Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 21 October 2006

Military history Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27	Archive 28
Archive 29	Archive 30	Naming Poll	Archive 32

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive32
  • Screwed up Voting
  • 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

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Straw Poll on naming of the article

Naming Poll Results

The results are:

• 2006 - 10 support (1 oppose)
• of 2006 - 0 support
• (2006) - 2 support

• Israel-Lebanon - 19 Support
• Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah - 0 Support
• Israel-Hezbollah - 18 Support

• conflict - 15 Suppport
• war - 19 Support

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. Iorek85 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" option won, I'm changing the title of the article. Why hasn't this been done already? --The monkeyhate 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I move the article? --The monkeyhate 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 reqested moves 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. Iorek85 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And how many per cent is required to reach consensus? 90? 99? 100? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The monkeyhate (talk • contribs)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

If we cannot name it 2006 Israel-Lebanon War 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 WP:CON - 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. - WP:RM uses over 60%, and 19/15 = 55:45. Iorek85 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. Iorek85 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. Kosmopolis (talk) 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. Iorek85 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because I added it. Kosmopolis (talk) 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))." Gni 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Background rewrite

I've rewritten the background again. -- Kendrick7 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). Tewfik 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, Tewfik 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. -- Kendrick7 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, Tewfik 07:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(I moved this from below for convenience, Tewfik 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

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. -- Kendrick7 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 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the descendants of Palestinian refugees who had left Israel in 1948, and by 1968 PLO militants were conducting attacks into Israel from Lebanon VS Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been carrying out attacks from Lebanon into Israel since 1968 - I reiterate my invitation to Talk. Cheers, Tewfik 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 transfiguration, or an irreversible circumcision 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. -- Kendrick7 07:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Palestinian case and its rationale are amply discussed on pages like PLO, 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.' Tewfik 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Palestians aren't Lebanonese, that's why. Sorry, one of us will get tired sooner or later. -- Kendrick7 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. Tewfik 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? -- Kendrick7 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). Tewfik 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 first version, 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 talk pages and at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict 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 all resolved just because you bothered to make the last edit, that's completely incorrect. -- Kendrick7 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 initially pointed out 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, Tewfik 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.Anon-o-man 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

These losses are insignificant. Israel has over 4,000 MBTs, so 16 tanks destroyed is less than 1%. Isarig 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). ehudshapira 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 WP:Naming conventions. 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. CNN, BBC, Fox, etc) including Israeli ones such as Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth already on July 13 call this a war, the prime minister of Israel, the president of Lebanon and the US secretary of state call this a war, Israeli generals call this a war, the Israeli military calls this a war, the official site of Israel's ministry of foreign affairs call this a war, international and transnational organizations such as the UN and the EU call this a war, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel 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 Israel-Lebanon conflict.)

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianelos (talk • contribs) I agree, we have conducted a voting and 2006 Israel-Lebanon War won, but weirdly no one moved the article Nielswik 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)." Valtam 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That poll 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. Dianelos 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 2006 Isreal-Hezbollah war. (It was also moved once against concensus by an admin who seems now to have exiled his/her/self from this article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here 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 1982 Lebanon war, so maybe for consistency we could call this article the 2006 Lebanon war. Dianelos 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. Amoruso 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the relevant official Misplaced Pages policy about naming conventions: 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 here. Also Israeli government officials including prime minister Olmert 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. Dianelos 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 Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (precision). 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 WP:POV 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. Amoruso 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (precision) 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 Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions 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. Dianelos 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. Tewfik 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. Iorek85 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 WP:Naming conventions and in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names), 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 1982 Lebanon war 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. Dianelos 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. Iorek85 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. Dianelos 09:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please note, that the war is in Israel referred to as Second Lebanon War, f. ex. here, here or here while in Lebanon it's called July War. The actual name "conflict" is only but wrong. --213.155.224.232 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So we're changing it to 'Second Lebanon War' then? (And herin lies the problem) Iorek85 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. Dianelos 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? ehudshapira 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, Tewfik 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". Cerebral Warrior 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.Valtam 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. Amoruso 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. Iorek85 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. Amoruso 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hum.. as we include that accident into this conflict, the figures should countNielswik_(talk) 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 airstrikes and artillery 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 blockade
• 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. Cerebral Warrior 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. Iorek85 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed my username from the section heading per Talk page guidelines.

My edit summary 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 edit summary sounds like you were making a WP:Point. Cheers, Tewfik 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. Cerebral Warrior 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages is not owned by Israel. What you are talking about is the principle of NPOV, whereby articles should remain neutral. Please assume of good faith; 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. Iorek85 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. Cerebral Warrior 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 WP:RS 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. Iorek85 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• You'all must must live in a different world and read different newspapers.Council Strongly Condemns Grave Israeli Violations of Human Rights in Lebanonjust 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? Daily Star

• 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 israel-kills-57-in-lebanon-arbour 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."

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." Jacob Peters

Can someone move this into the archive? It's pretty big... Valtam 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Burgas' latest edit, 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. Tewfik 19:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

ok.--Burgas00 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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."

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. Jacob Peters

UN, EU, G8, and international press including al Jazeera all agree that the Israeli soldiers were in Israel.

AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet all reported that IDF were arrested on Lebanese soil.

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

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 reliable sources 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 original research and sythesis or unverifiable claims here. Thanks, Tewfik 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics