Talk:2006 Lebanon War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:40, 21 October 2006 editWill314159 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,688 edits →Who Won the War ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:30, 4 November 2024 edit undoVice regent (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,041 edits →Add Lebanese Armed Forces to infobox?
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Talkheader~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{WPMILHIST
			{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
	\|class=B
			{{Article history
	}}
			\|action1=GAN
	{{calm talk}}
			\|action1date=5 January 2007
	{{Controversial3}}
			\|action1result=failed
	{\| class="infobox" width="300"
	\|-
	!align="center" colspan="4"\|]
	]
	----
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|-
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|]
	\|
	\|-
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
	] 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)]]

			\|action2=GAN
			\|action2date=9 May 2007
			\|action2oldid=129162794
			\|action2result=listed

			\|action3=GAR
	==Earlier discussions==
			\|action3date=9 September 2007
	*]
			\|action3result=kept
	**Screwed up Voting
			\|action3oldid=156798093
	**Palestinian Exodus in background
	**What the hell?
	**Fulfillment of Request
	**Hezbollah number
	**Don't understand these edits...
	**Cluster bombs
	**Order of sections
	**Israeli withdrawl
	**Targets in civilian areas
	**Siniora plan in Lebanon's position
	**Kosmopolis edits
	**To Isarig, why do you keep reverting my edit
	**Contentious edits by 4.237.227.253
	**Ethics and Organisational Effects
	**Anon comment
	**background

			\|action4=GAR
	Please do not modify these archived discussions.
			\|action4date=22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
	----
			\|action4link=Talk:2006 Lebanon War/GA1
			\|action4result=kept
			\|action4oldid=386142774

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

			\|currentstatus=DGA
	The results are:
			\|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
	* 2006 - '''10 support''' (1 oppose)
			\|target=Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive index
	* of 2006 - '''0 support'''
			\|mask1=Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive <#>
	* (2006) - '''2 support'''
			\|mask2=Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive <#>

			\|leading_zeros=0
	* Israel-Lebanon - '''19 Support'''
			\|indexhere=yes}}
	* Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah - '''0 Support'''
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	* Israel-Hezbollah - '''18 Support'''
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}

			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	* conflict - '''15 Suppport'''
			\|counter = 49
	* war - '''19 Support'''
			\|minthreadsleft = 5

			\|algo = old(90d)
	Result - 2006 - Supported, the others no consensus. Title to remain. If you want to raise the naming issue again, please take this into consideration first. ] 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
			\|archive = Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive %(counter)d
	:The "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" option won, I'm changing the title of the article. Why hasn't this been done already? --] 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
			}}
	::Why can't I move the article? --] 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

	It didn't 'win' - consensus is required to change the name of an article, not a simple majority, and 19:15 is not consensus. You can't move it because the page is protected from moves to prevent people making hasty changes. See ] for more information on moving protected pages. Please don't ask them to move it - you're not going to get a consensus for a while. ] 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

	:And how many per cent is required to reach consensus? 90? 99? 100? {{unsigned\|The monkeyhate}}
	::The reviewing administrator is supposed to consider the arguments as well as the counts. The last time I looked at the counts there was a weak majority (not a consensus by any standard) for "war" and a weak consensus for Hezbollah vs. Lebanon. Now it's changed (if those counts are correct) to a very weak consensus for "war" and a slight majority for "Lebanon". No reason to move, as long as all the plausible article titles redirect here. {{unsigned\|Arthur Rubin}}

	If we cannot name it ] b/c it's only supported by 19 votes, why can we name it 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which get less votes?

	:Monkeyhate - Technically, 100% (but thats not how it works here) from ] - ''While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. In activities such as Requests for Adminship, Articles for Deletion or Requested Moves, consensus-building becomes unwieldy due to the sheer number of contributors/discussions involved.... The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Misplaced Pages community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Misplaced Pages-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority '''vary from about 60% to over 80%''' depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds.'' - ] uses over 60%, and 19/15 = 55:45. ] 22:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)



	==Attacks on civilians section==

	I've shortened this section - it is only supposed to be a summary of the sub article it belongs to, but as time goes by, people keep addding more and more to it. I've tried to keep the balance as much as possible, but if anyone thinks it is too unblanced, please fix it, and try not to lengthen it too much. ] 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Some relevant parts got lost (e.g. every mention of "war crimes"), but I have not looked into that in detail. And please take care that those passages actually are in the subarticles before deleting on a grand scale. The main article is not a subset of the subarticles combined. <b>]</b> (]) 04:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

	::Mention of war crimes added, and as far as I can tell everything that I removed is still in the subarticle. ] 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

	:::Yes, because I added it. <b>]</b> (]) 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

	Initially this section claimed that 1,187 Lebanese '''civilians''' were killed. In fact, according to most media sources (which apparently are basing their number on the Lebanese Higher Relief Council), that number represents the '''total''' Lebanese fatalities. See, for example,

	Agence France Presse, Sept 26, 2006: "The conflict between Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and the Israeli armed forces killed 1,187 people and left 4,092 wounded in Lebanon ..."

	US Fed News, Aug. 25: "The United Nations issued the following press release: The following has been prepared by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA): * 1,187 dead and 4,060 wounded (Lebanese Higher Relief Council (HRC))." ] 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Background rewrite ==
	I've rewritten the background again. -- ] 04:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
	:I have as well. Aside from removing the focus on the 1948 refugees (which I detail below, which is probably where we should continue discussion for this page on that issue), I also clarified the nature of combat between PLO and IDF (which came across as awkward to me), noted that the PLO was only one of the causes of the Civil War, and clarified the causes of the Israeli withdrawal. The Hezbollah didn't force anyone's surrender outright, but as the Israeli political echelon began to publicly discuss leaving Lebanon, SLA got very antsy due to being kept largely in the dark, and when some Shia units started flipping the whole enterprise became a house of cards, which is part of the reason the Israeli forces left so hastily. I also rephrased the last part to imply that Israel's presence in Shebaa was not in conflict with its obligations vis-a-vis Lebanon (ie the UN required withdrawal to the Blue Line, which Shebaa isn't included in). <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
	::I rewrote several of the sentences to flow smoother, and to keep the focus on the background, and not any specific phase of the history, including adding a mention of the Syrian presence. If you still feel the refugees deserve mention, then lets continue our discussion below (where I give a brief summary to the previous discussion). I took out the reference to the PLO revolution in Jordan, as the interested reader can follow the Black September link. I reinstated your earlier passage about the National Pact, and changed Hezbollah from a "resistance movement" to a more NPOV "militia," as well as changing the double 'calling' phrasing. I tried to implicitly clarify that the Shebaa Farms weren't in dispute at the time so much as they were part of Hezbollah's post withdrawal raison d'être. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::If you aren't going to allow the explanation of why the PLO was operating out of Lebanon, then the PLO should be left out entirely. I'll remove the pre 1982 background. -- ] 06:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
	Assuming that the reasons they were operating out of Lebanon were somehow unclear (though I don't understand how not saying they recruited in part from the 48-9 refugees does that), that would still not be a reason to remove all the parts of their involvement that were clearly relevant (and which we agree on). I invited you above to continue discussing the specific point of the refugees below, as well as on your Talk. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 07:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

	<small>(I moved this from below for convenience, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC))</small>

	I've removed discussion of the Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organization from the background. I believe a brief historical background which included the history of Palestinian militancy would need to include some mention of what they were fighting for, so as not to introduce an anti-Palestinian POV. However, any mention of the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon is consistantly deleted from the article, with the claim that it is not relevant to this conflict. So I will wear a black hat and ensure a more restrictive view of relevancy to the background, and edit appropriately. -- ] 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

	:If your edit-summary saying that you were told the PLO is irrelevant is based on your understanding of my statements, then you have very much misunderstood me, as I have never said anything remotely like that. In any event, cutting out the first half of the background makes no sense as it leaves the reader with no understanding of the second half, and is totally unjustified in light of your disagreement on ''one line''. I've asked several times this week that you continue the discussion about why you feel the line should be added, but all I've gotten are two arguments that you never mentioned before, one of them in your reversion edit-summary. You now say that mentioning that the PLO recruited in part from 1948 refugees (in 1968-70) should be included because that 1) somehow explains what the PLO was fighting for, and 2) that not including that establishes anti-PLO POV. You alternatively said in your edit-summary, as I mentioned before, that 3) the PLO is not relevant to the conflict. In the past discussions you said that we need to mention them because 4) they were a source of recruits, and before that, because 5) they provided provisions to the PLO. My responses are as follows: 5) and other groups supplied arms, should we include them? Other militias may have been supplied by their ethnic groups, should we also include all of them? 4) Similarly, we don't mention the source of recruits for other militias, I think it is clear that the PLO is Palestinian oriented, as its name declares. 3) I totally don't understand why you now would suddenly think that the PLO is not relevant, especially as both Israeli invasions into Lebanon were aimed at them. 1) Could you also explain how mentioning that the PLO recruited in part from the Palestinian refugees that arrived in Lebanon in '48-9 explains what they are fighting for? Assuming it did, since when do we have to explain the PLO's ideological platform - we don't explain anyone else's; this brief summary is supposed to explain who did what (PLO attacks Israel, Israel invades Lebanon), unless you are trying to tie this conflict to Israel's founding (which you hinted at in the initial formulations), which ''is'' out of its scope. As for the 2) contention that not saying all this establishes anti-PLO POV, that would only be so if you believed that mentioning the refugees serves as a justification for the PLO attacks on Israel, which you in any event don't claim. The total of what you believe should go in which I don't is: ''Militants were recruited in Lebanon by the ] (PLO) from the descendants of ] who had left Israel in ], and by ] PLO militants were conducting attacks into Israel from Lebanon'' VS ''] (PLO), which had been carrying out attacks from Lebanon into Israel since ]'' - I reiterate my invitation to Talk. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) -- Postscript: The replies you left on my Talk were exteremly unclear, please try to answer in a detailed manner so that we can once and for all resolve this.

	I see this as very simple. A refugee picks up a gun, and thus becomes a militant. A militant puts down his gun, and he becomes a refugee again. This is not some magic trick. This is not the ], or an irreversible ] of the heart. You keep claiming that the militant is relevant while the refugee is not. It is of little importance, furthermore, where the gun came from. What is important, rather, is that refugee is there and willing to pick it up. If his reason for picking up the gun is because he is a refugee, and his ire is directed towards those, whom he perceives, made him a refugee, a passing mention of what his unarmed status is in the world shouldn't be beyond the pale, nor would it be to date the appromiate year he or his forbears became refugees. I reject the contention that only a man with a gun can have relevancy in history. -- ] 07:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	:The Palestinian case and its rationale are amply discussed on pages like ], which is a wikilink in this article's background. There is still no reason to have a line discuss who the PLO recruited from, much less to include that point in the hope that it somehow implies the rationale for the PLO actions. As an aside, I don't see how it is 'suppressing information' to not state explicitly that the "''Palestine'' Liberation Organization" recruited from Palestinians, as not saying that Amal or Hezbollah (Shi'a groups) recruited from Shi'a, Maronite from Maronite, or Druze from Druze in their brief mention is also not 'suppressing.' <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Palestians aren't Lebanonese, that's why. Sorry, one of us will get tired sooner or later. -- ] 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	Neither of us needs to get tired - we need to engage in discussion. So far you have presented several different reasons, and I believe I responded fully to each of them. While I still disagree that the basic reader won't understand from the context that the "Palestine Liberation Organisation" has something to do with Palestinians, the point that you were responding to was an aside (as I said clearly). You have not shown why we must say explicitly from whom the PLO recruited (as opposed to everyone else), though you have hinted that it is some implicit representation of the Palestinian case. As I said above, there is no reason to make that case here, but there is less reason to just present some facts in the hopes that it implicitly presents a case that we wouldn't present explicitly. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Why you are so against presenting any background on the PLO? Why can't this be presented fairly as not an indigineous Lebanese group? -- ] 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Mostly because I've answered each of your differing argument as you presented them, and you haven't really addressed my points. Additionally, this seems to be more about somehow tying everything back to Israel's founding, which was alluded to in some of your earlier statements/versions of the page. If you'd like to pick a specific argument, and take into account my replies, then I would be glad to clarify my position, and hopefully make clear why this does not belong. The ball has been in your court for some while now...and the constant reversions are not the proper way to play (in any event, if your concern is that people might think the PLO is indigenous, then aside from "who cares, that isn't important," I not that they can understand from its name it is from outside, they can click on its wikilink, or they can read the line that ''says'' they came from Jordan). <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 17:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	Well, I don't really agree that you have answered my arguments. Honestly, I've tried to be as diplomatic with you as I could be regarding the background, and I've tried to present various versions of the background via our negotiations which I had each hoped would have met your approval. But ultimately, whether you like it or not, I'd even be willing to stand be my , aside from the demographic implications we've already resolved. The creation of Israel did create the Palestinian exodus which did create the PLO which did create the cross border strife between the PLO and Israel which involved Lebanese civilians, which did create the 18 year Israel occupation of Lebanese territory, which did create Hezbollah, which did create the 2006 conflict. I even was willing to leave the whole of the Palestinian issue out of it, and start this background from 1982-85, and I'm sorry that wasn't good enough. I invite any other editor to look at the threads on our ] ] and at ] and here to make up their own minds. And I wasn't even going to argue the point any further, but if you honestly think this is just because you bothered to make the last edit, that's completely incorrect. -- ] 06:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

	:No, I simply believe that I have fully dealt with each of the reasons that you have argued. Once you are willing to include indirectly related details, then where shall we draw the line? Your wish to include the 1948 refugees could be paralleled with a need to explain the circumstances leading to Israel's founding, or a discussion of how/why/under what circumstances the 1948 refugees left. The point being that all of these may be relevant in the articles that deal with them directly, but not here. And while you have made some efforts to compromise, I don't see your cutting off the first half of the background as constructive, nor is your original version a good idea, as you even that it could be taken to cast blame in only one direction. From my point of view, part of the reason we're at this point is a kind of 'talking past each other.' If you believe that you still have a strong argument as for why the 1948 Palestinians need be mentioned, please do so, and I'll try to reply as concisely as possible (as I said several times, I believe that I've dealt amply with all your arguments, but perhaps I have actually missed them if we are still having this discussion). Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Question: Israeli tank losses ==

	i was reading about how the israeli tanks were damaged in the conflict, wanted to know how many tanks does israel have? is the loss of all those tanks significant to their over all strength? or is it like %0.1 of their force and doesn't really bother them? i looked around but couldn't find any info on their total strength.] 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
	: These losses are insignificant. Israel has over 4,000 MBTs, so 16 tanks destroyed is less than 1%. ] 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
	:: Some info I saw talked about ~5 tanks completely destroyed, and something like 40-50 damaged to a certain degree but repairable. As for the total number of tanks available to Israel, most of them weren't involved. I'm not sure of the exact number in Lebanon, but it was a few hundreds, according to the same report (TV). ] 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Article's Name is wrong ==

	As editors we are supposed to follow the official Misplaced Pages's policies, and there is a clear policy about using the more common names, see ]. And really everybody in the world calls the events in Lebanon and Israel that started on 12th July, which this article is about, a war: All the major news outlets (e.g. , , , etc) including Israeli ones such as and call this a war, the , the and the call this a war, , the calls this a war, the call this a war, international and transnational organizations such as the and the call this a war, and human rights organizations such as and the call this a war - clearly this is the most common name. Already on the day of the cross-border attack (12 of July) Israel spoke of an act of war by Lebanon. I could easily find dozens of more references. "Conflict" is a more general term which is often used (after all, all wars are conflicts), but nobody to my knowledge uses "conflict" to actually identify the subject matter of this article. Observe that if one googles ''2006 israel lebanon war'' one gets 36 million hits, if one googles ''2006 israel lebanon conflict'' one gets 17 millions, i.e. less than half. The same searches in news.google produce 2,340 hits in the case of “war” and only 1,170 hits in the case of “conflict” – again less than half. (Furthermore the current name "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" is ambiguous; for example what happened between January and June 2006 in this conflict is not described in this article, but rather in article ].)

	There is really no question that the most common name is "war". So in accordance with the official Misplaced Pages policy I move we rename this article "2006 Israel Lebanon war". {{unsigned\|Dianelos}}
	I agree, we have conducted a voting and 2006 Israel-Lebanon War won, but weirdly no one moved the article ] 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
	:But according to the Naming Poll archived at the top of this page, "The result of the debate was to keep the article at it's current name (2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict)." <font color="green">]</font> 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
	::That ] did not explain to the participants what the Misplaced Pages policy is, as I think it should. Also, if you read the comments of the people who voted against "war" there are many misconceptions, such as arguments that this event should not be called a war because there was no formal declaration of war, or because there were too few dead, or because it was too short. Even so the majority voted for using "war" in the article's title, most of them rightly pointing out that this is the common expression used.
	::The basic point though is that as editors we are supposed to follow the official Misplaced Pages policy, and that in this case there is really no question which the most common name is; actually as far as I could find out nobody calls the events that started on July 12 a "conflict" rather than a "war" - except that is for a few Misplaced Pages editors whose reasoning and insistence in this matter I cannot fathom. ] 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::The (archived) poll did explain the policy, more than once. (And those google searches mean very little unless quoted, rather than as a list of names. They mean little, even so.) The article probably should be ]. (It was also moved once against concensus by an admin who seems now to have exiled his/her/self from this article.) — ] \| ] 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::: is how the talk page looked like while the poll was being taken. Where does it explain the policy?

	::::As for calling these events the "2006 Israel-Hezbollah war", I would like to remind you that from day 1 Israel was saying that the Lebanese government was responsible for an act of war against Israel, that it would retaliate against Lebanon, also that it would not only hit Hezbollah posts, and so on (see the article for references). In any case, again, according to the official Misplaced Pages policy the issue is not so much how these events should be called, but rather how they are called as a matter of fact. And everybody calls them the war in Lebanon. I just found out that the Misplaced Pages article about the even more serious events of 1982 are called the ], so maybe for consistency we could call this article the ]. ] 09:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::::That is because according to Israel law 1982 was a war and this isn`t , the government didn`t go through the relevant procedures to annouce it as war. not sure how hizballah defines it or if it`s relevant though. israeli public now regards it as war in fokloric sense but i doubt if IDF will give insignias for this war making it still "just" a conflict. incidentally, there`s no comparison between the scale of 1982 and 2006 and it has nothing to do with consistency, you won`t call the litani affair a war either. 1982 went through years during which Israel had full control of Beirut fot a long time. on a friendly note, You seem to be jumping to conclusions quite quickly on issues you may not be totally aware of or knowledable about, like you thought Galillee was possibly part of the Golan. I would be more modest in that sense. ] 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	::::::Please read the relevant official Misplaced Pages policy about ]: what counts is how something is commonly called; not how something should be called because of this or that argument presented by an editor; and surely not how something is called by the Israeli government ;-) It goes without saying that Misplaced Pages policies apply to all articles in Misplaced Pages, including those articles that relate to Israel. Having said that I would like to point out that the Israeli government calls this a war too, for example see the official Israeli government portal . Also Israeli government officials including prime minister ] call this a war all the time (see the beginning of this section for some references - I can glady contribute many more).

	::::::I don't see any serious arguments against renaming this article according to Misplaced Pages policy, but I shall wait a few more days before renaming it. ] 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	::::::: I think you're confusing between how people call it indeed for lack of attention and what it ACTUALLY is. I will point you out to ]. I think this is not a war ''per definition'' for reasons I stated above. Not that I feel particularly strong over this issue. But it seems to me that the WAR usage of the word can adequately be presented both in the lead (like it's now) and in ''redirects''... especially since apparently this is also a contested issue of ] which wikipedia should avoid if it can. I didn't really understand what significance there is to change "conflict" into "war" in this article. As for usage, conflict was obviously a word used a lot during this conflict so it's not alien. It also seems to be the definition of Human Rights Watch . it's funny because i'm reminded of a "daily show" clip asking when is this conflict or some other word he used be turning into full scale war in the TV channels.... the issue is probably '''where to draw the line'''. Why is this a war and not any war with the palestinians ? ''''Note that "war in Gaza" is actually a hugely popular name''''. Will we change it in the relevant articles ? Probably not. The definition probably has something to do with armies vs armies as opposed to guerilla groups/terrorist groups fightings. Of course with terms as "War against Terror" everything is out of the window. ] 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::: According to ] too we should call this a war, because the vast majority of readers who are looking for this article would use "war" in their search. Also "conflict" is more ambiguous than "war". After all, all wars are conflicts but not all conflicts are wars. So as both "conflict" and "war" can be used to describe the events covered by this article, according to the policy you state "war" is preferable. (Actually I don't think that "conflict" really describes these events; at the very least one would use "military conflict" or something.) Perhaps you think that "precision" means how something should be called according to the experts in the matter. But the opposite is true. As you can see in ] official policy: "Another way to summarize the overall principle of Misplaced Pages's naming conventions: Names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Well, readers and the general audience think of these events as a war. In any case experts too think of these events as a war. Which experts? Well, the Israeli generals to mention just one example. ] 05:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	The split on this issue has transcended whose POV editors might identify with (take a look at the polls). Before we can have any move, we must demonstrate what consensus has formed in the media/academic/political spheres, probably through a survey of sources. I think you'll find that the page is move-protected in any event, so that only an admin would be able to move it. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	:You don't think, Danielos, that maybe the media might just use hyperbolic language to sell newspapers, do you? We use less sensantionalist names for other articles on things like 'crisis' and 'scandal'. Of course the media calls it a war - it sells more news. And of course the governments call it a war - we're in the "War on Terror"; after all, nothing like a good war to unite the populace and rally morale. ] 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Iorek85, you may be right. And maybe the UN and the Red Cross and the various human rights organizations who call this a war too have some ulterior motivation also. The point though is that really everybody calls this a war (except for a few editors of this article, indeed the minority according to the poll). The reason why everybody calls this a war may be an interesting issue to discuss, but is quite irrelevant to the matter of how this article should be named according to Misplaced Pages's official policy described in ] and in ], which basically state that we should the most common expression, which in our case, incontrovertibly, is "war".

	::"2006 Lebanon war" is about the perfect name in my mind. It's consistent with the ] article (which in no way implies that the two were of the same intensity), and further observe that "Lebanon" and "war" were chosen over "Hezbollah" and "conflict" by the majority in the poll taken last month. If some editors would prefer "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" that would be fine too.

	::But let's finalize this quickly - I really don't understand why some editors find it so important to keep "war" out of the title. The beginning of the article as it now stands looks terrible. ] 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't particularily mind that much - but I wonder what a conflict is if this is a war. You're still going to need a consensus, wikipolicy or not, to move it, which is made more difficult by the other issue of the rest of the name is to be. 2006 .... is supported, but Lebanon or Hezbollah? You'll find people are just as divided on that, so no matter which suggestion you make with 'war' in the title, you won't get a consensus. And the intro has been deliberately changed to make it look bad with the "known as" additions placed after the straw poll started, IIRC. Either way, I don't think its that big an issue - redirects make this page easy to find, which would be the only reason to rename it anyway. ] 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	::You ask when should a military conflict be called a war and not just a conflict? Even though it does not affect what we are discussing in this section, my personal opinion is that a military conflict in which a country is subjected within 30 days to 12,000 airforce combat missions, 2,500 Navy bombs, 100,000 artillery shells, invasion by a regular army, has 15,000 homes destroyed and 130,000 homes damaged and a significant chunk of its infrastructure placed out of working order, and has fully one quarter of its population displaced - by a powerful neighbor who claims to be responding to an act of war by that country and openly and repeatedly calls what's happening a war - I think it's fair to call such event a war and not just a conflict. I really believe that the vast majority of people would agree.

	::As for putting "Hezbollah" in the title, again that's not what's commonly used to describe these events. Here is a quick test: If you google ''2006 "Hezbollah war"'' (including the Hizbullah, Hizbollah, Hizballah transliterations) you'll get 343,000 hits; but if you google ''2006 "Lebanon war"'' you'll get 1,930,000 hits. ] 09:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	*Please note, that the war is in Israel referred to as ''Second Lebanon War'', f. ex. , or while in Lebanon it's called . The actual name "conflict" is only but wrong. --] 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	So we're changing it to 'Second Lebanon War' then? (And herin lies the problem) ] 09:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	:My understanding of Misplaced Pages's policy is that we should use the expression most commonly found in the English speaking world at large. But if other editors prefer "Second Lebanon War" I won't object. What bothers me is the fact that when practically everybody describes these events as a "war" this encyclopedic article describes them as a "conflict". It violates official Misplaced Pages policy. It looks artificial.

	:Having said that, as far as I am concerned it won't be necessary to remove all mention of "conflict" in the article. Indeed all wars are conflicts too and in some contexts it will sound more natural to use "conflict" instead of "war". Incidentally the article often mentions "war" - so it's not like we are divulging some major new fact to the reader; we are simply harmonizing this article's title with the way the rest of the world describes its subject matter. And if Amoruso would like to contribute to the article some information in the sense that formally the Israeli government does not consider these events a war for this and that reason, or that the Israeli soldiers who fought in this conflict won't be getting war insignias or medals, and so on, that's fine with me. ] 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Size of Israeli ground troops ==

	The infobox currently states 30,000. Shouldn't it reflect the fact it changed during the month? Initially there were none, then up to about 10,000. 30K was only in the last few days. How about "(Up to?) 10,000. 30,000 in few final days" or something or the sort? ] 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
	:As long as we maintain a neutral presentation for both sides. I'm not sure what the best way to clarify this point while still being encylopaedic would be - maybe a footnote within the infobox describing the extreme changes in deployment? Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Title change. ==

	I should point out the bias in the title 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Firstly, the conflict was between Israel and the Islamofascist group Hezbollah, not between Israel and Lebanon. Secondly, the Islamofascists were the ones who started the whole thing by kidnapping innocent Israelis, so the word "Hezbollah" should come before "Israel". I propose the title be changed to "2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict". ] 08:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
	:CW - Note that renaming the page is a hot topic - you can see the straw polls on the issue at the top of this talk page. Just FYI.<font color="green">]</font> 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

	==hizballah confirmed==
	74 dead confirmed by Hezbollah ... we shouldn't even cite it, it's Nasrallah Bob. According to Saddam no Iraqis were killed in the Gulf war and according to Egypt, Tel Aviv was in ruins in six day war and yom kippur. if we do cite it, then not as first... it's obviously false. ] 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

	:When all sides are likely to lie, it's best just to cite all the sources. I'd put trust in Independent > Israeli > Hezbollah. ] 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

	one other thing : if the casus belli is the kidnapping and killing of the soldiers, then they shouldn't be included in the number of soldiers killed and the captured, because it implies that 2 MORE were possibly captured from the infobox right now. ] 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Hum.. as we include that accident into this conflict, the figures should count''']'''<sub>]</sub> 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Lebanese Rationale ==
	The Lebanese and Arab Editors on WP are almost non-existant. Cosnequently this article unfortuanetley is very biased. Here is an example:
	* '''Israel responded with massive ]s and ] fire on Lebanese civilian infrastructure, which Israel said Hezbollah was using but the Lebanese charge was an attempt at collective punishment in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an air and naval ]
	*I had previously deleted Israel's rationale for firing on Lebanese civilian infrastructure as POV pusing. It was delfeted. Then I put in the other's side take on it and put it in the edit log it lilely would be unplatable to the israeli proponents, then let's just leave the rationale for the destroying the infrastructure out for both sides. Tewfik promptly deleted the Lebanese position but left the Israelli so called excuse in. Par for the course in this blatantly non-neutral article. That's WP, articles by the sheer power of the numbers of posters for a position, not the quality of the argument but the quantity. Best Wishes. Will314159 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
	:It's not an "Israeli excuse", its a rationale. They Israelis belived that Hezbollah was using those buildings as hideouts and that is what we must put in the article. ] 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

	@Cerebral. The neutral third party newstories dispute your version. they say that HA studiously avoided civilians for fear of Israeli informants and that the rockets were shot from orange groves and such from fixed sites, and the sites covered up thermal blankets to avoid detection but never milnd. I you are going to give the RATIOMALE OF ONE SIDE, in a not for profit publlic encyclopedia, they you must give the rationale for the other side. This is the point that must be absorbed. Let me repeat it and put it in bold. '''This is a not for profit publlic encyclopedia.''' Best Wishes. Will314159 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

	::What does that have to do with anything? Not for profit means what? In the sentence, I like having both in - it is fair to both sides. That is assuming you have a reference for the Lebanese claim. And stating Israeli claims is not POV - it is essential to understanding the conflict. ] 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::<small>I removed my username from the section heading per ].</small>
	:::My reads: ''Lebanon's rationale is stated based on thir soured statements below'' - I'm sure that despite my misspelling you realise that such a contentious claim such as "the Lebanese charge was an attempt at collective punishment in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention" would not stand unsourced, and especially so when your sounds like you were making a ]. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	NOT FOR PROFIT means WP is NOT owned by Israel. capiche. It should be a fair publication. If you are going to say what the Israelis say, then you have to say what the Lebanese say. thinly sources is bullcrap. Look at the ratio of military to civilian Lebanese casualties. The proof is in the pudding. Please do not be obtuse. Try to be fair in spite of your overwehlming numerical advantage, in fact because of your numerical superiority on WPtry to bend over backwards. and be fair Best wishes Will314159 Will314159 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
	:What the Lebanese say is different from what the Islamofascists say. What the Israelis say is the truth, what the terrorists say is pro-Moslem propaganda. Please note the difference. ] 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	No, Misplaced Pages is not owned by Israel. What you are talking about is the principle of ], whereby articles should remain neutral. Please ]; I'm not an Israeli, or jewish, or even like Israel. But these points are irrelivant. Two of us now have asked for a reference for your claim that Lebanon claims Iraeli actions were in voilation of the geneva convention. If you can provide one, please, add it to the article; I agree with you it should be there. ] 04:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
	:Yeah I'm sure somebody will get a link to a Hezbollah-owned pro-Moslem website and call it a "source". If anybody wants to add Hezbollah's anti-Semitic lies to this article they should cite a neutral, non-Islmaofascist source. Iorek, there is no need for you to clarify your anti-Israel stand on this page. ] 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
	::Like I said, my stance is irrelivent. And yes, he if he gives a "pro-Moslem website", that would be fine. I'd imagine the government of Lebanon would be 'pro-molsem' as you put it. All we need, regardless of bias, is a ] that states Lebanon has claimed that Israeli attacks were a breach of the Geneva convention. Hell, you might even find an Israeli source that states this. Are you sure you understand what text we are actually debating here? To clarify, it is '''not''' that the attacks '''were''' a breach of the convention, but that Lebanon '''claimed''' they were. ] 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	*You'all must must live in a different world and read different newspapers.just the first line of a google search. follow it up with Louise Arbour or Brown. Or a little historical context. The Grapes of Wrath operation where Shimon Peres purposefully depopulated southern Lebanon to force refugees onto Beirut for pollitical purposes or the repeated bombing of power plants for political purposes. More of the same but w/ bigger bombs. Take Care Will314159 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

	Of course Hezbollah's rocket attacks during the war "were to retalilate for iDF air strikes and to attempt to restore the its deterrence." I made that "rationle" edit, and of course it got deleted.''' We don't need rationale edits for either sides.''' Meanwhile Isarig took down the NPOV notice. Only a fool would disagree that there is a genuine controversy here. Look how much we have written about it. Take Care. Will314159 00:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

	CAN"T BELIEVE somebody asked for corroboration for Israeli bombing being alleged to violate fourth Geneva convention. But the dream world of the Israeli Apologists, who knows?
	*That kind of broad gauge approach is not allowed by the modern laws of warfare. If you have good reason to think that a truck is carrying weaponry to Hizbullah, you can bomb it. But just bombing any old civilian truck is a war crime.

	So, the Israelis could have attempted to surveil trucking and where they had good reason to think that a truck was transporting weapons, they could have hit it. But just blowing up random trucks is criminal.

	Israel has fought a lazy war, both morally lazy and militarily lazy. It is work to surveil enemy shipments. So, you just blow up the airport and the ports and roads and bridges, regardless of whether you have reason to believe that any of them is used by Hizbullah for their war effort. Just in case. It is a just in case war. You bomb Shiite villages intensively, just in case they have military significance to Hizbullah. Maybe they don't, and you've just blown up a civilian neighborhood and killed whole families. Where blowing up things has no immediate and legitimate military purpose and harms innocent civilians, it is a crime. It can be prosecuted, especially in Europe.

	Louise Arbour of the UN High Commission on Human Rights made this point Wednesday, according to the Daily Star story linked to above:
	' UN human rights chief Louise Arbour suggested Wednesday that the military operations being carried out in Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories could be considered war crimes. The obligation to protect civilians during hostilities is entrenched in international law, "which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity," Arbour said in a statement. "The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," she added. '

	Here are the relevant statutes according to the Big News Network:

	' The Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism ..." (Article 33). According to Article 147 of the Convention, "extensive destruction ... not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly," hostage-taking and "torture or inhuman treatment" are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and constitute war crimes. All state parties to the Convention are required to search for and ensure the prosecution of perpetrators of grave breaches of the said Convention.

	Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions codifies the principle of distinction, a customary rule of international humanitarian law: "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operation only against military objectives." (Article 48). International Humanitarian Law strictly prohibits attacks against civilians and civilian objects. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) includes as war crimes: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities", and "Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" (Article 8 2 (b) (i) and (ii)). '

	But the same article also conveys the Israeli response
	' The Israeli chief of staff, Brig.Gen. Dan Halutz, noted in public remarks that senior Hizbullah leaders live and work in southern Beirut, and said Beirut could be targeted if Hizbullah continued to fire rockets into northern Israel. "Nothing is safe , it's as simple as that," Halutz said. '


	That is collective punishment. It is holding millions of innocents hostage and threatening them with death. It is state terror. I don't think the Israelis get it.

	Meanwhile Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora had this to say:

	' "As I speak, the trauma, the desperation, the grief and the daily massacres and destruction go on and on. The country has been torn to shreds.

	"Is the value of human life in Lebanon less than that of the citizens of other countries? Can the international community stand by while such callous retribution by Israel is inflicted on us?

	"Will you allow innocent civilians, churches, mosques, orphanages, medical supplies escorted by the Red Cross, people seeking shelter or fleeing their homes and villages to be the casualties of this ugly war?
	http://www.dailystar.com.lb

	"Is this what the international community calls self-defense?

	"Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions? Is this the message to send to the country of diversity, freedom and tolerance?

	"Only last year, the Lebanese filled the streets with hope and with red, green and white banners shouting out: Lebanon deserves life!

	"What kind of life is being offered to us now?

	"I will tell you what kind: a life of destruction, despair, displacement, dispossession, and death.

	"What kind of future can stem from the rubble?

	"A future of fear, frustration, despair, financial ruin and fanaticism.

	"Let me assure you that we shall spare no avenue to make Israel compensate the Lebanese people for the barbaric destruction it has inflicted and continues to inflict upon us, knowing full well that human life is irreplaceable.

	"You want to support the government of Lebanon? Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, no government can survive on the ruins of a nation.

	"On behalf of the people of Lebanon, from Beirut, Baalbek and Byblos, to Tyre Sidon and Qana, to each and every one of the 21 villages at the Southern border, declared a no-go zone by Israel, to Tripoli and Zahle, to every other town, I call upon you all to respond immediately without reservation or hesitation to this appeal for an immediate cease-fire and lifting of the siege, and provide urgent international humanitarian assistance to our war-stricken country. ' from Juan Cole Of course Israel kept the war going untile they got unmistakebly whupped by the 5,000 men of Hezbollah. Take Care!Will314159 01:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Dispute On Where IDF Soldiers Were Arrested ==

	http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh08152006.html

	A team of Israeli lawyers is now suing the Lebanese government for starting the war. The case, to be filed in US civil court, will sue for compensation and damages incurred by Israeli residents and businesses as a result of the war. Attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger and Nitzah Libai claim the Lebanese government violated international law because it didn't stop Hezbollah's casus belli cross-border raid against Israel.

	Israel's justification for its 'self-defense' attack on Lebanon, and the placement of the original "provocation" will take on new legal significance in coming months. Who infiltrated whom, and on what territory did the initial capture of the IDF soldiers occur? Differing press accounts stating that the capture occurred in Lebanon- not Israel- are now widely known: most frequently cited are AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet. Others reflect changes of direction in the recording of basic facts.

	Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."

	By July 13, the story out of MSNBC.com's Jerusalem bureau was different. In a piece titled "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals- Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah", Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Gutkin wrote: "Kidnappings changed everything: All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other soldiers in the ensuing fighting."

	AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."

	At 7:09 AM, Panossian had altered his report: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."

	By late afternoon, at 4:13 PM, AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."

	Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."

	Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."

	Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."

	In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31.

	A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."

	A Lebanese government official told this writer that the first information about the soldiers' capture in southern Lebanon came from the Lebanese Army Police, a source also quoted in many media accounts. "At the beginning the Lebanese Army said it was on the Lebanese side," the official told me. The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."

	Lebanon's Ambassador to the US, Farid Abboud discussed the events publicly on July 12, 2006. Because of his stance to CNN Abboud was reprimanded, and recalled to Lebanon._

	MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN International: "You say that you don't want any escalations, but ...

	FARID ABBOUD: No, we don't.

	HOLMES: ... but crossing over the border into Israel, killing and--seizing soldiers, what did you think would happen?

	ABBOUD: I'm not sure where the location of the attack took place. I understand that there was another battle, also, where during which the Israelis crossed Lebanese soil and that the casualties that fell then were inside Lebanon territory ... We do not want any escalation, and I don't think we have ever attacked Israel. I mean, Israel has always occupied our territory, and we have always defended ourselves. Our position has always been very reactive, defensive.

	This writer then spoke to the chief of the Lebanese Defense Cabinet General Edmond Fadel in Beirut for clarification. He said he was not authorized to speak on Hezbollah's position.

	Hezbollah's position had been cited in the Jerusalem Post of July 12 : "Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the timing of the capture of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Wednesday would boost the position of Palestinians in Gaza."

	It was a view Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi had reiterated to me on July 16 by phone. He insisted that the crisis occurred on the Lebanese side of the border "in front of the village of Ayt Al Shaab" adjacent to a military post.

	On August 2, I discussed the kidnapping issue again with Hezbollah's Mousawi in Beirut.

	Q: We spoke earlier on July 16, 2006 about this issue and I would like to make it official. The Lebanese Army has claimed that the Israeli soldiers captured on July 12, 2006 were captured in Lebanon, not Israel as we hear in the US. Were they caught inside Israel or Lebanon?

	MOUSAWI: How can you possibly say Israel? This is an occupied land, occupied Palestine.

	Q: Alright. Was it in occupied Palestine or Lebanon?

	MOUSAWI: It was in Lebanon, on the border.

	Q: On the border- What town? Where was it near?

	MOUSAWI: There is no town. It was a military post.

	Q: Did Hezbollah cross over into Israel?

	MOUSAWI: This has never been claimed by Hezbollah- only on the border. And don't say Israel- its occupied Palestine.

	Q: The IDF soldiers in the tank who hit the mine and were killed?

	MOUSAWI: It was all in the Lebanese lands when they wanted to penetrate- to go after the resistance.... No one believes anymore that this is about the two soldiers, not with the destruction of the infrastructure. Besides, Hezbollah got information that this Israeli aggression was scheduled to take place this September or October...

	According to Attorney Yehudah Talmon, Israelis will also sue to collect money from Lebanese assets and property in the United States. "No group associated in any way, shape or form to Hizbullah is immune to these claims." Never mind if the claims are based on shifting boundaries.
	A team of Israeli lawyers is now suing the Lebanese government for starting the war. The case, to be filed in US civil court, will sue for compensation and damages incurred by Israeli residents and businesses as a result of the war. Attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger and Nitzah Libai claim the Lebanese government violated international law because it didn't stop Hezbollah's casus belli cross-border raid against Israel.

	Israel's justification for its 'self-defense' attack on Lebanon, and the placement of the original "provocation" will take on new legal significance in coming months. Who infiltrated whom, and on what territory did the initial capture of the IDF soldiers occur? Differing press accounts stating that the capture occurred in Lebanon- not Israel- are now widely known: most frequently cited are AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet. Others reflect changes of direction in the recording of basic facts.

	Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."

	By July 13, the story out of MSNBC.com's Jerusalem bureau was different. In a piece titled "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals- Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah", Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Gutkin wrote: "Kidnappings changed everything: All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other soldiers in the ensuing fighting."

	AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."

	At 7:09 AM, Panossian had altered his report: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."

	By late afternoon, at 4:13 PM, AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."

	Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."

	Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."

			== Lars Adaktusson as a neutral source ==
	Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."

			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)
	In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31.

			== End date ==
	A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."

			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)
	A Lebanese government official told this writer that the first information about the soldiers' capture in southern Lebanon came from the Lebanese Army Police, a source also quoted in many media accounts. "At the beginning the Lebanese Army said it was on the Lebanese side," the official told me. The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."
	]

			== Misspelling of hezbollah under "hezbullah prisoners" ==
	:Can someone move this into the archive? It's pretty big... <font color="green">]</font> 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

			title says it all ] (]) 08:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
	Re: Burgas' , we removed for space reasons the sourcing and instead stated it as fact, but the UN, EU, G8, and international press including al Jazeera all agree that the Israeli soldiers were in Israel. Lets please stop the historical revisionism. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

			== Add Lebanese Armed Forces to infobox? ==
	ok.--] 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

			There seemed to have been several confrontations between Israeli army and Lebanon army during the war:
	Let's also stop hurling insults at those with a different view as "revisionist". The real revisionism was employed by the Associated Press. At first, they reported that Israeli thugs were arrested in Lebanon but then quickly changed the story in Israel's favour. Olmert's own words: Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."
			*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)
	To say nothing of Israel's systematic violation of Lebanon's sovereignty. The UN documents Israeli violations of the Blue Line on an almost daily basis from 2000-06. ]
			::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)
			:::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)
	''UN, EU, G8, and international press including al Jazeera all agree that the Israeli soldiers were in Israel.''
			::::::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 ==
	AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet all reported that IDF were arrested on Lebanese soil.

			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)
	Is the inclusion of Al Jazeera supposed to mean anything? It is staunchly anti-Syrian, anti-Iranian and anti-Hezbollah. ]

			: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)
	There were no insults hurled, and as you've also used the word revisionism, I'm not sure how you would even think it was one. This point has been discussed extensively on Talk - please read the archives. None of the ] that you've quoted as initially printing the claim (extremely initially, by the way) have reprinted those claims, but rather all subsequent reports affirm the position that the soldiers were taken from Israel, a position shared by the UN, EU, G8, and sources like al Jazeera who are hardly pro-Israel. If you'd like to see a conspiracy in that, its your right, but please don't include ] or un] claims here. Thanks, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:31, 20 October 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)
	== Who Won the War ==
			:::I think we can restore the previous second lede paragraph as more neutral, at least relatively speaking. ] (]) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	The article is a hodgepode and doesn't have a lot of clarity. The emphasis on Bush and especially his picture is really out of place. He thinks he's winning in Iraq. I've read a lot of articles on this. These are important points that are not getting through. 1. The IDF was very, very successful in the air war against the long range, and medium range missles. It was able to use drones, Humint and there was virtually no threat from that source. 2, HA was able to preserve its short range rockets and the IDF had no answer for that whatsoever. There were as many fired in the last days of the war as in the beginning. 3.The IDF ground attacks were spectacularly stopped b/c of the HA fortifications and Sagers and HA stood up to the Golani,Sayreed Maglan, Givati, Nachal and other elite units. 4. The Shiite-Christian alliance was not broken and the Aounists took Shiite refugees in their homes. 5. Israeli invincibility and deterrence that has been around since 1967 has been shattered! The announced Israeli aimes of retrieving the prisoners, stopping the rocket attacks were not met. HA has been resupplied, They are intact. UNIFIL is not going to disarm them. They are going to remain low. UNIFIL has threatend to shoot down Israeli aircraft and has confronted Israeli tanks. See Also parts 2, and 3. There's a lot more expert opinion. Best Wishes Will314159 01:40, 21 October 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:
			::::::*{{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:
			::::::*"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=]}}
			::::::*"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."
			::::::**{{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}}
			::::::*"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}}
			::::::*"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}}
			::::::''']''' <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)

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: