --] 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I would guess the sources accounts for much of the size. If I just cut and paste the article text to notepad and save it is just 26 kB. ] 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	<strike>'''We've done it'''!</strike> Down to 59kb! Now we just need to keep it there. (And yeah, those references are a biggie.) --] 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

	And now it's been completely undone. Almost 80kb. --] 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Not to long to add in some bumpf about resolution 1559 :) Doesnt that belong in the article concerned with the res? ] 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

	I've done a lot of culling - lots of people like to add info, which is great, but not often do they remove it. Down to 66kb, which is still too long, but I can't find anywhere to lose it from. --] 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

	==International reaction and propaganda==

	There has been an amazing, unprecedented state-organized pro-Israel activist mobilization to bend international public debate in favour of Israel. See the , and the website which provides automated tool to do this.

	I believe this has its place in this article, but should of course be balanced by info on pro-Hezbollah propaganda. Or perhaps an article exists which I didn't find? --] 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	I am concerned that this article has been deemed off-limits to editing- who is deciding the ultimate content of this article? Why should debate and editing of this article be off-limits? There should be concern that this article has not been labeled as having undue bias... If the community/ other people have no say into the content of this article, how can Misplaced Pages claim to be the "the 💕 that anyone can edit"? -- ] 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:You can edit as long as you're an established user (basically you need to be registered and with an account that's at least 4 days old). We've had a lot of hit-and-run vandalism on this article, so semi-protection of this sort is a sensible compromise between having to constantly revert vandals and completely protecting it so that nobody can edit. -- ] 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	==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
	*]
	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
	*]
	Bad footnote, IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy, BBC analysis of the effect of the war, Two more Un observers die
	Sorry, trying to fix intro, Unbalanced info box, Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?, Categorisation, use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral, use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral, Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately, Added suspension of air operations to main page, Possible War Crimes, Sources, SOME ISRAELI KEEPS..
	Anti Israel people/sites, Please help edit related articles, Infobox UN dead, Time to remove "AA -only" tag for Lebanon?, "Precision-guided", An Analysis on the way middle east "works" that is "jews vs muslims"-free., Oil Spill?
	*]
	**Irrelevant facts, moving casualties, Megaphone Software & "the battle for the internet", References broken, If it's not war so what is war, Israeli soliders landing in Baalbeck, NPOV Tag Added, Pictures show clear POV, Asian Cup, OMG PWND!!!, International Law, I Was Thinking, New images every second, Where is the background to the conflict.
	*]
	** POV terms used for Israel campaign
	Why the Israel-Lebanon war?, Herald Sun's "smuggled pictures", The War between the Straits, War or Conflict, Introduction
	Numbers, Yesha Rabbinical Council: all Lebanese may be killed, Hizbollah offered a cease-fire?, Phosphorus & sub-articles, IDF casualties up to date (not 41), 12 Rhetorical support, Equating Hezbollah and IDF operations in this article, please don't add POV pictures, Can we add this photo?, Image use in this article, Beginning of conflict is June 9th Gaza explosion?, Moved the POW stuff to its article, Repeated Sentences, Good artile, Rabbinical Question, Ayta a Shaab Claim, Hezbollah KIA, other figures, Hadera instaed of Beit-Shean, Some statistics you might find interesting, Criticism of advanced warnings, Wounded soldiers and civilians, What's that? Where did it come from?? Flayer 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
	*]
	"Hizbullah committing war crimes", To solve the disaster, Hizballah military capability, Escalation, Iranian and Syrian Support
	What section?, External links, Removal of POW stuff, Paring, Page Deletion, Uh, where is the article?, An Important Source
	Where is the history, Human Rights Watch claims, National Post as source?, Battlebox., Attack on Tel Aviv -- Escalation?
	Arab-Israeli Conflict Template, Not sure what to do with this, What to do with WHO?, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, Allegations of using civilians as Human Shields, Claimed Amal and PFLP-GC casualties, Semi-protection not working?
	*]
	**It is disputed the IDF soldiers were captured in Israel, War Planned a Year Ago, Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets, Article size, Page reverted to out of date version,Depleted Uranium munitions, Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, Global, Proposed template., Casualties infobox, again, omg, Typo in Reference, Iran Supplying Surface-To-Air Missiles To Hezbollah, Casualty Country Error, Factual accuracy, References, Dating schema - vote, Frivolity, Template Update needed, Updating the picture on the title, Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section is completely POV, New proposal for the lead, Request for Arbitration on WP:EL-Links and Images, Re Cluster bombs allegations' section.
	*]
	**Megaphone Software is official Israel Gov policy
	**beginning of conflict
	**Why was Rafik Hariri International Airport bombed?
	**Why was the lighthouse in Beirut eradicated?
	**Tewfik please discuss removing sources here before
	**Article
	**suitable lead
	**Removing Nasrallah quotation and Hezbollah actions
	**Widing of the War
	**Karen Kwiatkowski
	**Use of weapons with wide blast patterns
	**Nasrallah - spiritual leader
	**Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields

	Please do not modify these archived discussions.

	===Semi-Protected===
	The article is semi-protected because of the non-stop removal of pics. -- ''] 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)''

	=== Haim Ramon's Comments under "Israeli Position" ===

	Earlier I removed Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon's comments from under "Israeli position". In my opinion their mention a few sections below is sufficient and placing them in that context is highly misleading, as regardless of Ramon's words "all civilians in southern Lebanon are terrorists" and "villages should be flattened by air force before ground troops move in" are not Israeli policy in any shape or form, let alone an official one. My changes were reverted by ] with the explanation that the comments are "historically significant". I think that still doesn't change the fact that Ramon was merely ''expressing his opinion'' of what should be done and not in any way voicing official policy, so the quote should be included but in another part of the article. --] 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Agree, not every comment from a person with a government position is expresing said governments views and policies. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	Meanwhile I changed the "X but Y" syntax (which is basically an underhanded way to say X, but disregard X, because Y), and replaced the very rough paraphrase of Ramon's words with his actual phrasing. I think it's less jarring now, but should still be moved elsewhere. --] 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	::He was expressing his "opinion" in his official capacity at an Israeli Government cabinet meeting. As a member of the Government currently in power it might be assumed that his views go towards forming policy on the ground. I believe Ramon's comments are valuable because they go some way to explaning this idea that South Lebanon is a free fire zone. Yesterday it was announced that it was IDF open season on all moving vehicles. Conflict of policy? Drop leaflets telling people to flee then blow up any vehicles moving? ] 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::The fact that you are assuming is whats wrong. Furthermore there was a warning given regarding moving vehicles and an explanation why. Lastly they were told to flee some weeks ago, those still there I doubt have just been packing bags all this time. Again, stop "assuming" as assumptions are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	::::Its a fair assumption. Assuming that the ''Justice'' Minister's views count for something isnt farfetched at all. If it is why is he in the post? Why assume his views are ignored in cabinet meetings?
	::::The warnings are quite useless when faced with bombed roads/bridges/convoys, a lack of living drivers, a lack of money to pay them, a lack of vehicles which arent on the "strafe on sight list". Even when people '''do''' flee they get shot at. PLUS we now have examples of areas being bombed without leaflet drops. Check ] which provides examples to back up everything I just stated. Although based on your comments I think youre more likely to agree with Ramon when he said "all those in South Lebanon are terrorists" ] 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::::'''"might be assumed that his views go towards forming policy on the ground"''' I am tired of arguing with all the anon's that dont understand how Misplaced Pages works, just provide sources stating his views are guiding policy and its acceptable, else please stop assuming as it doesnt contribute anything to the article.. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::Why assume his views are ignored in cabinet meetings? Provide a source that says they are. His own words as a member of the Government indicate Government policy. His own words tally with whats happening on the ground. ]. ] 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::The burden of proof is on you to prove that comments in a cabinet meeting indicate policy. Other ministers expressed dismay at Israeli expansion of the conflict, yet they were clearly not made into policy. To argue to what degree such comments tempered an even more aggressive plan, or to what degree Ramon's comments fanned the flames is original research unless you can show a media source reporting such analysis. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::OK I wont push on the matter, not because you have argued the case convincingly but because I just noticed that ''Justice'' Minister Haim Ramon is under criminal investigation "'''by the Fraud Squad'''" (sexual harrasment). Clearly past 30 July his influence can be called into question. Although you make my point for me- other ministers did express 'dismay' at the conflict- they werent listened to. It was clearly Ramon and the Hawk, who were pro-war that were listend to because widening the conflict became policy. Lets not forget this is the person who said the condemnation voiced in Rome was a "green light" for more war. ] 11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Request that "Civilians..." section be cleaned up ===

	I am unable to edit right now, so I would like to draw a more senior user's attention on this matter:


	This paragraph needs to be changed to use less inflammatory wording:

	Strikes on Lebanon's civilian population and infrastructure include Beirut airport, residential buildings, clearly marked ambulances, fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags, United Nations posts and personnel, ports, a lighthouse, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks, mobile telephone and television stations, fuel containers and service stations, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait.


	"clearly marked ambulances" and "fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags" is ridiculous wording, clearly showing an Anti-Israel bias.

	It is fine to say that there have been confirmed instances of ambulances and fleeing civilians being hit, but to use language like "clearly marked" and "prominently waving white flags" is completely unacceptable and should be removed.


	Also, I will request again that some mention be made of Hezbollah's use of warheads filled with ball bearings (whihc are designed to maximize human casualties). All mention of this was removed, apparently by POV vandals.
	19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)]

	:The part about the ball bearings was moved down and is now next to the part about Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, I believe. --] 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	Check ] which provides examples to back the wording up. Is it "anti-Israel bias" when its factual? The detail on the shrapnel rockets does belong in this article. ] 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:1. I think the objection he expressed was regarding the tone, not necessarily the content. 2. I can't access the source for the civilians "prominently waving white flags", for example, because I'm not registered on the NYT website, but as it stands the article implies basically that Israel attacked civilians waving white flags and Hospitals and so forth for no reason in particular except that it sounded like a fun thing to do at the time. I mean, is that it? Has Israel denied these allegations, issued any official response, anything?... I smell PoV by omission. --] 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	Haven't Israeli "ports...roads...factories...telephone and television...service stations" also been hit? At the rate of 150-200 Katyushas fired per day, there's no way that Israeli roads have been magically spared the destruction from cheap inacurate rockets. Why is this list put under Lebanon if it's not also put under Israel? And in that case it should be removed entirely because it's expected that in an air war, roads will be damaged.] 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== IRGC should be readded as a combatant ===

	Reuters story says that IRGC members were found by Israeli soliders.
	{{unsigned\|Hello32020}}
	:There were reports they were fighting before, and this is proof that they are there, so it makes since to include them in my oppinion. ~'''] (])''' 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't think anyone is denying that Iran is supplying Hezbollah with weaponry, not even the Iranian government itself.

	:And the fact that their have been Iranian casualties, most likely Pasderan, has also been well-established, IMO.

	] 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


	:Oops forgot to add name before
	We should readd if we get one or two more people due to consensus. ] 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	While Iran is involved to an extent (documented somewhat at ] - though more detail would be appreciated), I'm not sure that they should be considered a combatant yet, just like China was not considered a combatant in Viet Nam. I don't claim to know the line they must cross to be considered, but this, like so many other issues here, may be subject to the ]. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	===Israeli use of human shields: a look at the other side of the coin & a New light on Hezbollah===

	Firstly this is an article by a jounralist in Israel who has managed to give some information, as little as it is, that proves Hezbollah is not deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, at least yet. It is in depth and covers the issue through a military analysis with verification. If you will all take the time to read it you will agree and see. It is also neutral and looks at both sides with critique.

	'''Hypocrisy About Hezbollah by Jonathan Cook'''
	http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9511


	Now as for the missile claims and Hezbollah using civilian shields this has been rebuked as false almost totally by the local population, observers, international aids, the Red Cross, Lebanese government officials, on-site journalists, relgious leaders (Christian & Muslim) and Hezbollah.

	http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060803&articleId=2899

	http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAM20060801&articleId=2883

	http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060730&articleId=2860

	]

	:Antiwar.com doesnt seem like a WP:RS source of information. Furthermore its an opinion peace by a non expert in the field. Take it as it is, one mans opinion. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Actually you have no idea what you are talking about; firstly it is a ledding jounralist talking about basically how Hezbollah is not attacking civilians, but targets in Israel that are industrial or military. It says a lot maybe you should read it. Secondly it was not written for ant-War.com, it is featured there. ]
	:::Odd there are no credits for it coming from somewhere else, so either you are misunderstanding or its a copywrite violation. WP:RS doesnt extend to the journalist themself, but the agency in which they write for, perhaps there is a reason he isnt writing for his normal outlet. Its also still an opinion piece by a non-expert. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	===Hezbollah-Pasderan Links===

	:Here are some of the sources that lend credibility to this assertion:

	:http://www.nysun.com/article/36326

	:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5242566.stm?ls

	:http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505160247

	:http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T215844Z_01_L09100220_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-LEBANON-IRANIANS.xml

	] 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I've just heard reports on WABC news that reporters were shown Iranian identity papers discovered on the person(s) of individuals killed in S. Lebanon.

	] 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	===Hezbollah-Pasderan Links Seem to be Propganda===

	These claims seem to be propaganda because;

	* Military personal of a covert natural wil never wear or have anything that can be traced back to their nation

	* The Israelis are making a claim, nothing has been proven and verified by a neutral party

	* Hezbollah & the Iranian government have said there are no Iranian troops in Lebanon; this are official statements to 'consider', but also NOTE the fact that so far Hezbollah has been more honest than Israel has.

	* It is a clear Israeli and White House objective to produce a smoking gun for Iran; meaning blame Iran for the attacks for justification of somesort of future conflict with Iran and /or Syria.

	* The claims are made about dead bodies; how can they tell they are Iranian? Even if they are they are not wearing any Iranian uniforms, etc.

	* So far a lot of the Israeli claims have either proven to be false and/or contradictory

	'''I also want it to be noted by all impartial and fair editors that there is a strong and repeteaded eagerness to involve Iran in this conflict by Israel and the White House as part of their PR, there are also certain editors who wish to do the same and their history and actions have given strong indications to where they stand on the issue and who they favour. Also remeber that it has been discovered that Israel and the Israeli lobby have declared a cyber-war where they are lunching a campaing to manipulate the internet with propganda. Just checking a lot of these IP histories and so on will confirm what is being said. Thank You

	http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20079382-23109,00.html
	http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T233401Z_01_L09130902_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-HIZBOLLAH-DENIAL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3
	http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L10130494
	http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09805695-3577-421D-BC35-8FE01E8EAD06.htm
	http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/597/597_10_MythsLies.shtml
	]
	'''Bold text'''


	:I believe the impartial and fair editors of Misplaced Pages are perfectly able to judge PoV from NPoV and tell propaganda from well-cited material without your generous, neutral efforts to point them in the right direction, thank you very much. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. --] 11:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Proposed UN resolution ===

	Is there a Misplaced Pages article on the proposed UN resolution? I've started to write something at ] but don't know if that's the best place for it. ] 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Not the United Nations per se, but an article about the reaction of international organizations does exist.
	:http://en.wikipedia.org/International_reactions_to_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_by_Organizations
	] 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	I have started ] and need help with it. ] 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Some reading material,
	:http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/08/08/diplomatic_divide_on_halt_to_fighting_stalls_new_proposal/
	:http://www.nysun.com/article/37518
	:http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/REPOSITORY/607260363/1043/NEWS01
	:http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7f9a2caa-5e39-48e5-8d4d-760139d63710&k=71041
	:http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/world/15148142.htm
	] 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Please note that there is already an article called ] which the ] should be linked to, just as the ] already is. ] is in desperate need of a re-write, by the way. As for the first UN draft text, you'll find it at the website. However, judging from what's happening in New York right now, that text will either be re-written a lot, or totally scrapped, as France and the US are quickly moving in opposite directions. Regards ] 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Big bias against Hezbollah ===

	It looks like the international media suppresses news of big jewish losses. The chief of zionist army in the area was sacked the day before yesterday, because he was deemed "overly cautious and slow-acting". Major-General Mose Kaplinski replaced him. During first night following this leadership change FIFTEEN zionists soldiers were killed by hezbollah warriors, which is a huge loss for such a short time. Even if it is true that jews killed 40 hezbolah warriors in the same clashes, the proportion is still very good for the jihadists, considering the vast equipment overpower of jews due to tens of billions of dollars in free american weapon shipments. The fact that Hezbollah is not an underdog is not properly represented in this article. Hezbollah is the best muslim army, besides Pakistan.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small>
	:Please provide sources, I know people want to help balance the article and add information, but you have to post links or some other information for anything to be included in the article. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes I read that he was fired, first time this had happened the media said. Although what they expect him or his men to do against such well trained and well equipped Guerilla is beyond me. A ] of ']' who protested the previous invasions and an ']' as prime minister may not be the best candidates for the job :D ] 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::Who would give a military job to someone who wants peace ... that is not sarcasm, seriously who would do such a thing? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	((removed rhetoric)) Please keep in mind this is not a political forum. Discuss the article in question directly. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Various hits, situation not exactly as 195.70.32.136 describes, but close. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/747986.html ] 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	===Hezbollah Action===

	What's wrong with the last sentence in this section on the main page? ] 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Haaretz References are not acceptable ===
	References from haaretz are weakning the reliability of article.
	] 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Abulfazl 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I think you make a good point. Haaretz and JPost are in the business of selling papers to a public in battle, they are also under restrictions from the censors in Israel. Haaretz does report well but the JPost has frequently inserted words into the IDF spokesmans mouth which give a misleading impression. Editors should take care to check the actual IDF press releases/video and Hezbollah output which the journalists write about. I always take care when a strange statement, figure, or remark is reported to use the qualifier "reportedly this happened"- this alerts the reader that this may not be the entire picture. This protects wikipedia from journalistic bias in combatant nations. Just as you would not take comment from journalist in Lebanon Daily Star reports about "Israeli crimes" so you should do the same for all sources. ] 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Please read ] and argue there if they are sources that meet the standards. Until a concensus forms on WP:RS that they are to no longer meeting the requirements, they are acceptable. Also if you have reports from Lebanese news sources that are in english, feel free to add them, they are more then welcomed as has been pointed out numerous times. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	"the censors in Israel"? Are you kidding? It's front page news around that world if Israel's Cabinet votes to expand or not expand operations! The Israeli press is incredibly loose (how else would everyone know that Dimona-of-peace-power is actually Dimona-of-don't-tell-them-we-have-the-bomb)? ] 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Because of ] telling it to the '''british''' press? My point is that their media is operating in national conflict, with some journalistic reportage and some censor control. I accept your point. ] 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Reference 22 ===

	It's a dead link... ] 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)



	===Section: International Reaction===

	*In addition, Tehran reportedly sends Hezbollah $60-100 million per year. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan criticized Hezbollah's actions, as well as Iran and Syria for extending support to the organization, although they are under pressure to change their stance. This part of the article needs to be fixed. First off let's repalce tehran and put Iran. Then Iran gives 100 million exactly, not 60-100 million a year.
	http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/3/israellebanonConflictStirsLocalTensionResponse

	* http://www.forward.com/articles/8123]] [[http://www.cfr.org/publication/11122/ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aDBGipyREFes&refer=home I could give you more. So my point is made. So this part in the section should read... In addition, Iran reportedly sends Hezbollah $100 million per year. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan criticized Hezbollah's actions, as well as Iran and Syria for extending support to the organization, although they are under pressure to change their stance.

	=== Political Correctness BS===

	Should someone add that the IRA ( Iranian Revolutionary Army) Has been found amognst the dead bodies of hezbollah terrorists, and that they (IRA) should be added to the death count, and this leads to the issue of political correctness in this article. Fact is what i said above should be added to the article. Also let's stop labeling Hezbollah, Amal, and PFlP-GC as militas, let's cut the political Correctness BS and label them what they are.... TERRORISTS, Come on guys. Add this stuff and be fair like wikipedia is supposed to be. If we can agree on the stuff on the stuff that I posted all above on deathtoll, section:International Reaction and, political correctness. I would like to have open debate on this and have and it the fair way, and i think the death toll needs to be configured within three to five days. ] 17:23 (UTC)
	::First I heard of this, are their sources to support? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:The issue of using "terrorists" or "militants" is much more trouble than it's worth. Why all the fuss when the word "militants" has basically become a shorthand for "considered terrorists by most of the people they blow up, considered legitimate by some of the people they don't", which is NPoV par excellance. --] 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Considering their operate illegally under the UN Charter, they should at least be labeled an illegal militia, can a militia be legal? --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::"...are their sources to support this?"

	::Look upthread.

	] 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Thank you, didnt notice this was a break off from another discussion, seeing some of the sources are highly reliable I think it should be added, they all seem to say Iran denies it however so that should probably be included, until proof is offered that is beyond the point of doubts. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Man someone had to write something. now i lost everything i typed in my response. ok lets try again. Hey I understand, But not everyone know this ace. The sooner people understand that groups like hezbollah aren't legit, and they are more like terrorists, the sooner people will understand that what hezbollah is doing, are terrorists acts. This article is very politically correct, and it paints the picture that, HEZBOLLAH IS A MILITIA DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF LEBANON BY FIGHTING THE BIG, BAD ISRAELIS. Where in this article does it say hezbollah is the probelm and isn't supposed to be there. Ruth those articles are legit. Also ruth the un charter says alot of things, and brings the point on why shouldn't the things the charter says not be in this article, and if we don't put terrorists, then we need to put illegal milita. --]

	Ruth the sources are legit so let's move to the next stage and edit the money and im ok with adding iran denies it. Also What do yall think about adding The IRA to the casualty list. Read the entire beginning of political correctness to know what i am talking about. --]
	:Depends if there is an accurate count and further if its ever verified or proof offered I would say. I wouldnt add them if its like 5 soldiers, but if its bordering on 20 or so, then I think it should be added. However barring Iran stops denying or mass media stops believing they are not there. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Ruth well in that case then why do we have that one "Milita" that has one casualty, and ruth how are we going to edit this stuff it won't allow it. Do we ask to temporarily allow us to do it. --]

	I don't think we should add anything about IRA as it is an Israeli claim, Hezbollah and Iran denies it. If it's added, then the article will become biased, which it shouldn't. Unless there is real proof coming from non-propaganda media, the Iranian soldiers being part of Hezbollah's army are to be considered as being false information. At least, that's my opinion.
	Also, about this "call them terrorists" thing, I wonder why people still have the guts to call Hezbollah terrorists.. Who calls them like that ? the US, UK, Israel ? why ? because they're against them, that's it. And it's public opinion because Israel+US govern the media... If you read other people's opinion, you'll see that Israel is a terrorist state, it used many of the Holocaust's strategies against the Arab world and if Hitler was wrong (and he was), Israel is also wrong. -- ]
	:US, UK, Australia, Netherlands, Israel, Canada consider them a terrorist organization and EU considers their senior intelligence officer a terrorist, Russia has condemned their tactics as "terrorist methods" and EU has recognized clear evidence of terrorist activities. That is just to answer your question. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:The first bullet point in the first pretty pastel-shaded box in this page reads "Please do not use as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". Please take note, and acknowledge that exactly this sort of unwanted discussion is what tends to get started when you go around calling a whole country "terrorist" and comparing it to Nazi Germany. Personally I came here exactly because I find a psychological refuge in the tenets of Misplaced Pages, where even people involved in highly controversial subjects are committed to NPoV and searching for the truth instead of hurling around emotionally-resounding accusations. So... Please. --] 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Begining of the conflict ===
	Hi, why is it that the begining of the conflict states that Hezbollah attacked Israel with Katyushas and mortar? I never heard of that and I see no source proving this. The only source there is a 404 link. This should be corrected. If two versions of the story are available (from Israel and from Hezbollah) then both versions should be stated, not the 'pro-israel, anti-hezbollah' version. This article really looked biased and non-neutral. ]

	{{RPA}}

	It's like clamoring for equal numbers of pro-heliocentric and pro-geocentric editorials in the Times. Would we say a paper is biased because it runs off a thousand and one heliocentric aritcles before printing a geocentric one? ] 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


	Israel is a terrorist entity, all the people of the Middle East; Arabs, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and Iranians alike are committed to freedom, which Israel is trying to take away from them. There were no Iranian soilders amongst the Lebanese Resistance fighting the Israeli invasion to grab more land and take water. Israel lies and has provided no proof. Israel atacks civilians, the unarmed U.N. observers, and Red Cross. ]

	:Won't respond. Too busy oppressing Greeks and Turks. --] 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:This is not a political forum. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	I agree with you opinions from the most side about start of the conflict should be printed.
	] 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Background of conflict ===

	I think that some key points regarding the background of the conflict should go to the introduction instead of being stuck in the obscure lower regions of the article. Like the declared aim of Israel in initiating its attack, the status quo between Israel and Hezbollah prior to this conflict (including UN resolution 1559 and its implementation or rather lack thereof) and Hezbollah's aims in general in occupying the border. A lot of important things about this conflict stem from the historical context in which it is taking place. --] 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm able to edit the article (it's only sprotected, not fully protected). I just wanted to bring this to the talk page and see whether maybe anybody has some valid reasons against before I mess around with the article's structure like this. --] 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	How can you edit it? So i guess i object cause i want to know.

	:Sprotection only lets "established" users (accounts over 4 days old) edit articles. --] 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:How much background information regarding the historical context should be included?

	:If we want to trace this back to its root causes we can go back all the way to 1975, when the Lebanese civil war began, or to Black September and the Palestinian exodus from Jordan, but something tells me that isn't the direction you were suggesting.
	::Actually, Lebanon (along with other Arab nations) attacked Israel in 1948 and has never — unlike Jordan and Egypt — made peace.] 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	] 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::That is ]. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	hwo do you get Sprotection

	I guess it might be to late to object. But im going to object anyway. First im sure all of would want to know what "structual" things you will be doing, and I think before you add it, we should all be able to see it, and then come to an agreement. --] 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	===Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border===

	There are certain editors that are helping put an Israeli POV, which is based on falsehood and propganda into this article,

	Please look up where the Israeli soilders were captured...it was in South Lebanon according to Lebanese officials, the Lebanese Police, and Hezbollah. This was reported widely in Europe and the Middle East but started getting covered up...The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times have also reported this and I have provided a link within a link to them...

	Check

	http://uruknet.info/?p=m25034&hd=0&size=1&l=e
	http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hezbollah_soldiers.html
	http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html
	http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24913&hd=0&size=1&l=e
	http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060720&articleId=2767
	http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FRA20060725&articleId=2813 http://www.voltairenet.org/article142056.html

	These links themselves have links to even more significant sources...

	Also two of those sites are world famous for their work, by leading experts and adacemics. Two of those links also had other links on them, plus one of the verifications is The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times.


	I also want you to note that the Israeli media has proven to be censored and used for propaganda purposes...all their reports of advancement into Lebanon have turned out to be bogus.
	Or even reading this says it all;
	http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291980307&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

	I noticed that there is a lot of pro-Israeli rhetoric on the site that is trying to give the world a false image of the attacks on Lebanon and Lebanese civilians.

	God Bless
	]

	:The link you posted leads to an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with Israeli military progress in South Lebanon, or censorship related to military operations.

	:Also, I don't think Uruknet is a valid, let alone unbiased, source.

	:You are not objecting to the impartiality of this article, simply insisting that your biases be included.

	] 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::You are trying to mislead others or are not lookig at the wrong link. The last link shows how low and stupid Israeli propganda is. All the links are listed. ]

	So we have one Forbes story of all those sources against every other source that says otherwise ... I think its safe to conclude that if it was the way you say, more then Urukunet and GlobalResearch would have said so by now. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::You supporters of Israel or Zionist supporters are clearly trying to add misinformation on this site on behalf of Israel. It is Israel that attacked Lebanon, it is Israel that continually kidnapped people from Lebanpon, it is Israel tht continually according to the UN and ionternational observers shlled and killed Lebanese farmers before the conflict and violated Lebanese soverignty (you think any nation will allow another nations jets to fly over its territory unchallenged whenever it wishes? And this was before this conflict!); it is Israel that has invaded Lebanon 3 times; it is Israel that has used car bombs to kill Lebanese officialsand even people going to courts to testify against Israeli war crimes; it is Israel that was stealing Lebanese natural resources for years; it is Israel that does not respect international laws; it is Israel that has massacred unarmed civilians before this war; it is Israel that attacked American saiolrs on the U.S.S. Liberty and tried to frame the Egyptians; it is Israel that assasinated Red Cross workers and European diplomats trying to forge peace in the Holy Land; it is Israel that uses collective punishment; it is ISrael that uses Canadian passports for assasinations; it is Israel that has been caught fabricating and lying over and over again. ]

	:::I find it ironic that you post something like this and accuse something else of being "propaganda" in the same breath. Propaganda, as I see it, is not about these claims being made or other claims being made (true or alleged). Propaganda is a frame of mind, it's the disgusting practice of trying to tell people what to think by presenting them with only one version of the truth, borne out of cowardly doublethink- being absolutely sure that a side of the issue is totally in the right while fearing that perfectly rational people might be swayed to the "wrong" side if they are presented with its position. Israel very probably has a position, an explanation, for each and every one of the incidents you mentioned. Are they GOOD explanations, are they true, are they false, are they merely flimsy excuses? Who knows. Here on Misplaced Pages is not our place to judge and most CERTAINLY not our place to reduce this controversy to a two-dimensional mockery of the true complexities of the situation, where one side is the sole source of all evil and is responsible for all the pain and death and lies and propaganda. This is the very thing that lies at the foundation of Misplaced Pages's NPoV policy, the part where we shut up and let the facts do the talking, even if we think that we could speak so much better on their behalf. It is for this same reason that though I've just read your speech, from which it all but follows that the people of my country are heartless, warmongering men without the least bit of sympathy for other human beings if they happen to be over the border, and though I /know/ that is not true, I will not fire up with virtuous speeches on its behalf. If there really are facts that show my perspective to be true, they will speak for themselves. And I will shut up. --] 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


	:You have one link that really doest prove much. Also, please be a member of wikipedia before you post your thoughts. Your post seems to be more of an opinon then a fair unbiased add to the article. Your jpos link is bull, you can't fool people on here, because we will actually check it out. This is not a forum to spew BS. ]22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== What is Terrorism? ===

	] is consisely defined by ] as:

	terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence)
	against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature;
	this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

	Hezbollah admits, nay, is quite unabashed about doing just that in the words of its envoy to Iran:

	:"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. We will expand attacks. The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave."

	Calling such ''deliberate targeting'' of civilians "terrorism" is not expressing a POV — it is stating a fact.

	Whether or not Israel does the same is irrelevant.
	] 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Exactly, and it gives another reason why we should take out milita and add terrorists. Zonerocks 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Israel shopuld be added as a Terrorist state...
	]

	===Timeline===

	This article rather bombastically states that ''"Triggered by a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling"''. This particular version of the timeline is disputed by many. is a good article by ] in the CIF section of The Guardian. ] 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Your "good article" link states:
	::The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture ''simply provided the excuse''. (emphasis mine)

	:Thus it is, in fact, correct to say, as the article currently does, that the response was ''triggered'' by the soldiers' capture. That Israel — having suffered steady stream of attacks for '''six years''' since its complete '''UN-certified''' withdrawal — had a plan prepared to respond ''for real'' (as opposite to pass the sound barrier above a village) at the time of their choosing, changes nothing.

	:Every country's military maintains plans for all plausible military operations, so that when the government decides to act, the military can do so in minutes.
	:] 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Lebanon claims IDF troops have captured around 350 Lebanese soldiers ===

	We should add this to the table in the front of the article. In the combatants section where it says lebanon and under where is says casualties, we need to add 350 lebanese soldiers captured in the lebanese city of Marj Ayoun. Here is an article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748556.html to support this claim. So let's act quick and add it, and let's think about adding it to the section: Israeli action. Hope we can have a good, and open discussion about it. --] 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::THIS USER, ], IS AN ISRAELI PROPGANDA ARTIST HERE; WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO MISLEAD EVERYONE ANDand HIDE ISRAELI WAR CRIMES AND ISRAELI TERRORISM! ]

	:::Your caps lock key appears to be stuck. --] 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Not Propaganda, but fact.
	get it through your one sided mind. Stop Whining, Stop being part of the probelm, and start being part of the solution. Release the straight jacket around your mind, and step away from partisan politics. I don't hate you, I don't despise you, I feel sorry for you. This talk is supposed to make the article better, and you have turned it into a political forum. --] 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:See ], wikipedia is not a rolling news channel. Also see ], wikipedia is not a propaganda broadcaster. Try not to get sucked into the reportage of journalists writing for one particular audience who want to hear about "victories" like the capture of soldiers. This wasnt how I read the story in other media. What was reported elsewhere was that the IDF showed up at the base, got some refreshments, left the base, came under fire from Hezbollah, then 'withdrew' to the base again. All the time the LA were in contact with media and arranging their depature with the UN. Hardly captured or POW.

	:"Two hundred Israeli soldiers returned to the city late Thursday to occupy a building inside the barracks, a senior Lebanese Army officer inside the base told AFP by phone. "They are occupying one building and we are in the other."

	:"United Nations peacekeepers were dispatched Friday to evacuate about 350 Lebanese soldiers and police detained by Israeli forces in Marjayoun after Israeli soldiers swept into the southern Lebanese town, the UN command said.. Israel said the force was not detained but had been advised not to leave for its own safety." ] 12:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::And Lebanese say? "The Lebanese Army and United Nations forces in southern Lebanon are trying to withdraw a joint Lebanese army and police force from Marjeyoun, after the Israeli army confined them to their barracks there. The Lebanese Interior Ministry said Thursday that around 400 Lebanese police were being '''held hostage''' by the Israeli troops, but Israel denied this and said a curfew had been imposed on the area, preventing the troops from leaving the barracks."

	::I think you/whoever will need to revert the infobox statistic change. ] 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Israeli Soldiers were captured NOT kidnapped ===

	For the last time, you don't kidnap uniformed soldiers conducting operations in enemy territory, you capture them, just like Israel CAPTURED 20 Hezbollah combatants - let's at least be fair here


	--] 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	* Israeli soldiers in Israel are operating in '''enemy''' territory?] 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Ok look The Concensus has decided that they were kidnapped, We could have a 'Concensus vote' if you would like to. --] 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Yes, that patrol was ambushed IN southern lebanon, before this invasion began
	--] 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	Israeli soldiers were patrolling the bluie line. they were taken from israel. there was NO declaration of war. Had Hezbollah done so, it could be called such. But, they chose to KIDNAP them during a somewhat peaceable time.--] 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured for this, among other reasons), the consensus is that Hezbollah crossed into Israel, attacked the soldiers on the Israeli side of the ], and took the soldiers back into Lebanon. The UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera have characterised the Hezbollah attack as "cross border." You can review more detailed citations at ] (déjà vu anyone). Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::If the Lebanese army had taken the Israeli soldiers, during a time of war, I would call them "captured". However, when somebody other than a country takes somebody, it's taking hostages or kidnapping them. This is especially true because they aren't likely to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, and may very well be tortured and executed. There is also no possibility that they would be returned "when the war ends", because Hezbollah will never end the war until Israel ceases to exist, which will never happen. Think of the reverse happening. What if some group of militant Jewish settlers went and grabbed a bunch of Palestinian Authority soldiers ? Would you say they were captured or taken hostage/kidnapped ? ] 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:::I support kidnapped because Hezbollah has already broken the Geneva Convention by attempting to use the soldiers for ransom (prisoner swap) which is against the Geneva Convention. Furthermore Hezbollah is an illegal entity according to the United Nations as per res 1559 as so there action are based on the illegal definition of the word, that being kidnapped. You can look up kidnap and capture, kidnapping is when there is a ransom ... there was a ransom in this situation. Political correctness aside, using captures is just the wrong word, kidnapped fits 100%. Furthermore threatening to kill soldiers of the other faction is also illegal against the Geneva Convention. The soldiers also within 1 week of capture have to be able to contact a neutral representative and their families have to be notified of how to contact them. More violations of the Geneva Convention. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Reference broken ===
	Reference 72 appears to be broken. The link should be.

	http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/30/lebano13881.htm

	Update: Appears this link has been removed altogether and is no longer referenced in the document? Why? ---]
	Nevermind I see its been moved to another page ]

	I have a question. How is it possible to start a war and report as motive two kidnapped soldiers? Now over 2,000 people have died. Now the rest of the world sits and watches Israel shred Lebanon to pieces. Hundreds of inocent people are dying. I'm not saying that terrorist shouldn't be dealt with, but the childern who died in the bombings had nothing to do with terrorists. How can we in a world of so called human rights sit back and watch as these inocent people are killed? How can an entire country be destroyed for a handfull of terrorist and two kidnapped soldiers? I am curious to here your opinions on this matter. I am sorry if a upset anyone but this is my personal impression on this issue.
	: "a handfull of terrorist and two kidnapped soldiers". What about the many thousands of missiles being fired across the border, which began before the soldiers were taken? I think the conclusion should be: "Don't attack your neighbor if you don't want him to fight back..." ] 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::: "a hand full of propganda artists and snakes are fooling the world, pretending to be peace loving, but reality want to take more land and have total control; these criminals all hide in Tel Aviv and are the real terrorists," Father Talmanous, U.S.A.
	]

	::::Yes, absolutely. "Mwahahahaha, yeeeessshhh, more land, total CONTROLLLL" is just about what passed through their heads when they authorized the ]. --] 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)



	This has turned into a political forum, This is un believeable. Fact is Hezbolah 'pre-emtively' struck first. Alright There will be no change. --] 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Read this about Israeli tactics from Israel; it is about Gaza but it shows you what the Israeli occupation army does with civilians;

	http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

	]



	:Judging by the link you just provided, it seems that all the Israeli terrorists are indeed hiding in Tel Aviv, maintaining such ambitions of conquest that sometimes they go all the way over into catatonic lapses where they mercilessly, constantly question their own actions with moral rhetoric. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been conducting no terrorist activities of territorially ambitious nature and thus enjoys an absolutely clean conscience, as evidenced in the glaring lack of similar voices on their side of the conflict. --] 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Actually the terrorists in Tel Aviv have been causing blood to run in the Middle East since they set foot in it. Israel's creation was because of terrorism; Israel was born out of terroris,. WHo bombed the King David Hotel? Who attacked British citizens and Palestinians to bush for the 1948 formation of Israel?

	:::]. To say that their actions were not uncontroversial would be an understatement; the majority, mainstream opinion of the Jewish people in then-Palestine ] and campaigned for the foundation of the Jewish state via negotiation with the British rather than violence (especially considering that during most of the time-frame in question the British were busy fighting Hitler, whom the people of Israel were not very fond of either). When the Etzel tried bringing in a ship full of firearms to Israel in 1948 so it can continue acting independently against the wishes of head of the provisional government ], he ]. Funny that this incident would be brought up, what with the interesting parallels to what the Lebanese government has been doing with its own renegade army-within-an-army, and whatnot. --] 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Message to AceMyth for editing ===
	Have you read my post about the 350 soldiers lebanon has said idf soldiers caught in that city. If you could read it and respond to me about what you think and if it should be added. --] 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Maybe you already added it..... So Kudos. But should we consider adding that operation to the bottom of the israel action section. Please respond. --] 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I will. I'm dead tired, but I will. BTW if you want to message me personally Misplaced Pages has "user talk" pages for that (mine, for example, is at ]. --] 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Ok, I understand. Were all tired, most of us have jobs beside 69.196.164.190 I mean im tired to. I understand. When i get sprotection then it will be easier as well. So enjoy yourself. Also thanks for the heads up about user talk. --] 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes Israelis yes, keep on acting and working together to put propaganda on this site; but you can not stop the truth from being seen. World opinion is growing and very soon in our life time it will be at the level will Israel will stop getting free weapons and military supplies for free (Israel is the biggest Leech-welfare state that recieves eveything for free and drains other nations economies).

	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imAvXIm_iuw

	]

	::Israel pays for its weaponry.

	::In fact, the United States preconditions all of its military aid to its chief ally in the Middle East on its acceptance that the equipment will come from American manufacturers.

	::Hezbollah, to the best of my knowledge, gets everything from its benefactors, i.e. Syria and the IRI, gratis.

	::Although, I suppose murdering Americans and Israelis, and destabilizing Lebanon, is recompense enough for the two chief rogue states in that region.

	] 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:YAAAAAA, Okay..you want to talk about rogue states; your living in one. Israel is the most disliked state in the world by the masses and if you think not you need a reality check. ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST REGIME AND STATE! It is an illegal state that was created to steal money by the Zionists. '''No real and practiciny Jew supports Israel.'''
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY

	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTd08SPfckg

	Look I don;t want insult you and I know you are an Israeli, but this is the truth. This violance must be stopped and you following the state line of the Israeli regime is not helping.

	]

	:"The masses are asses."

	:I'll give you a Canadian dollar if you can tell me whence that quote originated.

	:By the way, I'm not Israeli, and have never been to Israel.

	:But feel free to throw around ignorant generalizations, and continue to exhibit your general lack of knowledge about this subject.

	:It's quite amusing, if not edifying.

	] 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:And yes, I'm quite familiar with the Naturei Kartei nutbars and their unique, bizarre interpretation of Satmar Judaism.

	:In fact, I've counterprotested them-along with the rest of the "Death to Israel, Death To America" brigades-at the Salute To Israel Day Parade, so I'm not really sure what posting a video of their inane, semi-coherent ramblings is intended to accomplish.

	:Yes, Youtube is a wonderful website, where people can upload videos.

	:Now, would you care to support any of the baseless accusations you've made thus far?

	:Just curious.

	] 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


	To clarify: I will look into the sources that are provided, judge them against ] and edit them in if appropriate. When I feel like it. I am a procrastinator of the worst kind. --] 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== When can we start calling this a war? ===

	--] 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Have they formally declared war on each other yet? ] 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I think Israel is, with the exceptions of Mauritania, Jordan, and Egypt, technically speaking, at war with the entire Arab League.

	:In other words, it's never reached any sort of peace accord with its enemies, and the situation remains static, a la the 38th parallel that divides North and South Korea.

	:I know that there have been a series of armistices and truces-the last of which was reached in 1996, IIRC-but I don't think there is any existing peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon.

	] 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	: greasysteve, look at the beginning of the conversation webpage and you will see that we are currently having a vote on renaming the title. --] 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== hizbullah did not start this conflict! ===

	The history of this conflict is not only 4 weeks for you to say that hizbullah started, you cannot choose to say who started because you sympathize with the israeli's! This article is very biased! I will be editing this article to not only show the hizbullah point of view, but also the views of hte muslims, arabs, palestinians, and lebanese! also, who put the protect tag on there, obviously not an admin because editing is till possible. for the record, im not muslim, so i think im pretty neutral, however, the pro israeli POV disgusts me.] 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Wow.

	:Those declamatory exclamation marks sure do constitute an irrefutable argument.

	:My bad.

	:It was the fault of the J0000zzze.

	] 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== The protect tag ===

	Im about to take the tag off because its useless. only admins can put on protect tags that actually work. anything anyone has to say before I do? i'll wait awhile. ] 05:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:"i think i'm pretty neutral."

	:Well, you think wrongly.

	:Also, the article is "semi-protected," which means that most users-although not all-can edit it.

	:I think your confusion stems from that distinction.

	:There are various layers of protection, with "protection," i.e. the inability of anyone who is not an administrator to edit an article, being the most stringent among them.

	:That's what you see with extraordinarily controversial, easily vandalized subjects. For example, the article on President George W. Bush.

	:I'm not sure, but I think only a few dozen articles have achieved the dubious distinction of being fully "protected."

	] 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Ruth I reported his nick so he should get blocked within a few hours. khosrow, your a liar, your iranian. lol says it in your profile. --] 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	The article is protected, by an admin - ]. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=68050390&oldid=68050316

	I've already requested the page be unprotected. ] 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't think it is right. ] 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::@ zonerocks: what are you talking about? why should i get blocked because im iranian? yes, im iranian, but im not muslim, and not being muslim nor jewish mkaes all the difference for an article like this. i dont sympathize with either side really. you want to get me blocked because im iranian? i never said i wasnt iranian, i said i wasnt muslim. are you a racist or you just assume people are muslim by their nationality? whats next, your going to call me an anti semite because i think israel is too blame for this conflict just as much as hizbullah? my profile is open for everyone to see, why would i lie about something? i never even lied in the first place because i never said i wasnt iranian. i dont think a person obviously as racist as you for wanting to ban someone because they're iranian should be participating in this article, your obviously biased.] 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	::::Who said you should be blocked because you are iranian? I think you need to just step back and take a deep breath --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Environmental consequences of attacks ===

	I cannot access that sources (81 and 82) regarding the forrest fire in Israel. PJ 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:#81-for some inexplicable reason-tracks back to the Misplaced Pages entry on the British Broadcasting Corporation, instead of an actual BBC report on the fires.

	:#82 is a link to an online version of a New York Times' article.

	:You'll need to register with the site in order to access it.

	]



	=== Iranian Aid for Hizbollah ===
	It is always stated that iran is providing aid to hizbollah in form of arms or finance but nobody stated that israel gets the largest aid from USA than anyother country in the world and USA is the main arm supplier to Israil.
	] 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:I think Iran is mentioned because Iran denies it, though even some government officials say its true, therefore creating a notable situation. Where as the US and Israel are open about their support. Also according to the UN at least, Israel is a state and Hezbollah is a illegal militia operating within the country of Lebanon. Supporting an illegal entity is a little more notable then supporting a legal one. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	By The way Hizbollah has never been an illegal millitia it takes part in elections and have a certain no of seats in Lebanese parliament and has also shown its existence in the Lebanese cabinet.
	--] 10:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Umm wrong, according to the UN in resolution 1559 all militias in Lebanon were to be disbanded and disarmed. Having seats anywhere doesnt make you not illegal, its almost like saying Hamas isnt a terrorist organization, they just blow up civilians in between their daily government duties. There is no such thing as a legal militia in Lebanon according to SC res 1559. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	It is mentioned - "Further, the United States authorized Israel's request for the expedited processing and shipment of precision-guided bombs to Israel. The United States did not announce the shipment publicly." Don't ask me why anyone think either is relevent, or why the U.S thinks it's fine to fund Israel, but not fine for Iran to fund Hezbollah. ] 11:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	*Fact is that we have put that, and we put Iran denied it. If you think the usa thing should be in the article, well then bring up a new section in this talk page for open discussion. --] 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	=== Who is Terrorist ===
	What was ], the first ever terrorist organization of modern world which later formed the most part of Isareli Army and there is long list of its terrorist activities pls see ].
	--Abulfazl 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, Irgun and Lehi organization may be called "terrorist", but not the ]. Irgun came out from Haganah bacause Haganah were not terrorists, and Lehi came out of Irgun, because they were even more radical. ] 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	::And none of this is really relevant to the issue in the article except to call the Israeli army terrorists. This isnt a political forum, please stop spamming this page with non article related information. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	== IDF allows 400 Lebanese security forces to leave Marjayoun ==

	] 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Tasc deletions==
	I must have missed the discussion. Tasc deleted a lot of material (twice.) Was there a consensus reached that the material does not belong in the article? Or is it just POV censorship? Thanks. ] 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Isn't it pov censorship to claim that those links 'encyclopedic and verifiable'? -- <strong>]</strong> <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Today's reversions by Tasc: at 11:11, at 12:54, and at 13:20. Isn't there some Misplaced Pages policy about that behavior?] 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:of course there are! plenty of them! wanna play? -- <strong>]</strong> <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	Sorry, not into template placing as a video game substitute, and I do not see editing Misplaced Pages as playing. I see from your talk page that you have been banned several times for 3RR violations, so perhaps you don't mind it.] 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:when i had 700 hundreds edits I haven't been banned a single time. ;) -- <strong>]</strong> <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	Please see the arbitration page ] on this longstanding problem and make a statement there if you have something relevant to add. I also note here ]'s deletion of these relevant links (, , ) to Israeli and Lebanese online journals, weblogs, and news service photographs, who states in the comment field,
	:*""
	:*""
	:*""
	This action has been longstanding and has been done while consistently disregarding or mocking the talk, mediation, and now arbitration processes. ] 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Links to blogs and onlien journals should be removed. They are not suitable points of reference. If people want blogs and online journals they can search google for them. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	::The salient question is if the external links satisfy Misplaced Pages's policy ]. It is argued that they are relevent, high quality, and provide a unique resource; therefore, they satisfy several of the exceptions explicitly listed under ], only one of which is needed to consider their inclusion. ] 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	'''Links normally to be avoided'''
	*'''Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard. '''
	That is from WP:EL, thank you for pointing me there. Also it fails the verifiable content point in when something should be included. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Adam! stop it. don't please talk to us as you're a bot. and don't add links into edit summary, there is no single solution or approval of your pov pushing! -- <strong>]</strong> <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:You need to be very careful about linking to blogs. ] states: ''"Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."'' The "high standard" criterion is set out further up ], which permits linking to ''"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article."'' Note that this requires a site to be neutral '''and''' accurate. An accurate but partisan blog is not eligible for linking. Hope this helps. -- ] 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	::You need to be careful about reading the policy selectively. Under your reading, an external link to the non-neutral POV website could not be included in the article ], which is, of course, absurd. It is just as absurd not to provide links in an article on the ] to online journals, blogs, and news service photographs of the ]. ] 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Lebanese citizens in Israeli hands ==

	What is the total number of Lebanese POWs in Israeli prisons? Does anyone have an exact figure?
	--] 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Shi'a page==
	look, even the non-political ] changed their main page due to the genocide: http://www.al-islam.org/ --] 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
	:I dont understand what your point is in relation to the article, can you please write it out completely, if this is not related directly toward editing the article can you please move the discussion to user talk space where its more appropriate. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	== What's the point of enviromental part ==

	Im against having a enviromental part. There are parts of the article that need to be cleaned. This should be the thing that is cleaned up. The enviromental issue is a waste of space on this article. Let's be smart and get rid of this part. It is absolutely irrelevent. This is just to move someone's take on the enviromental issue. I hope we can have a good debate about this, and then maybe move to have a general census on the issue. --] 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	:That's a pretty daft argument. All wars have damaging effects on the environment. This one is no exception - it's led to one of the biggest oil spills ever seen in the Mediterranean, which is already affecting two countries and may affect two more . The issue is one of transnational importance and more than justifies inclusion in this article. -- ] 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	: First of all, these things should be implemented in the israeli or hizbollah action parts. --] 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Lebanese Casualties ==

	From Archive:

	As of 2/3 August:
	* attributes Lebanese government with "828 of its civilians"
	* cites the Health Minister's 750
	* attributes to Lebanese government "603 civilians and soldiers" & "2,145 others" wounded
	* "At least 548 Lebanese have been killed since the fighting began three weeks ago, including 477 civilians and 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 46 Hezbollah guerrillas."

	I am reverting to the 577 figure from the 828. I again stress that we either list the best (objective) numbers that distinguish civilians, or remove the civilian qualification and attribute the Lebanese gov't (a solution which has been opposed by several). <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	But none of those links support that figure. also has the 828, so that makes two for it. --] 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	:You are correct. The first three numbers are attributed to the Lebanese government, and do not distinguish between civilians and others. The CBS/AP number (548 Lebanese, 477 civilians) is the only one that does that, but Paraphelion's previous calculation's came out with a higher number for civilians (577). Like I said before, we cannot list the 828 number as either a civilian count or an objective number. Could you suggest a different way to approach this? Let me know, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	I'd say the only possible way at the moment would be a "between" number, ie, 477 - 828, which covers the range. That, or we see how many news articles (in the last two/three days) with numbers we can find and go for the most popular. --] 07:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	Is there a reason why we need a source that distinguishes between civilians, rather than just subtracting the number of combatants from the total dead ourselves? Are the number of dead combatants unreliable? If so, why are we using them? There are numbers available from Reuters for total Lebanese dead that are less than 3 hours old (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5242732.stm). Why should we be using 5 day old data? - 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	:The casualty figures given by Lebanese government are now reported as 828 ->

	:"Yesterday the Lebanese government said '''that of the 828 of its civilians killed in the conflict so far''', around 35% have been children - that's around 290. Unicef also estimates that about a third of the dead have been children, although it bases that figure on the fact that an estimated 30% of Lebanon's population are children, rather than any actual count of the dead. There are no official figures yet for the number of wounded children, but they will certainly exceed the number killed; as for those displaced, Unicef says that 45% of the estimated 900,000 Lebanese to have fled their homes are children."

	:"The death toll in Lebanon stands at 828, with some 200 bodies yet to be recovered, according to the country's government." ] 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

	====Update====
	Update as of 11 August:
	*: "Civilians: 1,009 killed (based on Lebanese government estimates"
	*: "More than 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians...Lebanon says" no distinction of civilians
	*: "861 Lebanese, mostly civilians, according to authorities in " no distinction of civilians
	*: "727 on the Lebanese side" no distinction of civilians

	These numbers raise the same issues as before, namely that there isn't a minimum figure for civilians killed (and thus the "civilians" qualification is problematic). Suggestions? <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Casualty table removed... ==

	I disagree with this. While casualties are listed as part of the main table for the article, these numbers are confused and often very different from what other media is reporting. The table of casualties gives a good break down by nationality, as well as brief explanation and sources. Casualties are VERY important in war, both as a measure of how large the conflict is, and as a central discussion for a variety of other issues (bombing of civilians, civilian aid, etc). Even the International Reaction section has more text than the casualty section, which is merely a link! Casualties should be one of the most important things on this page, and should absolutely have its own section of text as part of the article. Cut something else thats less important, I'd say. (I dont know enough about the working of tables and such to make the change myself, otherwise I would do so). ] 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


	==Index of Illegal Weapons Used Illegally by Israel against civilians in Lebanon==

	Index of Illegal Weapons in Lebanon based on the research and work of Sarah Meyer ]

	'''The Geneva Conventions

	'''Protocol I, Article 85, Section 3 of the Geneva Convention: "An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions."


	===Cluster Bombs, DU Bunker Busters and Phosphorus Bombs===

	* Amnesty International: http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE150702006

	* Relief Web: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EKOI-6RY3TR?OpenDocument
	''According to several witness accounts, cluster bombs may have been used by the Israeli forces over the last few days in south Lebanon, particularly in the southern suburbs of Beirut.The Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) reports that the Israeli government has announced that it is reserving the right to use cluster bombs in its current intervention in Lebanon.'' '''Handicap International is concerned about the possible use of landmines and cluster bombs in Lebanon.'''

	* International Red Cross: http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=24988&s2=25

	* Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm
	'''Israeli's targeting civilians with cluster bombs.''' ''Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when used around civilians. They should never be used in populated areas.''

	* Human Rights, Electronic Intifida: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4958.shtml


	* Kurt Nimmo: http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=24842&s2=21
	* Israel's Use of Chemical Weapons: http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview1.htm
	''Excellent short precis of illicit weapons. “Israel has plenty of other weapons, gratis the United States and its own burgeoning weapons program, but it appears it prefers to augment its arsenal with chemical weapons.” Israelis adopt poison gas ‘fashion.’ See Nimmo’s referenced url: Overview: Israel’s use of Chemical Weapons.

	* As-Safir Newspaper, Lebanon (Pictures of Strange Burns): http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=24885&s2=21

	* W. Madsen Report & Centre for Research on Globalization : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060723&articleId=2800
	W. Madsen Report / GlobalResearch.ca. “U.S. military intelligence sources have told WMR that the artillery shell shown below being used by an Israel Defense Force member in Lebanon, is a type of dual and multi-use weapon the neocons falsely accused Saddam Hussein of possessing. Although the canister artillery shell is marketed as an anti-land mine fuel-air bomb, its payload can also include the chemicals used in thermobaric bombs, white phosphorous weapons, and chemical weapons.” Photos. Chemical Weapons used against Lebanese Civilians.

	* Al-Hayat: http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/07-2006/Article-20060726-aa79e8cc-c0a8-10ed-01ce-4de84089082b/story.html
	Lebanon's Children and Israeli Phosphorous Bombs

	* Professor M. Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization: http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=24922&s2=23
	A look at Israeli war crimes and illegal weapons use on civilians with no connection to Hezbollah

	* Robert Fisk: http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07292006.html
	Robert Frisk is one of the most respected journalists in Europe and the world.
	'''Shredded by Cluster Bombs: Bush and Blair: "Keep It Up!"'''

	* Pulse: http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2615
	Israel is using phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs against civilians. Letter from retired U.S. Senator on the invasion of Lebanon that condemns the crimes of Israel and acknowledges the use of illegal weaponry

	* Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060727/hl_afp/mideastconflictgaza_060727170554&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;printer=1;_ylt=A9FJqZZn8spEwJwAYAeKOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE
	'''Mysterious wounds from Israeli shells'''

	* Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11762
	'''Israel uses cluster bombs in Israel.'''

	* Reuters/ Media Channel: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-27T085451Z_01_L27557477_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-BELGIUM.xml&WTmodLoc=
	'''Belgian couple to accuse Israel of war crimes

	* Inter Press News Service Agency:http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34132
	'''BEIRUT, Jul 28 (IPS) - The Israeli military is using illegal weapons against civilians in southern Lebanon, according to several reports.'''

	* The Age (Australia): http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/doctors-suspect-chemical-weapons/2006/07/27/1153816320620.html
	''reports from doctors that Israel has used weapons in its bombardment of southern Lebanon that have caused wounds they have never seen before. Doctors suspect chemical weapons.''



	WAR CRIME

	The Geneva Conventions

	GENEVA CONVENTION I
	(Protection for sick and wounded combatants on land)

	Article 19: Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked.

	Article 24: Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

	* Bella Ciao: http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=12869
	'''Israel using Depleted Uranium in Lebanon - Melbourne Stop the War Hiroshima Day media statement



	=== Videos Demonstrating the Roots of the Issue & Israeli Breaches of Law and Peace ===

	'''A video Israel does not want you to see'''
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

	'''British MP talking about the Roots of the Conflict'''
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQFrBrmaQBY&mode=related&search=

	'''The Roots of the Problem'''
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVBIzu4YvnE


	]

Latest revision as of 04:30, 4 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Lebanon War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

2006 Lebanon War was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
September 9, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
September 21, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 11, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 14, 2009, August 14, 2010, and August 14, 2013.
Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Israel High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Lebanon High‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lars Adaktusson as a neutral source

In the Media coverage section, there's a section where Lars Adaktusson is used a source with him only being described as a journalist. Adaktusson is in fact the current chairman of the Sweden-Israel Friendship Association and was previously the chair of pro-Israel lobby organisation European Israel Public Affairs. I feel this information should be included if he is used as a source. Conspiracy Raven (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

End date

Ceasefire was August 14, but the war officially ended on September 8 just saying that info box should include that. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Misspelling of hezbollah under "hezbullah prisoners"

title says it all Shrub4TheDub (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Add Lebanese Armed Forces to infobox?

There seemed to have been several confrontations between Israeli army and Lebanon army during the war:

Israel attacked Lebanese Army Barracks.
Israel attacked Lebanese Air Force base
Lebanese army opened fire on Israeli helicopters trying to land
According to this source, supposedly 49 Lebanese soldiers were killed.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, neither Israel nor Lebanon said they were at war with eachother. If they were, surely there would've been a lot more attacks than these few incidents. There were similar incidents between Israeli and UNIFIL soldiers, but we don't name UNIFIL as a belligerent. Your source for the airbase strike says that it "could draw the Lebanese army into Israel's war with Hizbullah guerrillas". We'd need something from Israeli or Lebanese officials, or from mainstream news outlets, saying that they were actually at war with eachother. – Asarlaí 09:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The above sources are all reliable as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream outlets". Secondly, many times in history countries often participate in a conflict without declaring they are. No one is saying that Lebanon declared war on Israel but rather, the Lebanese forces participated in the conflict as a belligerent. In fact, the infobox currently lists Iran as a belligerent even though Iran did not explicity declare war on Israel, nor vice versa. Finally, 43 dead Lebanese soldiers is too large an amount to simply ignore.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It is really unfortunate that this discussion is being spread across several talk pages simultaneously. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No need for a long discussion. Take the tag and put the sources in its place.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It is original research to suggest that the LAF was a belligerent over a few isolated incidents. Do we add UNIFIL as a belligerent in the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) too, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we take that conversation to Talk: South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, what exactly does the word "combatant" mean to you? If it implies being engaged in combat, then RS support that. Or are you suggesting that declaration of war must always be a requirement for being included in the infobox? Finally, can you also comment on the fact that the infobox also includes Iran, Amal militia and even Islamic Courts Union as combatants? The Lebanese Army lost more soldiers than all three of these parties combined. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Mikrobølgeovn. If there are no sources supporting the claim that Lebanon's army was a belligerent, adding it based on personal opinion or analysis would violate WP:SYNTH and be a own research. I'm removing it. PeleYoetz (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Sockpuppet.

I looked into the Human Rights Watch investigation, which concluded that "Insofar as Israel was a war with Lebanon, Lebanese army soldiers are combatants under international humanitarian law." In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who has considered Israel's killing of Lebanese soldiers to be a war crime.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

The lede has major POV issues. It gives only six lone sentences to the Israeli role in attacking Hezbollah, Lebanon and Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and dedicates the entirety of the last lede paragraph (which should focus on legacy of that war) on how -repetitively- no one disarmed Hezbollah. There is also POV language how "Israel responded" and "Hezbollah then launched." Nine sentences are dedicated to highlight how the war started with Hezbollah's actions. These are the actionable things that needs to be addressed for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the article has issues and this is a pretty wideranging edit by Galamore without much of an explanation. It should be reverted. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like they just went ahead and reverted several users' edits perhaps because they didn't like one or two things, which seems disruptive to me.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we can restore the previous second lede paragraph as more neutral, at least relatively speaking. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've undone that change and restored the second lede paragraph. I agree its more neutral.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the second lead paragraph to the long-standing version because the new one introduced POV issues and odd framing. Hezbollah's aims since 2000 based on one analysis aren't lead-worthy in an article on a war. This paragraph should focus on events immediately leading to the start of the war, not interpretations of Hezbollah's strategy since 2000. PeleYoetz (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would Hezbollah's military objectives not be relevant? It sure feels more relevant than mentioning the brand of vehicle Israeli soldiers were in (Humvee) that you added. I already gave one scholarly source:

Wahab, Hadi (2022). Hezbollah:A Regional Armed Non-State Actor. Taylor & Francis. p. 69.

Here are some more scholarly sources:

"After 2000, Hezbollah entertained this legitimation by pointing to issues relating to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict that remain unresolved—namely, the area designated as Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba Heights, occupied since 1967; the Lebanese prisoners detained by Israel...The party’s prestige was enhanced by the prisoner deal that took place in January 2004, through which Hezbollah obtained from Israel the liberation of 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, as well as the mortal remains of close to 60 militants, in exchange for 1 Israeli hostage and the bodies of 3 soldiers. This operation confirmed the party’s conviction that the only way to obtain the liberation of the Lebanese prisoners still held in Israel—among them Samir Kuntar, detained since 1979 as a result of his participation in a commando attack by the Palestine Liberation Front—is to exchange them for Israeli hostages. (p28)" "The hostage Taking of July 12, 2006: Keen on defending the Lebanese legitimacy of its ar- mament, Hezbollah raised its voice over two issues in particular: the Shebaa Farms and the Lebanese pris- oners held in Israel. In a speech delivered on April 24, 2006, at a ceremony marking the twenty-eighth anniversary of Samir Kuntar’s detention, Hassan Nasrallah pledged publicly to act for the liberation of the detainee, announcing that it would take place “very very very soon” and hinting at an imminent “resistance action” toward this end. (p31-32)"
- Achcar, Gilbert; Warschawski, Michel (2015). The 33-day war: Israel's war on Hezbollah in Lebanon and its consequences. Taylor & Francis.
"Hezbollah’s attempt to redeem its wa‘d al-sadiq (“faithful promise”) to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails...Hezbollah’s dramatic operation of July 12, 2006, was yet another attempt to deliver on its wa‘d al-sadiq."
- Norton, Augustus R. (2018). Hezbollah: a short history (Updated and expanded third ed.). Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press. pp. 120–121. ISBN 9780691180885.
"For years, Hezbollah had attempted to carry out Nasrallah's wa'd al-sadiq (faithful promise) to liberate Lebanese fighters still held in Israeli jails."
- Matthews, Matt (2008). We were caught unprepared: the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War. Fort Leavenworth, Kan: Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center. p. 28-29. ISBN 9780160798993.
"Dubbed “Operation Truthful Promise” by Hezbollah, the raid fulfilled Hezbollah leader’s Hassan Nasrallah’s longstanding aim to take IDF soldiers hostage in order to pressure Israel to release remaining Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons, and to seek the return of the disputed Israeli-occupied Sheba` Farms area to Lebanese control. Immediately following the raid, Hezbollah stated that it would return the abducted soldiers to Israel through “indirect negotiations” resulting in a “trade” with Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli prisons."
- Why They Died: Civilian Casualties in Lebanon During the 2006 War. Human Rights Watch. 2007. p. 37.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the banned sock's reversion of the second lede paragraph, but it still needs work. VR, seems you have read up on this war, so it could use a review from your side. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"Why They Died". Human Rights Watch. 5 September 2007.

Categories: