Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.196.164.190 (talk) at 18:51, 11 August 2006 (→Re-re-re-re-reversions in "Armed Strength"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
May 2003 - July 2006 July 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 Inactive as of August 7, 2006

Request for clarity

What exactly is a "legitimate resistance movement", especially in an un-occupied country ? When was the last time you saw a resistance movement carry out rocket attacks to foreign soil ?

I'm REALLY not getting a good sense of what's going on with Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Israel from reading this. I know current events are moving quickly (duh), but even the background stuff here seems hopelessly out of date. Any chance of getting this page reorganized? Thanks. Jay.ricketts 15:52, 31 July 2006, EDT

I'm not sure what you want ... This page is supposed to be about the organization Hezbollah. Maybe in another month or so there'll be another heading 'Destruction of Hezbollah' or '2006 Triumph of Hezbollah' or 'Continued Conflicts with Israel after the 2006 Conflict' ... depends on what happens. The 'Current Events' are covered in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. What is it that you are expecting to find that isn't here? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping for the heading of Hezbollah and IDF lay down arms for joint potluck picnics - all are welcome(no pork) .... :D Mceder 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please clarify that although Hezbollah is the common term, it is in fact a misnomer. It's really Hezballah, which is much closer to the actual arabic meaning "party of god". Hezbollah sounds more like "party of urine", because bollah in arabic means piss. I'd really appreciate clarification on that- it makes me cringe every time.

Good Christ, that is unfortunate. :-(  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations are always imperfect, but here we use whatever is the most widely used form, which is "Hezbollah".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In the current page, the opening paragraph includes the sentence "It also opposes, at least ideologically, Israel’s right to exist."

Do recent events merit removing the 'at least ideologically' clause from that statement?

Actual numbers of Hezbollah militants ?

Does anyone have information (which I think prudent factual data that should be posted in this article, especially since they are now a party in the conflict)how many militants does Hizbollah has exactly or approximately? --Tigry 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Their military wing consists only of a few hundred soldiers. Becoming a member of its military wing is quite difficult, as apposed to its other (i.e. humanitarian) wings where you may just join if you can contribute in any way. ArmanJan 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did find one source, not sure of its credz.. Here is what I propose adding to the Armed Strength section:

The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates Hezbollah forces to 600-1000 active fighters (with 3,000 - 5,000 available and 10,000 reservists), 10,000 - 15,000 rockets of the Katyusha, Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 type. They also estimate a stockpile of 30 missiles of the Zelzal type. Source: The International Institute For Strategic Studies (2006-07-21). "Agence France Presse - Lebanese army faces no-win situation". Retrieved 2006-08-01.

Let me know what you think. Mceder 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It was referred to by the BBC in 2004 as an "influential group" : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm It also has a Misplaced Pages entry, so it must be good! Anybody who feels they're incompetent or slanted can argue about it on that page and refer to the argument here. I vote Yes to the IISS! JiHymas@himivest.com 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Inserted into the article. Mceder 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505130316 ArmanJan 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to Al-Qaeda

There is written: During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's deputy leader, called for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon.[93

maybe some palestinian communists want to fight with Isral too.Does it mean they have link to Hezbollah. I think this sentence show Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda have the same enemy. But their religion, idealogy, strategy, tactics, organizatio are so different that maybe they fight in the cases like Iraq. So I think there is only US and Israel who claim these two organization are related and the others thnk they are compeletly different.--212.6.32.3 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they operate like any other big independent enterprises: they may be competitors, they may have huge differences, but from time to time they find their interests are served by cooperation. The first wartime example that comes to mind is China during the second war - in the former, the Nationalists and Communists cooperated against the Japanese, then went back to fighting each other. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OKay Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization and has no links to AL-Qaeda. Wake up people, that is just propganda to further deminize them.

Edit War! See the versions:

• 19:38, 2 August 2006 JiHymas@himivest.com (->Al Qaeda (reduce editorializing))
• 19:35, 2 August 2006 JiHymas@himivest.com (->Al Qaeda (remove lengthy quotations, retain refs & redLinks))
• 19:29, 2 August 2006 Bertilvidet (revert - some of the presented POV's may be relevant, but should be presented at this, we can not have a long list of what various conspiration theories within conservative think tanks)
• 19:06, 2 August 2006 84.105.186.230 (Talk) (→Allegations of links to Al-Qaeda)

User "84.105.186.230" posted some links and extremely lengthy extracts from some opinion pieces; Bertilvidet reverted them while I was editing them. What should we be doing about these things? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits seem very reasonable, and did indeed improve the article. Thanks. Bertilvidet 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

pov TAG

nasrallah is anti-Zionist not anti jews

There is written in the idealogy section:

"if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

This is text of worldnetdaily.com:

Hezbollah terrorist leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warns "Christian Zionists" are gaining strength in the United States and are having a powerful impact on U.S. foreign policy.Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Lebanon, Nasrallah charged oil companies and weapons manufacturers have financed these "Christian Zionists," according to a report in Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper. "Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several U.S. presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists." Nasrallah said the aim of the Christian Zionists in the U.S. is to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

As you see they distorted nasrallah quotations. so I put the other part of this quotation in the article to prevent misinformation--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can finds original Arabic text.--Sa.vakilian 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above doesn't follow at all. Firstly, quotation and indirect speech is being mixed indiscriminately: Actually, the text referred to above is what WorldNetDaily writes, basing its information possibly on the Lebanese The Daily Star .

The only direct speech is

• "Christian Zionists" (2x)
• "Their aim is to redraw the world's political map"
• "It is said that several U.S. presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists"
• "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"

As grammar demands, all quotes are marked by quotation marks, editorial insertions are enclosed in brackets. The editorial insertion "(Jews)" is present in all 4 sources given, including the Daily Star's - it represents the 4 newspaper's interpretation of what Nasrallah said. Besides, N. isn't speaking of "Christian Zionists" returning to Israel - he speaks of "Christian Zionists" in the U.S. helping "Jews" to "return" to Israel.

However, even on the drastically flawed assumption that the worldnetdaily text would have been Nasrallah's direct speech, the inferrence that it devaluates the New York Times', the New York Sun's, and historian Michael Rubin's assertions is

1. baseless (that's my judgment, following logic and semantics. Being a mere WP editor, it's non-authoritative, of course)
2. your inference - and WP editors are not to infer nor to qualify authoritative sources' assertions, lest by other authoritative sources.

--tickle me 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation is POV and we shouldn't write this text in the article. I beleive they calumniated Nasrallah. They blamed him for anti-semitism but actualy he is anti-zainism. There is no evidence Hezbollah bother or hurt Jews who aren't related in Israel like Iranian Jews. Although if they wanted, they could do it easily. --Sa.vakilian 06:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is POV - it's the Point of View of authoritative sources, which we are to cite. What we are not to cite is our POV. "I beleive they calumniated Nasrallah": it's completely irrelevant what you believe, and it doesn't matter if you agree with authoritative sources: you are an WP editor. The POV tag is unwarranted, and posted ignoring elementary WP:POV policy. --tickle me 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't write view of editors of some newpapers and sites as if it is the evidence that shows Hezbollah wants to kill all Jews.--Sa.vakilian 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you hear his speeches, Nasrallah has always called Israel the "Zionaist state" and never the "Jewish state". CG 07:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: if that is what notable newspapers believe to be true, we are to cite it per WP:RS. Besides, Nasrallah is being quoted verbatim. You're not to delete or defame well sourced info based on your POV, which ought never to interfere with WP articles. Your editing here shows blatant disregard and ignorance of WP:POV, WP:RS and WP:OR. I don't know how to put it more clearly: your opinion on what Hezbollah does or does not want is completely irrelevant. You are not to edit according to what you choose to believe.

@CG: You fail to understand the most basic WP principles as well - you infer from what he allegedly never said - you are not to do so: it's WP:OR. This is utterly disheartening. --tickle me 08:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you search in the web, You'll find that most of the sites say anti-semitism and anti-zionism is equal or they have close relation. This is their Idea and we can't say this is the idealogy of Hezbollah. So you can make a section about some ideas about Hezbollah and write it there. But we can't write this interpretation as Hezbollah's idealogy unless we find a quotation which clearly shows this.--Sa.vakilian 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Basing inferences, which we are not to use anyway, on unspecified web searches is a mockery of orderly academic, WP related, or any cogent evaluation. Nasrallah holds Jews to be "a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment." You'r welcome to find that non anti-Semite. However, you're not to mislabel sources because you don't fancy to believe Nasrallah's own words - which happen to be refreshingly clear and unambiguous. And if the New York Times interprets quotes like this:

• "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
• "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."
• "Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”
• "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."

as "genocidal thinking", as most will, you are just free to disbelieve the obvious - not to (dis)qualify this directly by omission or indirectly by POV tag. I really would appreciate if you'd not deny those of Nasrallah's positions which he happily, proudly, and publicly holds - it amounts to WP:POINT. --tickle me 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian's editing has been very valuable to this article - a few weeks ago the article was highly skewed towards the anti-Hezbollah POV and his challenging of unsubstantiated conclusions, with his additions of material regarding Hezbollah's non-military activities have been very useful. I don't really care whether Nasrullah's attitudes are labelled 'anti-Zionist', 'anti-Jew', 'pro-Arab' or whatever. I just want to see direct quotations and authoritative analysis that will help me understand what Nasrullah & Hezbollah are all about. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to value these contributions as "direct quotations and authoritative analysis". I don't: it's jaw-gaping POV and utterly unwikipedic by any conceivable standard. And so were the other edits I contend. Two goods don't make up for one wrong, much less for many. I'm having a legitimate beef with this ongoings, and I don't value blurb thrown in the middle to water issues. I couldn't care less for last week's edits. We don't get awarded goodwill points to go wild unhindered, once an agenda demands it, to wit:

UPPERCASING, repetitive phrase-mongering, suggestive ellipses, mapped to example.com for want of even the most spurious of sources? I'm accustomed by now to specious manipulation, but what's that supposed to be? WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, or just a stone age agitprop seminary ...mock-up? Heck, there's not the least pretense left of WP centered intentions anymore. And nobody minds around here. --tickle me 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This was missing: Sa.vakilian's "authoritative analysis". Sv is a wikipedian, as such he *is not* to analyse, but to *find and quote or relate accurately* analyses. Moreover, whatever he does, writes, thinks: it's *not* authoritative for WP - *ever*. The preceding is the essence of WP policy linked above, which is openly mocked here. --tickle me 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Attacking "Sa.vakilian's authoritative analysis"? Referring to my post? If you actually read my post, you will not find this statement in anything I've said. Please refrain from personal attacks, in any case. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I forgot to put link last time(Hezbollah official website). But I corrected it. --Sa.vakilian 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)moved here by --tickle me 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an official Hezbollah statement - it says what it is, by whom and when. That is an anonymous archive search result page, I labeled it accordingly. An official Hezbollah statement on this has yet to be found, lest they should amend that page. --tickle me 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me - I just read through this thing.. Can we please put down the arms, get back to business, stop pointing out every WP policy violation? I can not eat breakfast without violating at least three WP policies. But it seems that arguing semantics does little to help this article along. Can we start over? Clearly and concisely spell out what you feel should be added, altered or removed? Cause at this point, I am frankly confused but want to help. Cheers, Mceder 03:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to shorten the article size a bit

Starting at Entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist and down, quoting long pieces that are already sourced, it can be replaced with something much shorter - I propose doing so since I do not believe it will take away from the article. Something like this can replace it, obviously with sources intact:

Hezbollah has been labeled a terrorist organization, either in full or part by the following countries:

United States (In full)

Canada (In full)

Israel (In full)

United Kingdom (Lists only the Hezballah External Security Organisation)

Netherlands (Lists only the Hezballah External Security Organisation)

European Union (Lists only Hezbollah's senior intelligence officer - IMad Mugniyah

Mceder 13:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The History section is the longest, thus the most convenient for shortening. It's common use with many WP entries to replace it by a summary and move to its own article. --tickle me 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have created History of Hezbollah. What do you think about shortening down the entries on the terrorist claims? Mceder 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the quotations from the Entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist section, along the lines of Mceder's suggestion. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too - except you have ommited Australia as a nation that lists ESO. Seeing the list like this though, really brings home the inballance of such sections. Only 3 countries consider them fully terrorist and another 3 consider the external org - that is 6 countries out of the entire planet. if the section were entitled countries that don't consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation it would be a much longer list. Just an observation. DavidP 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it was a quick piece I put together. I do have the source for a table using Wikitable with all the references and Australia as well. I can put this in when I get home this evening. And I agree with you on your observation. It is a very long section to point out that 6 countries consider them or part of them as a terrorist organisation. Mceder 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also removed the reference to Russia not listing them, since starting that list would be quite the task(currently all countries except for the 6). In essence, an omission from the list currently listing them as terrorist should be enough. I am concerned that there may be some reverts, or I missed a point in the contents I removed so please look it over and revert or update as needed. Mceder 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia is part of the Middle East quartet and so it's opinion is relevant. Also, if you are going to list which countries regard Hezbollah as terrorist you also need to list some prominent ones which don't. Deuterium 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! If you are going to revert, please don't revert to a version that defines Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization and political party which uses attacks aimed at civilians to achieve it's goals". That is the current article that you reverted it to. Since I don't do the revert back and forth thing, I will leave it to someone else to revert back to it's proper version. I appreciate your feedback on the changes. Perhaps you can add the things you requested? The article is a bit bloated so we are just trying to simplify things, that's all. Cheers - Mceder 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the guy who copied the snippet about Russia from "Background" to the new section, so you know where I stand! I agree that we don't really want to make a list of every sovereign nation that doesn't list H as T, but Russia's an influential player (or at least a wannabe) with ties to the region ... and they did have a list and they didn't put H on it. So I vote "Yes" to Russia. Great looking table, by the way! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. What I did was move that statement into the opening phrase; such as this: Six countries have designated part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a label vehemently disputed by some other countries. A notable omission of Hezbollah in it's list of terrorist groups is Russia, who released the list in the midst of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. - Since we are introing with the six who designated them as terrorists, lets also include the one who must of specifically omitted it (since it was released Friday(!!)) to balance it out. Mceder 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me and my apologies for the earlier mistake. Deuterium 05:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems at all! Mceder 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do the EU really list list only Hezbollah's senior intelligence officer - IMad Mugniyah as a terrorist organisation? That is, they call 1 guy an organisation?? That seems pretty strange. 203.206.24.90 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the section is good now. We're showing those who do designate H as T and accounting for each member of the Quartet. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

France has just shown up in the terrorism section, not because they've designated H as T, but because their president has been quoted using the two words in the same sentence. I'd like to delete this, but is there a consensus? JiHymas@himivest.com 10:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the organization websitite?

Link please .

From the links section:

• Moqawama Hezbollah's Official Website

Mceder 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing! The edits of 01:02, 2 August 2006 65.93.209.196 changed the reference from http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/ to http://www.moqawama.net/

Both are registered to

Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service

P.O. Box 229

Margaretville, NY 12455

US

Sounds like a dangerous line of work to me!

JiHymas@himivest.com 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I know all of these site and some other sites like are belonged to Hezbollah. But the languages are different and they use different adress to prevent hackers.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? If we could establish a chain of referrals starting with a site that is known to be authoritative (such as Lebanese government, or Mohammed Fneish, the cabinet minister), this would be a good thing to note. ESPECIALLY since I understand there are some claims that Israel has hacked the al-Manar television signal and is substituting their own content on at least one satellite. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz says "Hezbollah's media empire - which includes the Al-Nur radio station and the Web site moqawama.net - has been an inseparable part of the psychological war." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745287.html JiHymas@himivest.com 15:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/ has been down for a few hours. Bombed? Hacked? Or is the cheque in the mail? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the revision dated 22:51, 5 August 2006, user Nimur cast doubt on whether either of these sites are official. I have left a message on his talk page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nimur has answered. I am taking the liberty moving his reply, posted as a new section on this page, to a subsection of this one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Web Site / Media Outlets

There are two linked web-pages described as Official Web Sites. I have tagged these as disputed for the following reasons:

• The official media outlets of Hezbollah are Al-Manar (television) and Al-Nour (radio), both of which have official web-sites.
• These newly created websites address only recent developments (2006 conflict), and not the larger organization
• As an organization, Hezbollah has not officially recognized these websites via its other news outlets (Manar and Nour).

If anyone can find a citation on Manar or Nour which reference an official web-page, by all means, please let us know. It may also be worth inclusion in the article to discuss that both Manar and Nour's official web-pages are temporarily down; the most likely cause is the recent chaos in Lebanon. Nimur 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that all? I would have used the word "unconfirmed" rather than "dispute", but perhaps that merely my taste. I found one Israeli-registered site that claims to track down Hezbollah's sites for the purpose of shutting them down, but I have no idea whether this site or the organization behind it is credible. http://haganah.org.il/haganah/index.html JiHymas@himivest.com 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the link to moqawama.net, given the citation by Haaretz, and changed "disputed" to "unconfirmed". JiHymas@himivest.com 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I dig, the more interesting this gets! The site http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/tergps/tghez.htm (US Military!) refers to http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm as the "Hezbollah organization web site" and http://www.moqawama.org/page2/main.htm as the site of "Islamic Resistance Support Association (Lebanon)". A search on the latter organization turns up an (unofficial) Israeli document, http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/hizbullah/chap_d.doc, that says:

• Hezbollah’s fundraising in the United States focuses mainly on areas housing sizeable Shiite communities, such as New York, Detroit, Boston, and Los Angeles. While US authorities define Hezbollah, including its civilian wing, as a terrorist organization, we know of no concrete measures taken against charity funds associated with Hezbollah and operating in the United States.
• Among the centers mentioned above, Detroit, home to a large Shiite community of southern Lebanese origin, stands out as the main center of Hezbollah’s fundraising activity in the United States. Compared with other centers, fundraising in Detroit is carried out by a fairly well organized mechanism. Three charity funds operate in the Detroit area. Additional fundraising is carried out through the Islamic Resistance Support Association. Al-Shahid Fund appears to be the major fundraising institution in Detroit, probably Hezbollah’s main fund in the United States. It is closely linked to Hezbollah’s Foreign Relations desk, and is also related (to an extent which is yet unclear) with the al-Shahid Association in Lebanon. Two additional funds operate in Detroit: the Educational Development Association (EDA) and the Goodwill Charitable Organization (GCO).
• The Islamic Resistance Support Association raises funds in the Detroit area by means of “alms boxes” placed in restaurants in the local Shiite community. Until recent years, donors were also openly referred to bank account numbers used by the “Support Association”. Since the September 11 attacks, however, this practice is no longer in use. It is still possible, though, to donate money directly to the bank accounts used by the Islamic Resistance Support Association.

Now, I have no evidence as yet that the IRSA and the IRSA(Lebanon) are one and the same, but this is getting fun! JiHymas@himivest.com 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have investigated - as you can see, the "answer" is not quite straightforward. I recommend keeping the unconfirmed label in the main article, since even the experts, authorities, and intelligence services do not seem to have a clear consensus; nor do the official outlets of the group seem to indicate these websites are official. Nimur 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with "unconfirmed" ... The only thing we have, really, is a reference from Haaretz, and I don't suppose Nasrullah 'phones them every day to keep them in the swim. JiHymas@himivest.com 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's something timely from Time : How Hizballah Hijacks the Internet It turns out that Haganah is well thought of ... provided that the "Haganah" in Time is the same as the http://haganah.org.il/haganah/index.html noted above. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked moqawama.net ... "suspended", presumably by host, although it might be a hack. ADNKronosInternational provides some alternatives, but neither www.lobnannews.com nor www.moqavemat.com are currently accessible (from my Canadian ISP, anyway! Maybe Harper bought some Chinese software!). Haganah claims that these "forward to moqavemat.ir" ... I can't reach www.moqavemat.ir either. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I just edited some vandalism attempt that wrote on the main description 'MURDEROUS ISLAMO-FASCIST PIG' organization, or something like that. Someone should check the history and see who's the one doing it. Thief12 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other types of vandalism have also been occuring, people have been removing statements of fact such as "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization." While that type of statement is often mistaken as POV, in cases like this it is a statement of fact and should not be removed.

Considering only three countries in the world has actually labeled Hezbollah as a whole, a terrorist organisation, the statement "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization" IS POV (namely the US, Israel and Canadas point of view). That is why we refrain from making blanket statement, and rather state WHO thinks they are terrorist. Calling an organization terrorist is not a fact since the definition of terrorism is hardly clear cut and factual.

On the other hand, I do not think you will find the line stating that they are NOT a terrorist organisation even though that is the POV of many countries.. Mceder 12:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the whole article is quite POV, but more importantly simply poorly written! There are at least three references to "Hezbollah is considered by Lebanon to be a legitimate resistance movement". Once is quite enough...

Why somebody remove this sentence "which result in killing innocent people but not others. For example" from this part

"Hezbollah has denounced some acts of terror which result in killing innocent people but not others. For example, it condemned the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but not the attack on the Pentagon. It denounced Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt, and the murder of Nick Berg. However, it expresses support and sympathy for the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamist groups responsible for suicide attacks and armed resistance in Israel and the Palestinian territories. "

As you see it makes the meaning clearer. I added Hezbollah's definition of innocent people to make the meaning clearer.--Sa.vakilian 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. The section title is Allegations of specific terrorist attacks. There is nothing specific referenced in the quote from the Robin Wright article. This snippet should certainly appear somewhere in the article, but not here - and not three times, either! It is currently quoted in "Ideology", "Allegations of specific terrorist attacks" and "Rebuttals of terrorist designation". Once would be quite enough - I suggest the last section is most appropriate. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I merged this part with "Rebuttals of terrorist designation" .--Sa.vakilian 09:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The structure as it was and as it is again makes perfect sense to me: there is a section regarding specific allegations, there is a section regarding general allegations (or specification) and there is a section for rebuttal (which looks really weak, by the way : you may wish to spend some energy looking for something a little stronger). I suggest that major changes to the article structure not be made until they have been discussed here ... and by "discussed", I mean that a suggestion should be up for at least 24 hours before action is taken. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend many people have editted this article and some of them don't pay attention to this page. I propose you to improve this part. I think you can do it well.--Sa.vakilian 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of holding you responsible for other people's actions. I'll only consider you responsible for your own actions. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that part(Designation as terrorist organization ). I've only tried to improve it. Of course this part is very disputable. I prefer to move it to a new article and write an abstract instead of it.--Sa.vakilian 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist allegations

A new user wishes to add his opinion, namely that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in the intro. May I suggest that we dont for the umpteenth time repeat the debate about whether Misplaced Pages should approve such accusations. Actually policies have been devoloped for such issues. Please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I assume we all feel responsible to uphold these policies. Bertilvidet 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is written something about it.--Sa.vakilian 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, what is currently written is fine: stating that some consider it as a terror organization and giving their arguments, and of course also presenting the counter arguments. Bertilvidet 08:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment about Hezbollah being considered by some as a terrorist group and by others as a resistance movement is repeated too often. I think once should be sufficient. --Ghormax 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are some other issues as well. The allegations of terrorism are made in a climate of tensions. You can hardly expect conservative US think tanks to write objective reports about Hezbollah. Now, you cannot just say that what they say is nonsense, as that would be POV. But it should be mentioned more clearly in each case who says what and on the wikipage of the relevant think thank (e.g. the American Enterprise institution) one should mention clearly their political color and their track record (e.g. what did they say about Saddam's link to Al Qa'ida etc. etc.) Count Iblis 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, its pretty simple. If an organization purposefully targets civilians with violence in order to achieve political goals, it is a terrorist organization. I understand that Hezbollah is also a social organization, and I certaintly respect the good it has done in that respect in Lebanon. Further, its activities fighting the IDF within Lebanese territory could be described as that of a morally questionable, but none the less legitamate resistance organization. However, Hezbollah launches missles into major Israeli population centers with the stated goal of killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. As such, Hezbollah's other activies do not change the fact that it is a terrorist organization by the definition of terrorist. Prancing around this point is useless; stating what is by definition true is not POV. -- Almo 8/6/06

By whose definition of terrorist? JiHymas@himivest.com 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah sees an illigitimate entity that was fraudulently created by Zionists and therefore terrorist. Israelis consider the deliberate targeting of civilians as terrorism. Hezbollah states that because all Israelis go to the army, they are all targets, despite killing so many Arabs in their wild missile attacks. They also consider Muslims who die due to their actions as martyr soldiers that died for Allah. Israel only considers people not enlisted in an armed group as civilians, but accepts collateral damage to civilians and destruction of infrastructure if it has a dual use in aiding terrorists. Labaneh 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New Subsection : Links to Hamas ?

We have an entire section with 'Links to other armed groups' in the title and the only group mentioned is Al-Qaeda. I suggest we start another sub-section called 'Links to Hamas' which should be much more interesting. We could start it off with a quote from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33566.pdf

Hamas. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, suggested that the Hezbollah operation might provide a way out of the crisis in Gaza because Israel had negotiated with Hezbollah indirectly in the past although it is refusing to negotiate with Hamas now. He said that the only way the soldiers would be returned would be through a prisoner exchange. Although Hezbollah and Hamas are not organizationally linked, Hezbollah has acted in some ways as a mentor or role model for Hamas, which has sought to emulate the Lebanese group’s political and media success. Hamas’s kidnaping of the Israeli soldier follows a different Hezbollah example. Hezbollah reportedly also has provided terrorist training for Hamas, and the two groups share

the goal of driving Israel from occupied territories and ultimately from Israel proper; both maintain close ties with Iran. and see where it leads.

What do other editors think? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This editor agrees, noteworthy and interesting - as long as it is factual. Mceder 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They're the baddest motherf**kers, and not in a good way. --66.218.13.28 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added Al Manar broadcasts from 2004 to present thanks to Memri.org. This is Hezbollah's official tv station and they pretty much show Nasrallah calling for the outright destruction of Israel and America with the caviat that this war will end when the Zionists leave the region and America discontinues it's relations and policies with Islamic nations. He said it not me.

Hezbollah's connection with Hamas is strictly an alliance against Israel. Arabs living inside Israel are Sunni population and Hezbollah are Shiah. If Israel were ever destroyed, and I imagine even sooner, Hamas and Hezbollah would kill each other the exact same way that Iraqis do today, and probably one of many reasons Iraq and Iran fought so miserably for so many years in the Iran-Iraq War Labaneh 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian has put a minor edit on this section with an edit note "Please brief this quotation". What parts of the quotation do you feel are extraneous? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Israel

We can write a new section about relation, operations and negotiations between Hezbollah and Israel.--Sa.vakilian 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article's about Hezbollah & Israel anyway. What are you proposing? To move other sections into an 'Israel & Hezbollah' section? Or to fill this section with new material? If the former, which sections? If the latter, what topics for the new material? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Manar broadcasts

These were added in the revision of 16:45, 4 August 2006. I haven't looked at them - the titles certainly look inflammatory, but if it's Nasrallah speaking for himself on his own TV station then I see no reason to reject them out of hand - quite the contrary! I am concerned about the titles and the short descriptions of content: Are these taken from Al-Manar or are they editorializing? Also, is the clip that claims to feature a "young student" of any relevance? Young Students can say anything they want - and usually do - without any significance. It would be a lot more to my taste if these clips were included in the article as citations for statements that were better integrated into the text, e.g. (assuming the content descriptions are accurate, if a little POV) "In May, 2004, Nasrallah called for 'Death to America' (ref)link to clip(/ref)" in the Ideology section. Any other thoughts? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas, this section fits in perfectly under media relations.

Minimizing the affect that mass media has on millions of people, particularly inciteful histrionic speaches calling for the death of Israel, America and the West, does an explanation of Hezbollah a tremendous disservice.Labaneh 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this plays into a wider issue of Hezbollah, Iranian, Iraqi, Egyptian and Palestinian Mass Media inciting children:

A Lebanese Girl's calls on the Muslim world to beat the drums of Jihad and reconquer Jerusalem

Jews Turn into Apes and Pigs in an Clay-mation Film for Children on Hizbullah TV

Mothers of Hizbullah Martyrs Are Very Happy And Want to Sacrifice More Children on Hezbollah TV

Young Child Doesn't Want Peace with the Jews

Inciting Palestinian Cartoon for Kids

Adult Sheik explains martyrdom for children.

I added an abstract from Al-Manar article.--Azmanet 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think following part should add at wikiqute not wikipedia. Of course it shouldn't be written at the Almanar section.--Azmanet 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(Click Link to View Video Clip )

• 5/15/2004 Nasrallah / Hezbollah Crowd: Death to America
• 2/18/2005 Nasrallah Speach to tens of thousands: Death to Israel... Death to America (Crowd) Death to America! Death to America!
• 11/29/2005 Young Student on Hezbollah TV: - Just like Hitler fought the Jews – We are a great Islamic nation of Jihad, and we too should fight the Jews and burn them.
• 2/23/2006 Nasrallah Speech Inciting crowd of thousands America America You are the Great Satan! Death to America!
• 7/16/2006 Nasrallah: We are waging the battle of the Islamic nation, whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not.

Let me repeat: Minimizing the affect that mass media has on millions of people, particularly inciteful histrionic speaches calling for the death of Israel, America and the West, does an explanation of Hezbollah a tremendous disservice, and furthermore, does a tremendous disservice to the world at large.Labaneh 20:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A greater disservice to the world at large is sloganeering and poor argument on such a subject. Nobody on this talk page or in the article is minimizing anything. This is only reasonable, because no argument emphasizing "the affect that mass media has on millions of people" has yet been made or referred to. Posting links to inflammatory video clips is not an argument or even a reference to an argument. If you insist on having the article say something like "Al-Manar incites violence and creates misery; if it didn't exist then the world would be a better place" then find an authoritative source who has made that argument and cite it. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas, I'm not going to cite half the world that thinks that terrorists are indeed...terrorists! I'm not going to because some schmuck is just going to delete it as POV. This is the essense of fact, if you want to change the headings to nasrallah says have a nice day then do it, but don't delude yourself to thinking he wants anything but the destruction of the US, Israel and the West.

Media in the Arab world is Inciting, inflamitory and incorrigable. It is the distilled essense of Propaganda in every way - far more than Fox, CNN or any other Western network that gives a tinge to the left or right. Western Media doesn't call out to "kill every last one of them until they concede to our way of thinking" It doesn't have cartoons for children showing Arabs making some halal food with the blood of Jews. It doesn't have children crying out BUTCHER THE ARABS. Arab media demonizes the Jews and the West in these ways. They have music videos on killing the US in every way and to every audience, and this inciting language is a piece of the larger conflict.Labaneh 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the broadcasts should be moved to the Al Manar article. --Coolintro 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They were moved there but they were removedLabaneh 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Marine barracks bombing

I modified the sentence about this a bit to make it NPOV. I think that to denote it as a terrorist act is very POV. I deleted the sentence that it is widely regarded as the start of modern terrorism. I think that that claim should be sourced. Count Iblis 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked your change. According to the referenced 1983 Beirut barracks bombing article, it is thought to be one of the first instances of suicide bombing, but the article provides no citation to support that argument. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of counter-examples if I tried! As far as being terrorism ... well, the American judge called it terrorism, http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/ , so while we can argue POV, at least we can argue authoritative POV! JiHymas@himivest.com 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The ruling of the judge could be included in the reference list. Saying that a US judge ruled it to be a terror attack is not POV because then any possible POV refers not to the actual event (the bombings) but to the judge making his ruling... Count Iblis 00:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Too Long

This article becomes too long. Please move some part of it to a new article.--Sa.vakilian 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of duplication of statements (e.g., resolution 1559 is mentioned roughly 1559 times, despite having its own article) which could be condensed, but I don't really see any good candidates for sub-articles. Any ideas? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What is suitable for Lead

I think this part "and started again on July 12, 2006 after Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers and killing of eight others in a cross-border raid into Northern Israel...Hezbollah's cross-border raid prompted Israel to bomb Hezbollah targets within Lebanon, in response Hezbollah has persisted at firing hundreds of Ketusha rockets each day at northern Israel. Israel has responded by waging a ground and air war against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including dropping depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs. " shouldn't be written in lead. Of course it should be moved to History of Hezbollah. But Shamir has insisted on remaining it. I want to know the other ideas.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with Sa.vakilian. The lead should very briefly sum up what the organization stands for and its history. The focus of this article has to be the organization of Hizbullah, not the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which has its own article. Bertilvidet 08:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sa.vakilian as well, for what it's worth. The disputed section is gone now. But maybe it will back! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears POV is creeping back into the lead. The statement

It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada

seems unnecessary, since there is a section in the body about which entities designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Also, the sources referenced by this statement

. But other countries don't agree with them. The Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against occupation.

Don't substantiate the claims that the Lebanese government has recognized Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance against the occupation.

Jonexsyd 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence One of Hezbollah's principal declared aims is to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon that lasted from 1982 through 2000 and again starting in July of 2006 due to attacks inflicted on Israel by Hezbollah and the continuous occupation of the Shebaa Farms. is starting to sound non-sensical. Tense of "aims is" is wrong given than the 1982-2000 conflict is in the past.

Will make an edit that fixes the tense issue and removes POV statements. Jonexsyd 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the phrase "It has been declared a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and Canada." in the lead. It gives the impression that only those countries consider it a terrorist organization. Should we add something like "many western countries"? Or is that too unspecific and POV as well? What do you think? Any ideas? --Splette 12:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't just use the international definition of terrorism, which is the intentional targeting of civilians for advancing political agenda and be done with it.Labaneh 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we use this definition then we should say the government of U.S. and Israel are terrorist too.--Sa.vakilian 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the emphasis here is on targeting civilians which neither US nor Israel do in my opinion. But this article is not about mine or your opinion. So lets better not start a political discussion here. Also I wasn't trying to suggest here to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization in the lead. It's just that the mentioning of US, Canada and Isreal makes it look like these are all countries. It would be interesting to see if/what other countries officialy recognize Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Does anyone have any information (with source) on this? --Splette 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the lead - what justification has been given for putting the terrorist designation ahead of the resistance movement designation in the lead? In other words: who decides whether the less negative or more negative characterisation of an entity should lead? Do negative characterisations always take precedence? If not, why so in this case?

Jonexsyd 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Source Material

I haven't read this thoroughly yet, but it's testimony to the Senate titled "Hezbollah: Financing Terror Through Criminal Enterprise" with lots of references. A first glance suggests that it's got a lot of background that will be useful for the article. On the web at http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/LevittTestimony.pdf JiHymas@himivest.com 06:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are Hizbollah

Who are the people that constitute Hezbollah both the military and political wing? The organization looks to be a national group but, the media is describing as a regional group made up of people from all over the mid-east.

I've heard reports anywhere from 4-20 cabinet members are outright Hezbollah members. THAT list woulds probably be the most helpful to us - everything else is speculation since the Hezbollah are such a tricky bunch. They are state sponsored by Iran, heavily harbored by Syria, and have forced themselves into Lebanon with the help of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. They have their strongest presence in those areas. There is a Hezbollah Iraq faction, but it's no where near as powerful as the one that's been bolstered and training in Lebanon for 6 years. Outside of that it's difficult to tell where they are because if they make their presence known, they risk being quashed by various interests: either Western or Sunni. They probably have a medium to light presence in the Americas, Asia/Australia and more heavily in Europe. Their army has been estimated from 1000-5000 strong.Labaneh 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of dubious quotation

I removed this quotation: "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.". Please have a look at the source, its an editorail in the New York Sun and it is really unclear where the statement is from. If someone can come up with a precise reference for the quotation, feel free to add it again. Bertilvidet 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at that quotation as well, though not in the same way. It seems to me that the entire issue (Hezbollah & Israel/Zionists/Jews) could be dealt with very briefly ... something like "Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel (lots of references). Its views have been criticized as genocidal (lots of references)." It seems to me that there's more detail in this section than is appropriate for such a short summary (with perhaps a wikiLink to Arab-Israeli conflict), given the inherent problems of POV in selecting the material to be highlighted. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that now we have too many sources basically stressing the same point. However, I am not sure the ideology of Hezbollah can be described that easy. The article needs to describe the change in hezbollah's rethoric, which has become far more moderate since Israels withdrawal from (the vast majority of) Southern Lebanon. I heard recently in the radio that Nasrallah has been quoted for saying that Hezbollah will not have any issue with Israel, if they withdraw from the Shebba Farms and return the remaining Lebanese prioserns in Israeli prisons. I have so far not been able to find the reference for that quotation, but please add it if anyone comes across it. Bertilvidet 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler also said that he would stop invading European countries if he could just get a little more land 72.70.69.211 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not relevantimi2 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally relevant.Labaneh 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As I told before in "POV debate" I doubt "all" means "Jews" ,including anti-zionist jews. The first part of his quatation shows he meant "Zionists" including Jews and Christian Zionists. --Sa.vakilian 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How many truly anti-semetic remarks do I need to post before you accept that Hassan Nasrallah hates Jews? I will be sure he says yahud and not zionist in his rhetoric. You give me the number and I'll give you the proof.

If you put the links of his quotations and not the U.S. newspapers' interpretations, I'll accept. --Sa.vakilian 04:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits By Banzai et al Regarding Designation As Terrorist

Use of "terrorist" in quotes is not appropriate. There are legitimately different views about whether Hezbollah is, or is not, a terrorist organization. The article should attempt to represent both views fairly. Use of "terrorist" in quotes suggests that the designation is false. The article should not be passing comment itself about whether or not it is actually false, only reporting the views of others. This is the neutral point of view. Jonexsyd 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I gave it some thought, and you’re probably right. Terrorism’s a concept, not just a word, after all. I support removing the quote marks.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• On another topic, I’d avoid using the word “states” in that headline—the U.N. isn’t a state, for example. I agree that “entities” is unwieldy, so how else can we title the section?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re the table name: in the discussion further up, I suggested "Political Stances towards Hezbollah". Howzzat? JiHymas@himivest.com 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Good thinking!  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Polling and Legitimacy

How legitimate is it to poll a population under duress? Lebanese fearing for their lives are not able to express their true views.

The poll which is done before war shows similar result: "while according to another poll, from July 2005, 74 percent of Christian Lebanese viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization." Also if Hezbollah weren't legitimate in Lebanon, how could it participate in government.--Sa.vakilian 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple answer to your retort: They were under duress far before the election. They were under duress during the election, and they have been under duress ever since. The only reason there isn't a civil war is because the Christians and Druze backed down, for now, and believe me, Hezbollah knows that.

As for the poll, the Druze don't support Hezbollah, they culturally support whoever is the dominating party. You can watch films of Druze welcoming each and every conquering party, be it Israeli or Arab, they always have the same reaction. They throw flowers out the window and cheer. The go to their oldest olive tree and tear off a whole branch to show their support for the incoming conquerors. That's a part of their religeon, and that's how they've survived in the region for millenia.

Although the Christians are a bit more divided in their views, I assure you the majority do not support Hizb'allah, many have family in Northern Israel, and Israel is their most powerful (and only) ally in the entire region.Labaneh 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about Druze and Christians but disagree with about Hezbollah supporters. Hezbollah is the most powerful party which can gather people. It not only represents shi'a ,the largest group in Lebanon, but also it can lead prosyrian and antiisraeli groups. And I remined you never the situation become normal in Lebanon. As I read from 1970s there were special situation. So you can't be sure about any poll. Therefor you can't deduce Hezbollah isn't be supported by majority of Lebanese.--Sa.vakilian 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Labeneh has not cited any authoritative sources for his claims. I'm waiting ... JiHymas@himivest.com 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa: If you agree with me about Druze and Christians, than you know that Hezbollah violently forces a whole portion of the population into going along with something they didn't believe in, despite Hezbollah being a minority in the government (i.e. duress) which makes Hezbollah

1) A terror Organization that Terrorizes it's own people

2) Illigitimate, and

3) Despotic. tell me if I've missed something here.

JiHymas@himivest.com, my father fought in the Israeli Army from 1970 to 1986 alongside the Southern Lebanese Army. He was briefed on the Druze benevolence reactions in film briefings and then as a combat tank gunner, personally experienced the reactions of the Druze population on several occasions upon entrance and exit from their regions. To quote the Wikiarticle on Druze: they '...use the (accepted) practice of taqiyya, "dissimulation", whereby they concealed their true beliefs and outwardly accepted the religious beliefs of those amongst whom they lived even as they secretly retained their true convictions' This goes beyond religeous belief to nationalism. This is exemplified by the fact that many Druze volunteer into the Israeli army in Israel, and support Hezbollah in Lebanon.

There is only one abbheration to this rule, a small portion of Druze living in the northernmost parts of the Golan affiliate themselves with Syria and renounce their Israeli citizenship. This is primarily because their families are divided across international boundaries and the area is all but deserted in those regions.

The Southern Lebanese Army, which comprised of Maronite Christians, vehemiently abhorred Palestinians because they felt the Palestinians were a guest that ruined their country with a civil war. As an ally of the Palestinians, Hezbollah butchered the Christians, and the Christians in turn, butchered back. Many Christians, like most cultures in the region have never forgotten nor forgiven for the crimes committed.

When Barak withdrew the Israeli Army, he took along many of the major generals (and their families) of the Southern Lebanese Army and allowed them Israeli Citizenship. This spared their families cruel fates and most live up north in the Golan, awaiting unifications with the rest of their families and abhorring the Hezbollah, who are now endangering both their lives. I know because many are my friends.

Take the testimony of Bridgit Gabriel, Maronite Christian from Lebanon who was saved by Israelis in the early 80s.Labaneh 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or former PLO Terrorist Walid Shoebat as to the situation in the region.

Oh, Christ. Isn't this like claiming the Israeli population is under duress because the police takes unkindly to violence against the IDF? It's unclear to me that polling in Lebanon is any less reliable than polling in Israel.

As for Shoebat, I remember him visiting my university a couple years back. As far as I'm concerned, you've given up any claim to balance (much less neutrality) by citing him to back up a point.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Labenah, I can't agree that citing "Comments attributed by a pseudonymous Wikipedian to his Dad" meets the standard of "authoritative source" JiHymas@himivest.com 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Labaneh I said agree with you about deruz and christians, not everything you said. You think your narration is the truth but there isn't sufficient evidence to judge. As I told before, Hezbollah represents Shiite and also leads antiIraeli and proSyrian groups. So Don't you think these are the majority of Lebanese. In addition I think Deruz and christians support Hezbollah because they fight well and show their power against Israel, but they only support not beleive in Hezbollah. --Sa.vakilian 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, there is no unbiased opinion here, there is only fair reporting on such a hot issue, that's all you can achieve.

Banzai, in our correspondence, you have been outright Pro-PLO, pro Hezbollah and against any Israeli offensive, It's understandable, and I differ from your opinion, but don't claim that one of my sources makes my entire argument false, particularly a source that is an ex-PLO operative. Walid Jumblatt's message is this: I was an Islamist militant, I was incited to murder my entire life by Arab media and culture, I joined the PLO & did some bad shit, and when I moved to the US to start a terrorist cell, I got married and reformed. Now he goes around educating nations on Islamic terror. What's the problem with his citation?

Regarding your comment - '"Israeli population is under duress because the police takes unkindly to violence against the IDF?"' - What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Death by mob lynching due to Lebanon's non-exhistant justice system has no resemblance on Israeli policies whatsoever. If someone murders in Israel, the alleged murderer is put to trial and imprisoned accordingly. Israeli civilians can AND DO say anything they want without fear of being murdered, that's why you can poll them knowing that the margin of error comes from lying and not duress. If someone so much as says "I think Israel is right in this conflict" amidst Hezbollah, they are put to death - Christians and Muslims alike - and there are Hezbollah informants all over Lebanon. Please come back with a cogent argument.

JiHymas, you may not appreciate it, but my father is a primary source that was in Lebanon for years.

Sa, if the Arabs ever destroy Israel, which kaffir is next? I think you have a reasonable point of view, but I think you know that people in this region don't forget. Everything that happens is remembered in the cultural mind and avenged in time. THIS is a real hudna - until either Israel or Hezbollah win, Christians support Hezbollah as a show in order not to get butchered, and Hezbollah temporarily stop maiming Christians for being Kaffirs, but you said it yourself, there isn't sufficient evidence to judge - an inacurate or immeasurable poll shouldn't be sited when there are plenty of unsaid facts in this article.

I think there should be a split between pro-Israel and Pro-Hezbollah opinions on this article. It's difficult when I have a minority viewpoint, I've stopped citing because you guys delete hours of my hard work in seconds.Labaneh 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(In response to Labaneh's "...eath by mob lynching due to Lebanon's non-exhistant justice system ... If someone so much as says 'I think Israel is right in this conflict' amidst Hezbollah, they are put to death...":)

Oh jesus christ. Have you ever been to Lebanon? Not even the Hezbollah-controlled south is as you describe. It seems you're deluding yourself about life in Lebanon at least as much as you are about justice in Israel.

Try to remember that pro-PLO (or Hezbollah) and pro-Israel aren't mutually exclusive positions. The PLO, for example, supports Israel's right to exist and represents Israel's best hope to moderate Hamas. Recognizing the futility of the IDF's campaign, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon, wouldn't be anti-Israel—it'd be as pro-Israel as you can get.

Note further that I'm not saying I support any of these positions. I just want to tweak your intellect a bit.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact Tag on 'Cabinet positions due to confessionalism'

I have seen no argument that Hezbollah's cabinet positions are a direct result of confessionalism, so I've put a fact tag on this statement. It is my understanding that the current government is, basically, a 'government of national unity' and that Hezbollah was invited as they have significant support in the population, confessionalism or no confessionalism. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The confusion comes because the Lebanese government was never given a chance to do anything but fight (or aid) corruption. The cabinet was sort of a unity government, but under complete duress of the Hezbollah:

The Maronites have their own villages, commerce and weaponry, only relying on the Lebanese government for kickbacks and corruption. The Christian communities have been so devastated by the last civil war, that they don't care what government they empower, so long as they have peace in their towns.

The Druze are in a similar situation, except there has been a slight rebellious attitude from the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who has been outspoken against Hezbollah's actions. On several occasions, Nasrallah has called Jumblatt's comments outrageous and said that Jumblatt's blasphemy might cause a civil war. It is understood in Arabic that this is a clear threat against the Druze population, since religeously, the Druze would not attempt to dominate over another culture.

On the other hand, The Hezbollah, is a well oiled machine. Externally funded by Iran, Hezbollah has it's own agenda, the least amount of corruption and a focus on Islamocentric 'social programs' in the Shiite community. Their role in the weak Lebanese government is simple: dictate the few terms Hezbollah really cares about: attacking Israel, growing the Shiite community, controlling the media and quashing dissent. Hezbollah's true strengths come from their victory in terrorizing not Israel, but the Maronite and Druze populations. As long as the Christians and Druze let Hezbollah do whatever it wants, they live in a quazi-comfortable understanding - the Maronites and Druze let Hezbollah attack Israel (and keep quiet about it, even support it at times) and Hezbollah would overlook their Christian and Druze counterparts, for now. Labaneh 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the infamous sentence "due to confessionalism", and must now admit that it is maybe not the optimal formulation. My point, which I believe should be stated, is that Hezbullahs presence in the government not is due to ordinary parliamentarism, where a majority or the largest minority group form a coalition based on political allignment. With the confessional system, the different religious groups have to cooperate and share the power- thus it is easier for groups like Hezbollah to get a relative important degree of influence. But please feel free to reword the sentence. Bertilvidet 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the statement of reasons why Hezbollah's in cabinet and reworked the section to reduce duplication of ideas. JiHymas@himivest.com 18:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving August 7

I've moved all headings that do not have an "August" date in them somewhere to a new archive. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

al-Qaeda listed as Shi'a

"Russia does not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but it does list other radical Islamic Shi'a groups, such as Islamic Jihad, as well as al-Qaeda." - This sentence is incorrect as al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group. --Coolintro 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite correct, of course, I've fixed it. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Civilized country"?

but the United States, Canada, and Israel and most civilized countries deem it a terrorist organization.

What does "civilized countries" mean? So I'm just wondering if this expression could be offending, since it puts other countries into the not-yet-civilized countries group. English is not my mother language, so it could be just my misunderstanding. --Pura 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see that?! -- Szvest 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If such a formulation occurs I believe it should be treated as vandalism. 1) Labelling some countries civilized in contrast to others is deeply racist, and 2) the statement is inaccurate as the mentioned 3 countries are the only ones actually deeming it a terrorist organization. Bertilvidet 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if that happened but i just suspect the poster is just trolling. -- Szvest 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone vandalized the page. I fixed it.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Had I read the whole artile, it would be very obvious that it was a work of vandalism. Sorry, I should have been more careful. --Pura 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that Israel is at war with Hizbollah, and the USA is Israel's ally, is it relevant that these countries label it a "terrorist organization"? Calling your enemy names is extremely common in warfare, and "terrorism" these days pretty much means "we don't like them" with the US administration; we might as well quote bomber pilots shouting "assholes" as they pull the trigger. What really counts is the organisation's status according to international organisations (UN), isn't it? dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just 'calling your enemies names'. This has a very practical effect on third parties (who, for instance have to certify that the bank account they've just opened for a customer is not for a Hezbollah customer) as well as for Hezbollah itself - no banking in the States, no visits - and for its supporters (ask that guy in North Carolina who got 150 years in jail for donating $3,500). The practical effect of the designation by the US far exceeds anything the UN could do. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll chage the bit about Australia listing it as terrorist (in law). Australia only lists the "External Security Organization" as terrorist - chiefly because it claims it has intelligence on attacks outside the Israel/Lebanon etc. - Immanuel_Goldstein

We are doing a great job

Its time for some self-praise, buddies. We have really improved this article substantially in a way that could set example, avoiding edit wars and having good debates without uncivility – and this has been about a very controversial organizations in a period of war. Just see how the . Keep up the good work! Bertilvidet 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, I totally agree with you. I have seen quite some edit wars here on Misplaced Pages and I am very happy to see that such a delicate article like this is being handled in such a rational way. Good job, everyone. Lets keep it this way. --Splette 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of EU Parliament in Terrorism Table

The "Revision as of 18:11, 7 August 2006 (edit) Marokwitz" added some discussion of the EU Parliamentary motion to the terrorism table. I don't think it belongs - this is a very general motion and had no practical effect whatsoever. But I've already removed one reference to this motion before and don't want to get into an edit war. What do others think? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the European Parliament has no real powers and its motions are non-binding. It tends then to adopt all kinds of motions that can give them some media attention. Bertilvidet 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, I think it is very relevant to the subject of this table, the European Parliament is the parliamentary body of the European Union (EU), and your opinion towards whether it has power or not has nothing to do with the fact that this event has actually happened. This is giving just one half of the story (that the EU didn't formally declare HZ a terrorist organization) and ignoring the other half (that the European Parliament did issue a statement about the terrorist activities). It doesn't have to be in the table neccessarily but the relevant info about this should be somewhere in this article. Here is the info from the article: "European Union lawmakers issued their strongest condemnation of the group on Thursday, but stopped short of seeking its addition to the EU's list of terrorist groups. "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah," it said in a resolution."The Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them." Marokwitz 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the European Union is not a parliamentary system. So it is hard for me to see why we should include the internal debates of the polity - we don't mention the different views within the Canadian federal state apparatus. It sure doesn't belong in the table, but if several editors find it crucial we could make a footnote. Bertilvidet 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...the European Parliament has no real powers... ...well, the European Union is not a parliamentary system.

You're misinformed. The European Union is an organisation sui generis with strong characteristics of an institutionalised division of powers and a parlamentary democracy. The European parliament is the single organisation of the EU elected directly by the european people. And the parliament by all means has real powers; for example it has to approve the President of the Commission and can force the Commission to resign at any time, then it has the power to amend or to block legislation in most areas. In 2005 the European Parliament killed the Commissions software patent directive, averting it to become law. The info definitively should be somewhere in the article Cycling fan22 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from judging my level of information. Thank you for summing up the Parliament's most important powers. You are welcome to consider this as real powers, but you should decide wether you will argue that the polity is a parliamentary system or sui generis. Bertilvidet 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I evaluated your level of information by nothing that what you said very definitely, sorry if that offends you. 1.) Understand that i wrote "The European Union is an organisation sui generis with strong characteristics of ( ... ) a parlamentary democracy", there is no necessary decision between the two. 2.) Again, the Parliament has the power to trash the Commission = the executive authority of the EU, and that's only ONE of many examples; there would be approving the budget, boards of inquiry, this could go on and on, i didn't even begin to summarise. So please don't insist in wrong assumptions. Cycling fan22 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the event againt in a shortened form, hope all you agree it is ok this time. Marokwitz 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Still disagree. The motion had no practical effect and the information communicated is negligible. But I'm not going to take action until there is a solid consensus. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, still disagree. 1) For the other polities, the table simply states to which extent Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization, and do not mention the internal debates in various institions. 2) The EP resolution, wihtout any implications, did not even suggest that the EU should designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization but called for an end to its "terrorist activities". Bertilvidet 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the row on the EU should be removed. The table purports to be a "List of entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist". The EU does not. Whether or not it has had discussions on this, or whether or not individuals belonging to Hizbollah are designated terrorists does not change the fact that the EU does NOT list Hezbollah as a terrorist organiataion Yannisc 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to updating the Australian link with the more up to date reference here? - brenneman 01:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

brenneman : I like it, but would prefer for the link just to be added in. It helps guard against link fatigue and doesn't take any longer to read. Yannisc brings up an interesting point. The table was invented because it was much more convenient than line after line of repetitive text ... so his option, I believe, involves taking them out of the table because they don't designate H as T, but adding it back into the prose because they're part of the quartet. I think we could resolve this conundrum by renaming the table ... but to what? "Political Stances towards Hezbollah"? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why the EU is in the table. Many more countries may have had discussions on Hezbollah, or designated as terrorists people who belong to organizations. This cannot justify the inclusion of these in the table. I feer this creates the mistaken impression to a casual reader that the EU has designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, something that it has explicitly and repeatedly refused to do. Yannisc 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So far Yannisc, JiHymas@himivest.com and undersigned argue against the inclusion of details about internal debates within EU in the table. Morakowitz (and CyclingFan???) argue for its inclusion. If no other editors wish to express their view I suggest that we follow the will of the majority. Bertilvidet 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

References!

(added to make quotations from the article easier to follow) JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Inside the Mind of Hezbollah by Robin Wright, The Washington Post, July 16, 2006
2. Inside the Mind of Hezbollah by Robin Wright, The Washington Post, July 16, 2006
3. Wright, Robin. "Inside the Mind of Hezbollah". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-08-01.
4. Hezbollah's condemnation of murder of civilians in Egypt and Algeria is described in Saad-Ghorayeb, p. 101.
5. Usher, Sebastian. "Muted Arab reaction to Berg beheading". BBC News. Retrieved 2006-07-27.
6. The Brunswickan Online. "Hizbollah promises Israel a blood-filled new year, Iran calls for Israel's end".
7. http://www.Memri.org
8. Nasrallah's Nonsense, The New York Sun Staff Editorial, March 11, 2005

Thanks. I hadn’t thought of doing that, but it was bothering me too. :-)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying."

As I told before this is clear distortion and he's never told such a thing on 22 October 2002.--Sa.vakilian 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I believe "introduction" is very brief and suitable description to introduce Hezbollah and it shouldn't be omitted.--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This part is formed to move unnecessary part from lead to body of article and if we omit this part, the lead will become long again.--Sa.vakilian 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know... it seems to me like the "Introduction" was better split up into its relevant sections. This way, you could get a good overview of the organization by reading the stuff under the top-level heading on each section, and you also wouldn't have to reread content that would have to be duplicated under both the introduction and the relevant section. Thoughts?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I guess my guiding philosophy is that each section (Military, Civilian activities, Foreign relations, etc.) has its own introduction, making a comprehensive introduction unnecessary, as long as the lead is doing its job.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• But I would agree that the introduction to each section has to be pruned, if this is going to be workable, by relegating more content to subsections.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there weren't a big problem.I'm almost sure if we omit this part, then most of editors add such sentences in the lead. please look at this:(background=introduction).If you pay attention to history of this article, you'll find this part worked as a stack for moving some part of lead and shorten it. So I just want to prevent a loop.--Sa.vakilian 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In a normal publishing world, where one of us could spend a week writing a proper article that would be rarely changed, I would be in better agreement with Banzai, although I would retain a very short introduction that explained the structure of the article as much as anything else. In this world, where we have instances of vandalism and POV pushing every 5 minutes, I agree with Sa.vakilian. The old introduction was useful ... all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there, and it would be reverted by the other side very quickly. I'll confess, I never edited even the most egregious garbage in the intro ... I've only got one life to live! This new format hasn't been in existence long, but it does seem to me that the POV pushing has been smeared all over the page, making it more a nuisance. Bottom line? I say keep the intro until Hezbollah's out of the headlines for a few days, just as a 'pressure release valve'. Maybe we can start it off by getting Sa.vakilian and Labenah to write alternate sentences! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(lol!) I like that proposal. Maybe you’re right.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on my idea about Introduction. So please do what you find right.--Sa.vakilian 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We should semiprotect of the page If there is vandalism every 5 minutes. like what is done in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I try to make introduction NPOV but it's impossible.So I prefer to have a POV introduction instead of a POV lead. As I told before I agree with Banzai, But I'm almost sure the lead attracts the POV-pushers like bees to honey because this issue is very controversial.Then all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there. If you doubt, Please pay attention to history.--Sa.vakilian 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. What I've been doing so far is looking at the "diff" between the current revision and when I last looked at it, which is sort of a pain, but tells you everything that's changed so you can look for blatant POV-ness throughout the article, not just in any one section. A "honeypot" would make this easier for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. So far I've just been checking the diff's for blatant POV. A "honeypot" would make this easier, for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So I add a brief version of introduction.--Sa.vakilian 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the introduction before noticing this talk. Sorry about that. But I really think that the question about whether Hizbullah is terrorist or not does not need to be repeated 3 times in the article, especially since it is the focus of a huge amount of edits. If this bothers anyone, we can merge the entire introduction with the "mini introduction" in the beginning of the article. Marokwitz 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Szvest 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Flag should be remade

Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg should be redrawn. All the words are smudged. If you can't make a good SVG, just use a PNG. WP 07:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd fire up Illustrator and do it myself, but none of the corporate logo databases seem to include an EPS of Hezbollah's emblem. Damn.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection ?

There is quite a lot of vandalism on this page, and we end up spending more time reverting than actually improving and adding. I believe it would be a good idea to request a semi-protection. Any objections? Bertilvidet 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jospin

Sorry, but how did Lionel Jospin manage to penetrate this article? He is quoted for denouncing Hezbollah's terrorist activities - not even labelling the organization as terrorists - when he was PM in the previous government. And the paragraph should be about which countries actually designate Hezbollah as terrorists. I am sure we can find quotes from most world leaders (at least in the West) denouncing some of Hezbollah's activities, but what's the point? Bertilvidet 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be odd and kick the old man out of this article. Object if you disagree. Bertilvidet 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. France does not release an "official" list of terrorist organizations, at least I didn't find one, so an official statement by the french PM is the best information we have to establish the official view of the country (at least at the time).

The paragraph is called Designation as a 'terrorist' organization, not going over what political leaders in diverse countries have expressed about Hezbollah or its activities. So, when France has not issued any clear statement about Hezbollah, I dont see our need to include the hints a previous French PM has given. Bertilvidet 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jospin has not been PM since 2002 I believe, so this seems a moot point? There are individuals in power that have expressed their own opinion on Hezbollah, but I am not sure that the Grass deconstructionist minister of Albania's opinion should be added.. Mceder 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My two centimes worth - I agree -- Jonexsyd 10:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jospin is still alive and an important political figure in France. Hezbollah was not established during this conflict, but long befor. What does it matter when he was a in office? He said Hezbollah was using methods of terror which is very important. Hmm... so, a major political figure of a major country in Europe described Hezbollah as terrorist, you got to be kidding if you are saying it is not relevant, it is sourced, reliable, and absolutely true! Shamir1 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any need to include any statements by Jospin until such time as he is speaking as a representative of the government and stating government policy. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1 may have a point in so much as the French Government which Jospin was part of was pro Hezbollah not being proscribed by EU. The following administration carried this policy on and, if JPost is to be believed, vetoed the inclusion of Hezbollah on the EU's terrorism list. That Jospin has now changed his mind on the issue is sort of remarkable. While he is not in power, his public statements may be relevant in terms of being an establishment figure or 'major political figure' as Shamir1 says speaking to his particular political constituency and setting the new 'message'.

Although most recently the EU has still declined requests from the Bush Admin, Congress, AIPAC etc to place Hezbollah on its list. RandomGalen 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Both quotiations are from Jospin's period in office. So no sign that he has changed his mind. In the references he does not describe Hezbollah as terrorists, nomatter howmuch Shamir would like him to say that. Jopsin condemns some concrete attacks, that he label as terroist attacks, carried out by the organization. Bertilvidet 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I stand corrected, thanks RandomGalen 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still object to the statement in this article "the former French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin (during his term) has denounced the "terrorist attacks" of Hezbollah against Israel" due to by itself it being a moot point. I am sure I could find plenty of other ex-ministers that have denounced terrorist attacks, it would be a long list. What makes France special? Mceder 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vast majority

I have twice added to the lead that a vast majority of the Lebanese, alon with some Muslim states, regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organization, but have immediately been reverted. This information is elaborated and well sourced (87%) in the article. I believe it is a crucial point in order to understand the organization and its role in Lebanon. Please raise objection here. Bertilvidet 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm responsible for at least one of those reversions, so apologies for that. (I was looking at the reference linked directly after that claim, which makes no such statement, rather than scanning the rest of the article.) However, the "87%" figure for support of Hezbollah’s arms is very recent, described as "a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February." It’s misleading to use that figure to claim that "a vast majority of Lebanese " regard Hezbollah as a legitimate armed resistance against Israel. At least, not without explaining it further, which I'll attempt now. Write back with what you think of my forthcoming changes to the lead-in.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine for me as it is now (Within Lebanon and the Muslim world, Hezbollah’s armed operations are widely regarded as legitimate resistance against Israel). Bertilvidet 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing reference

Trying to clean up the reference a bit again.. "though it also opposes, at least ideologically, Israel’s existence at all." This ending line of the intro is backed by 4 references. Including this one:

MSN Encarta. "Hezbollah (Full article requires registration)".

1. I suggest we remove this reference based on the fact that it requires registration. The info without registration is about two lines worth of nothing. The three other references are good enough. Mceder 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's plenty of references for that one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shia, Shi'a, Shiite

At least three different spellings of Shia are used in the opening few sections of this article. Can they be standardised to a single spelling at least within this one article? I don't know enough about the differences relating to context (if any?) to do it myself. —Pengo 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands lists Hezbollah as Terrorist?

There are two references in the table. One is merely a bureaucratic report, not a political statement. It notes in passing that the Netherlands no longer distinguishes between Hezbollah and the ESO for policy purposes, but provides no hint as to what that policy is. The other is in Dutch and I'm a typical stupid North American who can only speak one language and it ain't Dutch. I may be a little naive here, but I suspect that if the Dutch did designate H as T, I would be able to find a lot of English Language references to that effect, simple references that didn't use a lot of big words. I did find one interesting article on my travels, Europe rejects US hard line once again which seems to imply that the Dutch would like the EU to do it ... which implies to me that they haven't done it themselves, or the article would say so. Also, I know from working on the Al-Manar article that the reason Al-Manar is banned in Holland is not because they're terrorist, and not even because they're anti-Semitic, but because they never applied for a license. Which again, is some absence of evidence that I'm tempted to believe is evidence of absence. Are there any bona-fide Dutch people here who can provide a rough translation of the article quoted? JiHymas@himivest.com 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Dutch. But your mention of the Al-Manar article prompted me to take a look at your work there. I can't even begin to imagine how much research the "Banning of Broadcasts" section must have taken you. Nice work.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the translation: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/netherlands/aivd2004-eng.pdf "Investigations have shown that Hezbollah’s terrorist wing, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, has been directly and indirectly involved in terrorist acts. It can also be concluded that Hezbollah’s political and terrorist wings are controlled by one co-ordinating council. This means that there is indeed a link between these parts of the organisation. The Netherlands has changed its policy and no longer makes a distinction between the political and terrorist Hezbollah branches. The Netherlands informed the relevant EU bodies of its findings."

I have just added a fact tag to the Netherlands listing; unless consensus to the contrary is reached, I will delete the row from the table in 24-odd hours. According to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm : August 2004, the Act on Terrorist Crimes, implementing the 2002 EU framework decision on combating terrorism, became effective. According to http://usinfo.state.gov/is/img/assets/4475/Country_Report_Terrorism_31727.pdf (page 50; is page 58 of PDF):

Using national sanctions authority, the Dutch blocked the accounts and financial transactions of a HAMAS fundraiser, the al-Aqsa Foundation, and al-Qa’ida-affiliated Benevolence International Nederland. In July, the Netherlands froze all financial assets of the Dutch branch of al-Haramain. The Dutch have also been active in seeking support for an EU designation of Hizballah as a terrorist group.

In other words:

• The Dutch have a list
• al-Haramain, "a HAMAS fundraiser", the "al-Aqsa Foundation" and "Benevolence International Nederland" are on it
• Hezbollah isn't on it - the Dutch are attempting to convince their peers in the EU to list them in a coordinated fashion, but have not done anything unilaterally.

JiHymas@himivest.com 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No - here is the relevant section from the 2004 report (which was prepared after the above mentioned policy from Aug 2004)

2.2.3 Lebanese Hezbollah

Investigations have shown that Hezbollah's terrorist wing, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, has been directly and indirectly involved in terrorist acts. It can also be concluded that Hezbollah's political and terrorist wings are controlled by one co-ordinating council. This means that there is indeed a link between these parts of the organisation. The Netherlands has changed its policy and no longer makes a distinction between the political and terrorist Hezbollah branches. The Netherlands informed the relevant EU bodies of its findings. Marokwitz 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention in the bureaucrat's report of listing H under the "Act on Terrorist Crimes". Unless you can show, specifically, that H is on this list (put there as a political decision, with practical effect), out it goes. Incidentally, I thought deleting my fact tag showed blatant disregard for Wiki-courtesy. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are absolutely wrong. The Act on Terrorist Crimes, regards implementing the 2002 EU framework decision on combating terrorism. In June 2004, the Dutch for the first time successfully convicted two individuals of terrorist activity allowing use of intelligence of the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) as evidence. This report (AIVD) is their list of terrorists. The confistcation of assets that you quoted above is a different list - the UN Sanctions Committee established by UNSCR 1267. Which is also accepted by the Dutch. Any attempt to remove this important information from this article would be considered by me as a blatant twisting of the facts. Marokwitz 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas already says that there is no listing of Hezbollah in that document. So, how does the conviction of two individuals of terrorist activities translate into the Dutch listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization despite the fact that Hezbollah isn't in the list? __earth 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look in the document, section 2.2.3 you will clearly see that it IS listed there. The Dutch have been active in seeking support for an EU designation of Hizballah as a terrorist group. Why would they do that if they don't consider the Hizbullah a terrorist group ? Marokwitz 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth - I am not disputing that Hezbollah is included in the report of the AIVD. What I am disputing is that the government has acted on this report and proscribed Hezbollah. Anyway, for those willing to look for the actual list of proscribed organizations, the Dutch government website is at: http://english.nctb.nl/ JiHymas@himivest.com 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an exact link to the list of proscribed organizations? To the best of my knowledge AIVD is the dutch entity responsible for creating this list, and I wasn't able to locate the other list that you are talking about. Marokwitz 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find such a list either. But I have found this: http://www.government.nl/actueel/dossieroverzicht/Terrorismebestrijding.jsp in which they state:

Here are the main measures the government has taken to combat terrorism:'

* ...

*Banning terrorist organisations blacklisted by the European Union.

The implication being that they do not maintain their own list, they use the EU's. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also found this, at http://www.government.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2004/12December/07/0-42-1_42-51585.jsp (dated 2004, but prominently linked from the page referenced above)

MEASURES AGAINST TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS ON EU LISTS

Organisations on EU lists of terrorist organisations will be banned in the Netherlands and actively working for such organisations will be a criminal offence.

These measures reflect the government's resolve to crack down on international terrorism.

At present the authorities can do no more than freeze the bank accounts of organisations on EU lists of terrorist organisations, but new legislation will allow them to ban their activities in the Netherlands altogether. For a start, they will no longer be able to recruit new members.

The courts will also be able to ban foreign-based organisations that are not on the EU terrorism lists, such as organisations that pose a threat to public order. In such cases, the public prosecution service files an application with the courts under civil law.

JiHymas@himivest.com 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But the table in question is a list of entititles that "have deemed part or all of Hezbollah a terrorist organization". The Netherlands have deemed Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and that is why they are trying to pressure the EU to include it in the EU list. This IS the dutch official position regadless of which specific actions they have taken so far. Marokwitz 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

about salute

It is an interesting fact and worth of encyclopedic mentioning...

Hezbollah members show a salute that strikingly resembles the nazi salute, with the right hand raised in the air. (see in video).

--TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For more NPOV, edit it.--TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How would one possibly edit it into NPOV? Either they're definitely copying Nazis, which would be worth mentioning, or it's a coincidence, in which case the inclusion of this section is seemingly just an attempt to associate them with Nazis. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. see Islamofascism. Hezbollah is mentioned--TheFEARgod 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's a definite link, that's cool, put the section back in. The problem I have is that without a source other than a video, it's hard to ascertain whether saying they are using Nazi salutes (or a derivative) is a neutral statement. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's find an expert on Hezbollah and may he confirm something.--TheFEARgod 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people around the world saluting the same way including G.W.Bush. Does that mean they are Nazis or compared to them? The question arised many times in WP and it was removed for the same reason i am stating.-- Szvest 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the segment of video at around 01:35? It is not even clear to me this is a salute. For there to be a salute, there has to be a superior to receive the salute and this does not appear to be the case. Also, the unsourced interpretation that this is a Nazi salute constitutes "original research" which is strictly forbidden. If there is a credible source which claims that this video contains evidence of a Nazi salute, then by all means, quote that source.

Jonexsyd 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. No original research allowed and dubious source (at the moment!).. This is worth hunting down a good source for since it is a fascinating link, and much worthy to be noted in the article. Mceder 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• this is nonsense. raising your hand does not make you a Nazi. Try making attempts to portray them as bogeymen less transparent. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• REMINDER: We also really need to update the articles on Buddhism to reflect their Nazi ties. Mceder 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi, eh? And all this time I thought they looked like Americans taking the pledge of allegiance. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Error

The second paragraph of this article states that there is debate in the Western world and even in Israel as to whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. There is no citation or support for that. The one provided does not make the above statement. Furthermore, it is widely known that the US, Canada, Netherlands, and Israel deem Hezbollah a terrorist organization. (This information was obtained from this article regarding "Outside Views of Hezbollah." Also, remember a UN resolution was passed to disarm Hezbollah. So this topic is not debatable.

"not debatable"? So you suppose this decision by the four countries you mention (out of 192 UN members) was somehow reached without any debate? dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The new version of the lead is very controversial .

Although Hezbollah has been blamed in a number of 'terrorist' acts, there is disagreement in the international political community—even among Israel and its traditional Western allies—about whether it merits designation as a terrorist organization in full, in part, or not at all. Within Lebanon and the Muslim world, Hezbollah’s armed operations are widely regarded as legitimate resistance against Israel.

The first sentence induces there is terrorist asct which is officially proved. It's against NPOV policy.--Sa.vakilian 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, when I say "not debatable," I mean we (as you and I) can't decide if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or not. We don't decide which facts to report. We need to report all the facts. We must state which countries deem it a terrorist organization. We should not be witholding certain information because we have certain bias and opinions. --68.1.182.215 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Per this discussion I changed it to a bit more balanced / unbiased wording, take a look and let me know what you think Marokwitz 08:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I read the leader as stating not that there exists disagreement *within* Israel or *within* these other countries, but rather *among* Israel and these other countries. Perhaps that important point needs further clarification, but I think it'd be hard to get any clearer than "in the ] community."  —Banzai! (talk) @ 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure

While heroically referenced, this article seems a bit muddled structurally. We've got things at all levels of detial, some bits are summary style, others aren't, etc. I've put the current TOC, and below it a possible structure for a new more compressed structure. The idea it that each bits is a summary of a fuller article, as history is now. Thoughts? - brenneman 14:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   * 1 Introduction
         (including summaries from each of the following sections)
   * 2 History
         o 2.1 1982-2000: Under Israel
         o 2.2 2000-2005: Post-occupation
         o 2.3 2006: Open conflict
   * 3 Ideology
         o 3.1 Initial
         o 3.2 Evolving
   * 5 Structure and activities
         o 4.1 Political
         o 4.2 Military
         o 4.3 Civilian (including media)
   * 5 Political relations
         o 5.1 Within Lebanon
         o 5.2 Israel
                 (recognition of Nasrallah, mutual rispecks)
         o 5.2 Internationally
                 (summary of EU, UN, US, etc. positions,
                  also Iran, Syria, and "betrayal" by Egypt,
                  Jordan, etc.; spin this off into a new article)
         o 5.3 With other militant groups
                 (summary of current "Assistance from abroad,"
                 "Relationship to Hamas," "Links to al-Qaeda," etc.,
                  and spin these off to their own article)
         o 5.4 Public opinion
                 (popularity or lack thereof in Lebanon,
                  Muslim world)
   * 6 See also
   * 7 Notes (eg with the <references /> tag)
   * 8 External links

Thanks for starting this, I'm with you that this is sorely needed. I'll try my hand at it here when I have time a little later.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I hope it's okay that I got rid of the current outline (it was distracting me). Do you think most of the group's "Military operations," excluding the current conflict, could be merged into "History"? Also, I've always been unhappy with the title "Definitions/designations as terrorist," which I consider unwieldy, so I changed it--too chatty now? Feel free to revert my edits, of course.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Comment I like the current structure of section 6:

• 6 Foreign and domestic relations
  • 6.1 Alleged links to al-Qaeda
  • 6.2 Position of the UN
  • 6.3 Relationship to the Lebanese government
  • 6.4 Relationship to Hamas and Palestinian national movement
  • 6.5 Assistance from abroad
  • 6.6 Current Relationship with Iran

and would not like to lose it. People want to know about the relationship with other armed groups, especially. I will admit that I dislike the "Assistance from abroad" title (is Iran abroad?) ((there's a pun there, somewhere!)) and would prefer "Funding", but it's not a big deal. Given all the dispute that has been generated regarding the terrorism table, we should consider spinning that section off into a new article. Then we can report all the little nuances of the EU debate to our hearts' content. (Mr. Herman J. Blogsnotcher, office clerk to the Member from Porky's Corners, declared on July 22, 2006 that "Hezbollah aren't just terrorist, they're a bunch of old poo-poo heads!" (ref)) JiHymas@himivest.com 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you like about the structure of that section? It seems so big and sprawling, I'm inclined to think it's the one section that could benefit the most from refactoring. Not just the "terrorist" section, but also Hezbollah's relationship to other guerilla groups deserves an article of its own, IMO. Both would be much more manageable than the present situation, and probably encourage more useful contributions. Then, as you say, we could summarize them here in a subsection. What do you think of these changes to the outline?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with spinning out the relationships to other groups rather than incorporating them in the main article. The structure as currently proposed looks fine with one exception: funding. If you want to understand an organization, follow the money! Perhaps "Funding" should go in the "Structure and Activities" section? Ideally, however, it would get its own full section - I consider it that important. JiHymas@himivest.com 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have another quibble: the proposed structure has a "History" section with three subsections. We have already spun-off history ... shouldn't this section just be a brief summary and wikiLink? JiHymas@himivest.com 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaffe Institute

Jaffe have a list of weaponry which they give for Hezbollah's military capabilities, is it worth including some brief details from their report in this article in table form? RandomGalen 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand from this that the Jaffe Institute for Strategic Studies is affilliated with Tel Aviv University, so it has some claim to credibility. I would welcome brief estimates of strength, but am a bit nervous about the idea of a table. What do you have in mind? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-re-re-re-reversions in "Armed Strength"

The opening sentence in this section now reads:

The strength of Hezbollah's forces are disputed, and has been variously estimated as "several thousand" and several thousand supporters and a few hundred devotee operatives.

This is a change from what I have reverted it to several times, a direct quote from the cited document (68) which said:

Strength

Several thousand supporters and a few hundred terrorist operatives

I prefer the direct quote, but it appears there are some editors allergic to the word "terrorist", who have changed it to other wordings (sometimes while maintaining the quotes). I want the sentence to be a direct quote from the cited document - I consider such citations better than paraphrases. Obviously, there are some who disagree, but can we form a consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Geneva Conventions

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

Cluster Bombs, DU Bunker Busters and Phosphorus Bombs

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

• Relief Web: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EKOI-6RY3TR?OpenDocument

According to several witness accounts, cluster bombs may have been used by the Israeli forces over the last few days in south Lebanon, particularly in the southern suburbs of Beirut.The Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) reports that the Israeli government has announced that it is reserving the right to use cluster bombs in its current intervention in Lebanon. Handicap International is concerned about the possible use of landmines and cluster bombs in Lebanon.

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

• Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm

Israeli's targeting civilians with cluster bombs. Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when used around civilians. They should never be used in populated areas.

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

• Kurt Nimmo: http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=24842&s2=21
• Israel's Use of Chemical Weapons: http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview1.htm

Excellent short precis of illicit weapons. “Israel has plenty of other weapons, gratis the United States and its own burgeoning weapons program, but it appears it prefers to augment its arsenal with chemical weapons.” Israelis adopt poison gas ‘fashion.’ See Nimmo’s referenced url: Overview: Israel’s use of Chemical Weapons.

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

• W. Madsen Report & Centre for Research on Globalization : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060723&articleId=2800

W. Madsen Report / GlobalResearch.ca. “U.S. military intelligence sources have told WMR that the artillery shell shown below being used by an Israel Defense Force member in Lebanon, is a type of dual and multi-use weapon the neocons falsely accused Saddam Hussein of possessing. Although the canister artillery shell is marketed as an anti-land mine fuel-air bomb, its payload can also include the chemicals used in thermobaric bombs, white phosphorous weapons, and chemical weapons.” Photos. Chemical Weapons used against Lebanese Civilians.

• Al-Hayat: http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/07-2006/Article-20060726-aa79e8cc-c0a8-10ed-01ce-4de84089082b/story.html

Lebanon's Children and Israeli Phosphorous Bombs

• Professor M. Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization: http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=24922&s2=23

A look at Israeli war crimes and illegal weapons use on civilians with no connection to Hezbollah

• Robert Fisk: http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07292006.html

Robert Frisk is one of the most respected journalists in Europe and the world. Shredded by Cluster Bombs: Bush and Blair: "Keep It Up!"

• Pulse: http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2615

Israel is using phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs against civilians. Letter from retired U.S. Senator on the invasion of Lebanon that condemns the crimes of Israel and acknowledges the use of illegal weaponry

• Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060727/hl_afp/mideastconflictgaza_060727170554&printer=1;_ylt=A9FJqZZn8spEwJwAYAeKOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE

Mysterious wounds from Israeli shells

• Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11762

Israel uses cluster bombs in Israel.

• Reuters/ Media Channel: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-27T085451Z_01_L27557477_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-BELGIUM.xml&WTmodLoc=

Belgian couple to accuse Israel of war crimes

• Inter Press News Service Agency:http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34132

BEIRUT, Jul 28 (IPS) - The Israeli military is using illegal weapons against civilians in southern Lebanon, according to several reports.

• The Age (Australia): http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/doctors-suspect-chemical-weapons/2006/07/27/1153816320620.html

reports from doctors that Israel has used weapons in its bombardment of southern Lebanon that have caused wounds they have never seen before. Doctors suspect chemical weapons.

WAR CRIME

The Geneva Conventions

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

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

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

• Bella Ciao: http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=12869

Israel using Depleted Uranium in Lebanon - Melbourne Stop the War Hiroshima Day media statement

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

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

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

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

69.196.164.190