Misplaced Pages

Discussions here please:

I agree the term Kidnapped is somewhat POV, and during an armed conflict the correct term is naturally Captured. However, the incident took place before it became a war (or an armed conflict), hence the correct term, AFAIC, should be Kidnapping. Fuzzy 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Before it became a war? C'mon look past 4 weeks - this conflict had been going on for decades, Israel was occupying the area, conducting military operations, and "capturing" Lebanese militants for a long time, so let's be objective and neutral here.--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhu... Ask the "militant" Samir Kuntar. According to UN, Israel is NOT occupying any area of Lebanon. Flayer 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought Israel gave back all captured Lebanese/Hezbolla militants for, what was his name, you know, that drug dealer. Never mind, this discussion is a waste of time. Fuzzy 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You know whats so funny fuzzy? the fact israel has given lebanon all of it's 350 soldiers within a day that the caught in that one city, that israel has given back thousands of criminals to all these terrorists. But Israel can't get 3 soldiers who where kidnapped after a long six months of peaceful time. After Ehud Olmert met with the prime minister of palestine and they shook hands and promised peace, and then all of this crap happened. has people like crejota forgotten hezbollah isn't supposed to even be there. --Zonerocks 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You distort the truth. Israel has failed to release many Lebanese prisoners. Furthermore, Hezbollah has a right to exist, as does any militia group formed of civilians during war-time. The criminal actions of the 'organisation' can be attributed to a few specific people who ordered and/or carried out these actions. In general, Hezbollah is just a civilian group oriented at community work. Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah's military wing operates against UN resolution 1559 --Epsilonsa 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The UN is far from a world government. The UN operates against my personal resolution 53,663,773, which I signed into law last week in my personal kingdom.--Paraphelion 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Those in Hezbollah's military wing responsible should be prosecuted under their own government's laws regarding militant vigiliantism and such. Israel should be severely curtailed by foreign nations, and punished by an international war crimes tribunal. The World Trade Organisation is currently the closest thing to world government on this planet--and it is very dangerous and corrupt--corporatist. However, the UN is the only organisation which officially enforces international law on this scale. Matthew A.J.י.B. 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I got this from the article on kidnapping a few minutes ago, from the definition section. "It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense. Another case is when two countries are at war: enemy soldiers may be captured in another country and detained as prisoners of war under the law of the capturer's state, and suspected war criminals and those suspected of genocide or crimes against humanity may be arrested." I'm not quite sure I understand what it is trying to say, perhaps that soldiers "captured" in one country can be considered by the other country to have been "kidnapped"? 71.123.31.93 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

71, These soldiers where captured in there own country. Also the defitniton of kidnapped also contains the word ransom, and that is what is going on. --Zonerocks 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I meant "I'm not quite sure I understand what it is trying to say, perhaps that soldiers "captured" BY one country can be considered by the other country to have been "kidnapped"?" The question as I originally (mistakenly) phrased it is incorrect in the context of what I was unclear about. 71.123.31.93 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution: use both

As the poll was not conclusive (it was far from a rough consensus), I suggest that we use both (temporarely or permanently). Both sides claimed that the other term was POV and incorrect. Using them both will not necessarely remove POV claims, but will at least ease them. Also, while media sources seem to prefer "kidnapping", they sometimes use "capturing" - sometimes both in one news report. Therefore, using both in one article doesn't really constitute a problem imo. A more practical reason: the choice for both will stop the edit wars, which are getting annoying and which are rising the wikistress levels. Sijo Ripa 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, consistency is key. You kidnap CIVILIANS not soldiers. Lebanon and Israel have been in a state of technical war for decades. So if some pro Israeli idiot wants to claim it's "kidnap" because it's a time of peace then he is a liar.

If these guys insist on using "kidnapped" then I will change Israeli "captures" of Hezbollah fighters and Palestinian Members of Parliament/Cabinet to "kidnapped". That is surely fair? The Israelis are engaged in an illegal occupation of foreign territory and regularly "kidnap" Palestinians yet they call them "detentions".

Please do not restart the debate in this section. My proposal is not about who's (most) right and who's (most) wrong. Also remember the three-revert-rule (see: WP:3RR). Sijo Ripa 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Prisoners of War

How about we all forget about the words abducted, captured and kidnapped and simply use POW which stands for prisoner of war for those of you not familiar with it. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at a "state of war" before this 2006 conflict started so we can all just use the neutral term "POW" to determine prisoners from both sides. Fedayee 17:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Highly unacceptable. Technically Israel and Lebanon were at state of "ceasefire". Hez doesn't respect any legal status anyway. Hez kidnaped the soldiers, not Lebanese army. Flayer 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no problem with "captured" (nor either of the alternative terms), but "Prisoners of War" is just plain inaccurate, save maybe in a purely technical sense. 89.1.68.175 21:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of kidnap implies illegality, the group operates illegally under UN Res 1559, the act was illegal as they crossed an international border, it was during the course of a cease fire, the soldiers were captured to force a prisoner swap (ie ransom) also illegal under geneva convention, they are being held for more then a week without a neutral international organization being made aware of their location adn status, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have not been able to contact their kin after 1 week of capture, also illegal under geneva convention, the soldiers have had their lives threatened, also illegal under geneva convention. Stating captured is highly POV because it labels the actions to be legal as capturing soldiers is legal, however kidnapping implies ransom and illegality. --zero faults 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, putting this up for a vote merely illustrates the absurdity of this debate.

What Hezbollah did was patently illegal, no ifs, ands, or buts.

They illegally crossed into Israeli territory, and illegally abducted members of the IDF.

Everyone on Misplaced Pages could participate in this debate and posit a contrary point of view, but that wouldn't alter the facts on the ground.

No matter how much the apologists for Hezbollah's actions, or the actions of rogue regimes like Syria and Iran, want to contest the notion of truth, or replace it with some post-modern, Edward Said or Michel Foucalt-type subjectivity, they cannot alter essential, indisputable facts.

It's just that simple.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rm uk 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Speaking of illegality how come you guys pick and chose your resolutions? OK there is one calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah... What about resolution 242 calling for Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupies? I bet you dont want to talk about UN resolutions anymore.

Two wrongs do not negate eachother, saying Israel is in land it was suppose to turn over does not make Hezbollah all of a sudden not a militant group that the UN ordered disarmed. I do not understand why people keep arguing this point as if you can go in front of the UN and say, "he broke a resolution first, so I thought I didnt have to follow them either" --zero faults 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the semantic dispute. Tewfik 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth this is an important part of the article to show to readers that it was illegal. No where in the article does it say these actions where illegal. Thus these key words would show it. --Zonerocks 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole talk section is full of POV and original research. People, regardless of what we thinka are the facts, we aruled by something called WP:NPOV. That means we cannot simply take one POV and push it. That means we must, like it or not, consider "apologists for Hezbollah" whoa re editors as part of the community: the language and hatred expressed to them here is disheartening. Basically, any editors who so much as mentions a belief in the illegality of Hezbollah's action is choosing a side in the POV and cannot claim to be part of writing an NPOV article. Please keep that in mind.

We can, I say we must, mention who considers Hezbollah's actions legal and illegal, and when and if the UN expresses any proper declaration in this respect include that. But this article cannot have an NPOV presentation and tone and at the same time say any actions by any side where illegal as a statement of facts. We must klimit ourselves to show facts and let the readers reach their own conclusions, as easy as that. That my friends is NPOV.--Cerejota 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, legality or illegality is problematic because it implies that an act is condoned or proscribed by some law. The issue of what law to use will usually result in a POV one way or another. I think where no law applies, it could be said to be "alegal". Another issue is that words like "captured" or "kidnapped" may be viewed a little differently, in terms of their connotations, in different English-speaking cultures. 71.123.31.93 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With all respect cerejota, you are sadly wrong. Look How can you say on this talk board and basically say " Hey let's misrepresent the facts to be fair to those that support Hezbollah, or the NPOV people, or the Im against the conflict period." It's unfair to our readers to misrepresent the facts, and by keeping the word 'Captured' your misrepresenting it. So by putting 'kidnapped' we are being very fair, because the fact is, these guys were kidnapped. --Zonerocks 06:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No thats the issue: the "kidnapping" is a disputed fact because one sise of the POV denies there was kidnapping, rather a taking of POWs in combat. See? You are unwittingly destroying neutrality, and disrispecting the intellingence of the same readers you claim to respect by calling it a "kidnapping". "Captured" doesn't misrepresent facts: the fact is the guys were taken by force against their will. It is a disputed fact if this action was legal under laws of land warfare (ie POWs) or illegal (ie kidnapping). Again, I have no problem with a discussion of both POVs (Kidnapping vs POW) in a section, but I do have a problem with kidnapping being used as part of the NPOV presentation of the events.

I think people who are pushing for "kidnapping" need to calm down and really think if they want to start an edit war over this, because one will assuredly happen. I am just asking people to have common sense and understand both the spirit and the letter of the NPOV policy.--Cerejota 12:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not aware of Hezbollah actually making that claim. Even if they did, it is not balanced to present both claims merely because two claims have been made. The claim is presented as the extreme minority position that it is in world consensus. How we should characterise that is certainly up to (this) discussion. And there is no reason to fear any edit wars. If we reach a new consensus, we will behave towards it the same as we have towards previous ones. Tewfik 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Er... for those quoting resolution 1559 as evidence that Hezbollah was 'acting illegally', what about the 40 that Israel is currently in violation of? Doesn't that mean that the IDF was 'acting illegally' too? Cynical 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question of information, and not contradiction: which SC resolutions is Israel currently in violation of? Let me know, Tewfik 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Picking just one SC resolution on, say Jerualem: SC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967; considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change the status; and urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem. MX44 10:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I misinterpreted, what I said above was incorrect. Israel may not necessarily be in violation of 40 resolutions at this present time, in fact the situation is that there have been 40 GENERAL ASSEMBLY resolutions which criticise Israel's actions. I don't have an accurate number for the number of Security Council resolutions (which, unlike GA ones, are legally obligatory), but I think it would be accurate to say that the resolution quoted above by MX44 is not the only one of which Israel is in violation

• The Palestinians still don't have a state
• East Jerusalem is still controlled by Israel (whatever the rights and wrongs are, the UN and international law says that East Jerusalem is Palestinian)
• Israel still maintains settlements in the West Bank (again, whatever you think about whether the settlements should remain in any two-state solution, they are at the moment illegal)
• The security fence/separation wall/apartheid law/anti-terrorism fence (insert your preferred POV of choice) - same as the above two
• Israel still controls the Shebaa Farms area, which according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 is 'null and void, and of no international legal effect'. This is particularly significant as it provides the legal basis under which Hezbollah claims legitimacy in continuing to fire on Israel, because Syrian officials have later stated that they consider the territory Lebanese , and Hezb therefore claims that (the UN certification of withdrawl notwithstanding), Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory (the Lebanon-Syria border in the area is not conclusively demarcated) and therefore Hezbollah (claims that it) is continuing to act as a 'resistance' movement (rather than a terrorist one) when it fires on Israel. It is therefore at least arguable (in the absence of a court ruling - unlikely - a definitive answer is unlikely) that Hezbollah was not acting illegally when it kidnapped/captured/abducted the two Israeli soldiers, and that 'kidnapped' and 'abducted' (both of which imply illegality) are inappropriate as a matter of fact as well of a matter of WP:NPOV

Sorry for what I wrote before, as I said I had misinterpreted the information (not from that site - that is just a link I dug up to clarify the situation). Cynical 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A list of UNSC resolutions against Israel can be found here. I count them to 84. Although many of these have in part been followed by Israel, like the very odd Resolution 337: On Seizure of a Lebanese Airliner (15 Aug, 1973), tecnically it is none (because they all include reminders back to earlier resolutions like the ones from 1967 - 68.)MX44 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware Cynical, but if I understood it correctly, the link you provided seems to make the case that Israel's noncompliance is not as it seems. Of course, it also makes a case for apartheid S. Africa, but like most things in this debate, this chapter seems to be extremely complex. Thanks for entertaining my curiousity . Cheers, Tewfik 03:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody point to a peace treaty which would make Hezbollah's initial attack illegal? Israel and Hezbollah were at war all along, there was only a cease-fire and breaking cease-fires is not illegal. If it was, we would have to call every Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory in last 6 years illegal. 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is an illegal entity in the eyes of the UN, you cant have a ceasefire with a group that technically should not exist. Even this ceasefire is with Lebanon not Hezbollah. --zero faults 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm ... If it was Hezbollah that attacked Israel a month ago, and Israel were going after them, then a cease-fire with Lebanon is about as helpful as a cease-fire with ... say Greece? If not Hezbollah/Israel have agreed on that they are the parties central to this conflict, then there cannot be any serious attempt of an agreement on any cease-fire. MX44 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably why the last UN resolution went so well ... --zero faults 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these objections is true. No more is Hizbullah an illegal entity for not complying with 1559 than Israel is an illegal entity for not complying with 242. Geneva conventions explicitly mention militias as parties to conflicts, so Hezbollah can be a party to wars and treaties and cease-fires. It certainly was in existence and fighting Israel in 2000, and when Israel withdrew it was a unilateral withdrawal, without an agreement of any kind from Hezbollah. Border skirmishes continued all along, with frequent breeches and incursions from both sides. At no time were Hezbollah and Israel at peace. Hezbollah's attack on Israeli soldiers may have been stupid, counterproductive, malicious, even evil, but that doesn't make it illegal. Zocky | picture popups 13:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You state "No more is Hizbullah an illegal entity for not complying with 1559 than Israel is" this is obviously a misunderstanding because Lebanon was to comply with the resolution not Hizbollah. Hizbollah is not even recognized in the resolution specifically, it calls for all militias in Lebanon to be disarmed and disbanded. Hence any militia still operating in Lebanon is donig so against the UN resolution. You keep stating things like "without an agreement of any kind from Hezbollah" but they do not get a say, they are to be disbanded as per the UN resolution. Why would the UN say Hezbollah needs to have a ceasefire if they arent even suppose to exist? Hence that cease fire and this one are both with Lebanon not Hezbollah. So if you read the resolution, no militia can operate in Lebanon legally, hence their an illegal entity. --zero faults 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of talk about nothing. The ideal state of the world where sovereign countries control their territory is not the reality on the ground. Per conventions, the distinction between state armies and militias is irrelevant for establishing whether there's a state of war or not and who the sides are. Note also that UN never called for Hezbollah to be disbanded, only for the militias, including Hezbollah's militia, to be disarmed.

The argument that the other side is acting illegally is used by all sides in all conflicts - if both sides thought everything was legal, there would be no conflict in the first place. The article shouldn't prefer Israel's line that Hezbollah is illegal to Hezbollah's line that Israel is illegal, nor the other way around. Zocky | picture popups 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You said "UN never called for Hezbollah to be disbanded, only for the militias, including Hezbollah's militia, to be disarmed." Which still proves they are acting against the UN resolution ... Hence firing rockets, attacking anyone with a weapons is against the UN resolution, how can unarmed people fire weapons? As "ideal state of the world" I really dont care what you think is ideal, however the fact remains the UN said Hezbollah needs to disarm, instead they just attacked another country, sounds like the broke the resolution. As for Israel being illegal, the UN recognizes them as a state, the UN does not recognize Hezbollah as a legal militia. --zero faults 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if they're acting against the resolution? Israel acts against UN resolutions all the time, but it doesn't make every action it takes illegal, and neither does it for Hezbollah. Zocky | picture popups 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are not understanding, the groups existence is against the resolutions set out by the United Nations. If you have a specific problem with this please clarify what that is so I can possibly address it. --zero faults 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I think that Zocky's point (correct me if I'm wrong Zocky), is that it is inappropriate for us to suggest that we should express a preference for one point of view over the other. "The article shouldn't prefer Israel's line that Hezbollah is illegal to Hezbollah's line that Israel is illegal, nor the other way around." This is exactly right. Let's put it this way. There are two points of view here. There's the view of pro-Israelis. They say that Hezbollah crossed into Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers who were, at the time, showing no signs of agression. Supporters of Israel feel that Hezbollah's actions came during a time of peace and were intended to incite violence. The other viewpoint is the view of those who support Hezbollah's actions, or at least, do not feel that they were any worse than Israel's actions. They feel like Hezbollah's actions were perfectly acceptable and that there was no "time of peace" because it is hardly peace when a foreign country continues to occupy a country's territory (i.e. Sheb'a Farms). Zerofaults said that Hezbollah violated the geneva conventions by not allowing the soldiers to contact their families. However, someone who feels that the taking of the soldiers was at least equivalent to Israel's taking of Lebanese and Palestinians as prisoners would argue that Israel often fails to allow its prisoners to contact and see their families. So you see, there are two sides. There is no consensus as to who is right or wrong in this conflict. Thus, we are not in a position, nor should we ever be in a position on Misplaced Pages, to decide what is legal and what is illegal. All we can report on legality or illegality are claims by the parties (including only somewhat involved third-parties), and the decisions of courts. Even a decision of a court cannot be reported as a fact. It has to be reported as a decision of the court. So as far as we are concerned, we must try our best to craft our language such that it does not suggest any POV. So, I feel that kidnapped suggests the pro-Israeli perspective. I feel that calling them POW suggests the pro-Hezbollah position. I think that calling it capture still has POV, but I think that it is the closest to not having POV of any of them. Those are my thoughts at least. Sorry if they're stupid.--Nibblesnbits 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There is two points, however two wrongs do not negate eachother. You cannot go in front of the UN and say, "well they violated the Geneva Convetion first". If you want to say Israel kidnapped all those other people that is fine, but negating the fact that these people were kidnapped simply because others were kidnapped makes no sense. We are not attempting to decide right or wrong, saying Manson killed lots of people so he broke X law is not deciding right from wrong, its stating a fact. The problem here is that people want to use a less factually correct word because they feel the most factually correct word is POV. However there are two sides, captured implies a legal action where kidnapped states an illegal action for ransom. Perhaps a middle ground is to say they were taken for ransom as that is the most factually correct statement and does not use either word or imply a legal point. As for calling them POW's that is clearly POV is kidnapped is POV since it implies the actions were taken legally, POW's are not illegal captives but legal captives. It further justifies all actions by stating there was a state of war, which there was not. By the idea of not wanting to state legality you cannot say kidnapped (though most accurate because of ransom) captured (promotes legality ie POW) or POW itself as it justifies the attack in general as implying there was a state of war. --zero faults 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they negate each other. I'm saying that, if we call the actions of one kidnapping, and the actions of the other capture, then that would be POV, because that might be the view of one side, but the other side views it in exactly the opposite way. "If you want to say Israel kidnapped all those other people that is fine...." Other editors would not allow this, and thus it would be POVed to express the actions of Hezbollah as anything different from Israel's. Look, all I'm trying to say is that we should use the same word for both sides and try to make that word as POV-free as possible.--Nibblesnbits 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone taken without given a reason and without being charged with a crime, and especially not taken by an authority with power to enforce laws is obviously kidnapped. If these Lebanese were taken from Lebanon against the will of the Lebanese government and have not been charged or convicted of a crime, then they are certaintly kidnapped. I would not advocate any different. So your problem isnt with POV, its just that you feel since one factual statement is the victim of edit warring, that you should make another similar statement a victim of edit warring. We do not leave content out of an article simply because we cannot get our way with a different statement. You are almost advocating a WP:POINT violation, to disrupt an article to prove a political point that those other people were also kidnapped. If you want to bring a poll and can show they were not convicted or charged with a crime then I will surely state my support for labeling those people as kidnapped as well. However do not drag other issues into that one to make political points. --zero faults 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. I really wasn't trying to prove a point, I was just trying to say that we should try to stay consistent throughout our articles on this matter, that's all. In other words, I am saying that we should make neither statements victims of edit warring. I really don't care which word is used here, as long as we agree upon it or at least can live with it. Sorry if I came across some other way, but you make a good point--Nibblesnbits 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli

"Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling resulting in death of eight and capture of two IDF soldiers"

Didn't the cross-border raid result in the death of three IDF soldiers, not eight? To my understanding, the other five died while trying to retrieve their comrades. This comment seems a bit misleading. Coolintro 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Cerejota 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't. Eight soldiers died in this attack, not three. It is highly irrelevant that they have tried to save their comrades - that's what soldiers do while under attack, you know? I suppose for you guys to write that the other five were killed in the attack they had to stand still and wait for Hizballa bullets, not trying to do anything against the attackers, right? What an immoral crap... Aleverde.

We already discussed this, you must be new to this talk page, we earlier decided to keep that. Because there are other news report where they where 8 where kiled at the same time. --Zonerocks 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the article states that three were killed during the raid and the rest were killed trying to rescue the kidnapped soldiers. Coolintro 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We already agreed on this cool. Because it doesn't matter, Ehud Olmert gave his reasons for it, and that is mentioned. --Zonerocks 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We havent agreed on anything. I mean, most editors here would either make this a Hezbollah propganda page or an IDF recruitment page. I learned recently that calling consensus in this page is impossible. All we have is lulls between edit wars. And of course, that upsurge when the megaphone rings...--Cerejota 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Casus belli" mean "cause of war'? This is a conflict, so it is the wrong word -- Kendrick7 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it is the infobox layout itself that is misleading... -- Kendrick7 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fauxtography Scandal

There is no mention of Hezbollah manipulation of the press, now known as "the Fauxtography Scandal." As a journalist, I find this very disturbing.

Fauxtography is so pervasive that it has already become one of the greatest scandals in the history of journalism. As of this date, the evidence of tampering and coverup is overwhelming. The Reuters clouds, the "Passion of the Toys," the Green Helmet Guy, the Pieta of Tyre (taken by an American photographer for the NYT) -- all will affect careers and personal relationships for years to come. The reaction may have an effect on the outcome of the war.Scott Adler 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources?--Cerejota 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies presents some of the basic claims. Tewfik 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, these Bush-supporters are now the silliest, biggest conspiracy nuts out there. They accuse 'terrorists' and 'left-wingers' of just about everything these days. Don't even make mention of the fact that the entire Jessica Lynch story was made up for propaganda purposes, or that the Saddam Statue Toppling was staged... Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks wasn't aware of the page, thanks! Seems like the mother of all the POV forks tho...--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF? The Reuters photos, hallo? Proven doctored? Hajj fired, 920 photos pulled, hallo? Where's conspiracy theory? It's a proven fact for God sake! As far as I know the only conspiracy nuts are those trying to prove Joos are behind 9/11 relying on Al-Manar reports! OMG, do you learn the facts before you post? Aleverde.

Well Scott, that's what I don't like about our administration's PR efforts in the war on terror. the terrorist's know how to work other people's media's and especially ours. --Zonerocks 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for example Haditha. OUCH! :D--Cerejota 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all haditha is disputed. It would be POV, POV, POV, omg POV, POV that POV this, POV, POV. --Zonerocks 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, CLinton and wako, The Asprin Factories, Kosovo. OUCH :D --Zonerocks 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You bitter? :D--Cerejota 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Waco. Yes, that was major criminal activity. Janet Reno should have been punished for it. Clinton's administration were major criminals. But, Clinton is just an associate of Bush Sr., and works for the same cartel as Bush Jr. Your remarks are a perfect example of why political parties should not exist as they do now. Somehow people become convinced that this dichotomy is the guide to 'right and wrong', rather than actually bothering to investigate facts. Bush is actually centre-left in his policies, just for reference. He is more left-wing than Clinton was, although more toward the authoritarian side. You need to do some research and think independently instead of just associating everything good and wonderful with the Republican party. Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt, just out of curiosity, can you direct me to a reasonable argument showing GWB is center-left? I'm being serious - I can think of some reasons, but would like to read more. Thx! Valtam 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Well the voting found a concensus that most people support the word kidnapped over captured. By a vote of 14-18-3, the word kidnapped will be implemented into the article in whatever place it needs to be added.If anyone changes the words, you will be reported for vandalism. --Zonerocks 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zonerocks, striking out other people's votes will get you reported for vandalism. Please note that the log shows everything you do. The same goes for removing anything on this page. You just removed a response to you claim above, which, just as I do, accused you for striking out other people's votes. Thomas Blomberg 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked him about it, and he explained that it was because they were made after the vote was closed. And it is true, he did set a deadline originally that it be closed at a set hour, and when this came he closed it. That is essentially his rationale. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will reaffirm this again, these polls closed at 8 am cst today. it clearly says untop polls close. votes casted after polls close will be deleted. it says this untop. --Zonerocks 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. There is a very slight majority of the votes cast for kidnapped, and not counting votes cast after the time is an exercise in procedural creep. I have seen RfD denied on grounds of no-consensus for wider margins. Whats more, you have just begun an edit war of un told proportion. Wait and see.

I do not understand why pro-Israel editors, who are the bulk of thos epushing for the POV "kidnapping" cannot respect the fact that there is a need to mantain neutrality, and that this need is based in part in trying to avert edit wars. I think they should be satisfied with a mention on the text that according to Israel those were kidnappings and according to Hezbollah those were prisioners of war.

I mean its so obviously not neutral is not even funny. I say we take this up directly to Moderation, not moderation cabal but moderation, unless enough people can be brought up to see the harm they are doing to the entire NPOV of the artcicle by that simple act (for example, careful compromise on wording, subpages, and article size wmight be lost simply for an unwiillingness to compromise in good faith). I mean, if this is how we want it to be, then lets do it, but I think there is a better way. And stop the meatpuppetry :D--Cerejota 07:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Invalid voting

Dear Zonerocks,

This voting is totally invalid, as it hasn't been handled correctly at all. You first set an incorrect and very ambiguous closing time for the vote. 28 hours later you set the deadline 12 hours earlier. When the second ambiguous deadline is past while the first is not, presumptive voters are given a message that easily can be interpreted as "Last chance, the voting is closing soon." Four minutes later you start overlining "late" entries (including some that came in well before your second deadline) while that message is still up, and nine minutes later - in a totally different place on the talk page - you declare that the voting is over and that "your side" has won. However, not until three hours later do you change the "hurry up" message to Polls Closed - and at that moment your first ambiguous deadline is still eight hours away; a deadline many may have counted on, as they never expected the deadline to change.

1. The time you set was incorrect and very ambiguous. The only valid time reference in Misplaced Pages is UTC. Not only is CST a largely unknown entity outside the US, Canada and Australia - and In Australia it means something totally different. When it's 20:00 (your first time) Australian CST, it's 10:30 UTC, 04:30 US CST, and 03:30 US CDT (the time reference you probably meant to use). And when it's 08:00 (your second time) Australian CST, it's 22:30 UTC the previous day, 17:30 US CST the previous day, and 16:30 CST the previous day. However, as probably not even the Aussies thought that you would be nice enough to set the deadline according to Australian CST, we'll assume you meant US CST. But as it's summer in your part of the world, you probably meant CDT, i.e. Central Daylight Time, but we can't be sure and many editors would have had no idea. Why you would pick the time zone for the metropolis Askov, Minnesota (how on earth can Americans call a place with 368 people a "city"?) as time reference for the very global English Misplaced Pages nobody knows but you.
2. Your first entry, at 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC), said Polls close on Monday at 8 pm CST. However, at 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. more than 28 hours later, you just changed the text to Polls close on Monday at 8 am CST, i.e. you set the closing time 12 hours earlier. This was done without any additional message, such as "Please note, the deadline has changed." Most of those who read the closing time message during those first 28 hours wouldn't have read it again - and even if they did glance at it later, they may very well have overlooked the fact that a small "a" had replaced a small "p". Consequently, some editors (provided that they understood what CST was) would have assumed that the closing time was Tuesday 14 August 2006 at 02:00 UTC, while others (who guessed that you actually meant CDT) would have assumed that the closing time was Tuesday 14 August 2006 at 03:00 UTC. (We can forget the poor Aussies who assumed that you meant Monday 14 August 2006 at 10:30 UTC, as they would have given their votes way ahead of your deadline.) Those who saw your time change and understood what CST meant, but didn't think about summer time, would have thought that the deadline was Monday 14 August 2006 at 14:00 UTC, while those who saw it and figured you meant CDT, would have set their alarm bells at Monday 14 August 2006 at 15:00 UTC. Consequently, people were given four possible deadlines.
3. So what happened? At 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. 33 minutes after your second deadline, the text was changed to Polls are close. Any other votes past 8 am will not be counted, which can easily be interpreted as "Last chance, the voting is closing soon" - and late arrivals would have no idea which 8 am it referred to. HST, perhaps? At 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. 4 minutes later, you started overlining "Captured" votes that you deemed had come in (but not explaining that this was the meaning of the overlining), including one cast at 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC), i.e. well before your second deadline. At 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) you declared in a new section labelled "Vote" at the bottom of this very long page, instead of in the voting section: Well the voting found a concensus that most people support the word kidnapped over captured. By a vote of 14-18-3, the word kidnapped will be implemented into the article in whatever place it needs to be added., adding If anyone changes the words, you will be reported for vandalism. at 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC). However, at that time it still said Polls are close. Any other votes past 8 am will not be counted. at the top of the voting section. At 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) you changed the text to Consensus gathering . . , and not until 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) did you change that text to Polls Closed, i.e. more than three hours after you declared that the voting was finished. However, at that time your first deadline was still eight hours away.

I think this "consensus vote" should be awarded some kind of price for being the sloppiest and most mismanaged thing we've seen for a long time. But as the feisty Zonerocks has only been with us for less than a week, perhaps we should consider it to be the result of an overeager beginner.

I agree with Avi that there is no consensus, so the result should be that no changes should be made to the status quo. However, status quo is not "kidnapped", but "captured". This is not the first debate in this matter. It started already on 13 July, and after a heated debate for three days, most agreed that "captured" was better than "kidnapped", see Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis/Archive2#Discussion_about_the_captured_soldiers and Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis/Archive3#Discussion_about_POV, and it has been discussed several more times since then. If you check the log, you'll find that the word was "captured" almost all the time from 14 July to 12 August (shortly after the semi-protect had been removed), when anon user 12.74.187.164 started changing all the "captured" to "kidnapped", i.e. the same day that Zonerocks instigated this silly vote. So, except for the two last days, the word has been "captured", i.e. the word BBC uses. Regards Thomas Blomberg 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Events leading up

What do events in March have to do with this, especially unfounded allegations? Perhaps we can go back to the 1982 invasion? The direct cause was the Hezbollah action. There is a millenium of internecine battles and strife in the Levant; it is out-of-scope for this article.

The above post was not tested on the words kidnapping or capture, and can be enjoyed without guilt

-- Avi 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the entire history of the Israel-Lebanon conflict, but this article is specific to 2006. I find a rocket bombing/exchange between the two (three, four, whatever) sides six weeks prior to the current conflict perfectly relevant, and this section could be expanded. What's unfounded here? -- Kendrick7 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is specific to the recent conflict, not all of 2006. The events that led up to the July/August 2006 conflict could be correctly argue to have begun 1000 years ago. This article is about this conflict, not all of 2006. -- Avi 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for 1000-years of pre-history. But that that last cease-fire lasted only six weeks, that at least provides context. Are you sugesting, six weeks from now if hostilities recommense, it would be an entirely different article, with no mention of this whole ancient July/August spat?? -- Kendrick7 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but I think that it is eminently reasonable to treat this conflict as beginnning with the world-wide accepted cause of Hezbollah's actions, and not allow the pre-history to crep in, becuase there is no limit once that starts. -- Avi 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying (I wrote the article on Loki's Wager, don't need to tell me about slippery slopes). But the introductory paragraph already dates and gives the causes of the this conflict. We could easily say something like, "while the conflict between Israel and Lebanon goes bad X years, this conflict began after a ceasefire of six weeks", or some similar disclaimer. The actors and the modus operandi are the same, it does inform the reader that tensions were ongoing, etc. so I don't see the unrelevancy. -- Kendrick7 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I am REALLY MAD, How distorted is that section. That is pure biased bull. It should be automactically deleted. Did anyone here actually check the links? I went to the leaders page and that the refernce or the link is from may 26 2005. That's right may 26 2005. This should be automatically deleted. This is unbelieveable. Are there any objections. I will leave objections open for two hours. --Zonerocks 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Zone, following the link does give the date of "May 26, 2006". The 05 in the URL is for May, not 2005. I think we can all use a bit of a breather here, and WP:AGF is helpful (though I admit, difficult at times). 8-D -- Avi 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is official notice that I have extended your 2 hours to 72,000 hours, which puts the deadline sometime in 2014.--Paraphelion 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse him. He's having a hard enough time with his years anyway. These events were 2006. Kendrick7 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, now, Kendrick, everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Let's try and keep even the semblance of WP:NPA out of this, as hard as I agree that may be (I love sardonic cutting wit as much as anyone >:) ). We have enough emotion riding here as it is 8-D -- Avi 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Kendrick (regarding the relevance of the events leading up to the current crisis). Events such as rocket exchange between the two sides ARE important to getting full story. There was also mention of kidnappings of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, as cited by BBC that seemed creditable but have since been deleted- apparently without discussion. Considering the write up by Seymour Hersh (discussed above), the issue of the beginning of this conflict should include an entry about events leading up to it. Otherwise, it's as if those events never took place, which is incorrect. Niaz 03:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Palestinian issue is part of 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict; Nasrallah explicitly states in his press conference that there is no connection. The Hersh claim is so far not widely reported, and in any event, it is hardly notable enough to warrant inclusion in this bursting-at-the-seams article. Sometimes I wonder if we should put a FAQ at the top of this page. Tewfik 04:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is confusing now that it mentions this previous cease-fire. I understand that there was such a cease-fire, but it belongs elsewhere, in historical context, not in the intro paragraph. Claymoney 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

206.255.1.73

Avi seems this user can't stop switching kidnapped with captured. Indentification of userHe has been reported and it will not be tolerated. --Zonerocks 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See, you're mistaken, or just trying to scare me. Anyone willing to read this Talk page can see what you did with the voting on "Captured" versus the POV "Kidnapped." I won't be blocked, and you'll be reprimanded for misrepresentative reports. Have a ball, champ. 206.255.1.73 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You won't be blocked, but I will reverse your POV, yes, POV "captured" crap every single time you do it. Things that Zonerocks might have done have no relevance here. They were kidnapped, period. The intention of holding them as a deal card, the unprovoked attack, the lies about circumstances of Kuntar's non-releasing - all are evidence for this. So calm down. If the Hizb can have its Al-Manar regurgitating the Protocols and be considered a "legitimate tool", Israel can have me and all I do will be legitimate as well. And be sure, I will take care of the crap you post. Aleverde

Quote: "Avi seems this user can't stop switching kidnapped with captured". And methinks "another user" cannot stop switching it back. The soldiers were kidnapped, not captured. They were not involved in any military action against Hizballah then. So they are clearly kidnapped, to be used in an exchange deal for convicted child murderer Kuntar and not "captured". Nice use of euphemisms for Islamist propaganda, but I think the one who should not be tolerated is the one who writes this "captured" crap. Regards, Aleverde. Update: sorry, thought you were referencing me and not the Hizb guy.

This POV disputed stuff, not vandalisim. Please stop trying to pass your POV as consensus. Captured is indeed the only neutral term.--Cerejota 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No it is NOT the neutral term. They might have been "captured" if Israel's not releasing of the last three Hezbollah murderers along with the scumbag Kuntar (who killed a child smashing her head against his rifle and killed her father and two policemen as well, by the way) was breaking the previous KIDNAPPING AND KILLING deal (of 2000). But it wasn't! Israel was to release the three scumbags only if Nasrallah was to provide a reliable info on Ron Arad. But the bearded Islamist fanatic didn't do it! So don't tell me they are "captured" only because they are soldiers. It is hypocricy. They are kidnapped exactly as Gilad Shalit is. Hey, yo sé que el vuestro ódio de los Judíos no se paraba nunca, incluse después el 1492, y ha después contaminado a todo el mundo Hispánico, pero eh - hay límites, no? Pienso que el moonbat Zapatero con su qafiya será bastante para hora. --Aleverde

I ask you aplogize or I am raising an ArbCom for ethnic slurs. There are personal attacks we can handle, and then there is racist and ethnic insults which are a banable offense for just one instance. I am dead serious. I have a sense of humor until it comes to this. Posting on your talkpage too. --Cerejota 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What ethnic insults? What racist slurs? That I said that Spaniards and Hispanics usually do hate Jews? How does that amount to a racist slur? How does that amount to "racism" against them? That is true, and face it. You guys in US are used to treat any inconvenient saying as "racism", but what I said is very far from being racism. I did not say Spaniards and Hispanics are "inferior" to some other ethnic group. I just said they usually hate Jews (and usually becasue of religious indoctrination), and this is true, and you know it very well, I bet first-hand. So don't threaten me, please, and don't try to intimidate me. Remember Chávez's speech about "those who crucified Christ now own the world"? So when he apologizes to the Jews, so will I. Till then, you'd better curb your threats. And yeah, I am "dead serious" as well. Aleverde

I think there needs to be a cease fire between you guys. While I dont think Aleverde's comments were racist, they were prejudice perhaps, but I think you two need a moment to cool down, perhaps just not addressing eachother few a bit to let cooler heads prevail. --zero faults 12:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty racist to me, and what's worse is that he didn't apologize. Deuterium 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty racist, Deuterium? How exactly? Do Hutus hate Tutsis? Yes they do and they proved it in 1994. Now how "racist" is that, my friend? You'd better learn first what "racism" means before applying this term to everything that moves. And what I said was not even a prejudice, Zer0faults. See for yourself, how many results Google yields for a popular Spanish slur against the Jews, "perros judíos" ("Jewish dogs"), and how many results it yields for the parralel Hebrew slur, "כלבים ספרדים". Compare for yourself - infinity against one. So please, Deuterium, don't try to teach me things. I know what I say, and I know it very well, and I know it much better than you. Apology will not come, because there is nothing to apologize for. It's enough to take a look of your user page in order to see what kind of stuff you are up to. Allek anti-Arab racism. Take a look at the Qur'an - it says Jews are pigs and monkeys. It's time you learn a little bit about your own racism before you accuse anyone of it. Aleverde.

Saying Germans hate Jews because Nazi comes up alot on google seems like faulty proof and a prejudice statement. To label a whole group by the actions of some is pretty prejudice. However I am not here to make an arguement either way, just asking you to please calm down here as things seem to be getting a bit tense and there is no need for that. There is a clash of opinions, however we are all adults and can talk it out resonably. --zero faults 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You did not understand me, Zer0faults. The term Nazi by itself is not a slur against an ethnic group - it designates an evil ideology but it is not an ethnic slur. But "Jewish dogs" certainly is. If you can read any Spanish, you can also see what context does this phrase appear in

the results. Yes, I repeat again, the hatred of Jews (religiously based) is extremely common in the Spanish-speaking world, especially in Spain proper. Aleverde

I am not here to argue the merits of accusations simply to ask everyone to relax and cool off. --zero faults 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'd really like to calm down. But blatant distorting of facts (making the false pretext of Hizballa's raid valid by using absolutely non-neutral term "captured" instead of factual "kidnapped", "abducted" or even "taken for human ransom"; wondering if the article about the Reuters fauxtography scandal with proven doctoring of at least 2 photos is a "mother of all POV"; putting the number of Israeli soldiers that died during the raid on three instead of factual eight, trying to justify this by their attempt to save their comrades and thus being "unrelated" to the attack itself - what a cynism) is not exactly something that has a deep calming effect. Like being 58 years under siege (with overtly genocidal intentions) and being killed for what you are is not enough, like being sput at by all the world is not enough, we also have to suffer this false, deceiving taqiya crap being posted here. Aleverde.

Too bad kidnapped won consensus. --Zonerocks 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Too bad the voting "method" was a sham, as detailed above. Stop pushing POV, please. --Keyne 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And methinks YOU are pushing your POV. Any sane person knows they were kidnapped and not "captured". Kidnapped to be used as a blackmail to release a child murderer. See response to Cerejota above.

Eh? Where I come from that's no "consensus". Not that I really care what term you end up with, but calling a disputed decision a "consensus" is rather ingenuous. 71.123.31.93 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The End of the Conflict?

I think it's fair to say that there will be extensive debate about how to write about the end of this conflict which (hopefully) is coming about now. I think it's fair and in the NPOV spirit to simply talk about the cease-fire and not to begin (yet) to talk about who won or much about who is withdrawing or being disarmed. The cease-fire is a fact on the ground. Victory is much more POV-based and biased. Claymoney 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, good thinking, no end yet!

Clay, the conflict isnt over, and the result isnt a ceasefire. That is where we are now though, a ceasefire. It may turn out to be the end, it may not be, we will have to wait. The result of this will continue to be "ongoing" as its not over. Do not confuse the "result" section with a "current status" section. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something in the table reflecting the UN-brokered cease-fire, which both sides (at least right now) are treating as potentially permanent? The opening paragraph mentions both that the conflict is ongoing and that a cease-fire is in place, so I think the table should as well. Claymoney 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "Date" section, the ceasefire can be noted. But to put the ceasefire as a result is premature, anything except "ongoing" is premature and I would appreciate if people helped to keep it as this for the time being as I unfortunately have already reverted it 3 times. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to have some sort of internal logic. If this conflict begin date is 12 July, with the end of the last ceasefire, it should end on 14 August with the new ceasefire. Otherwise, there's no reason the begin date wouldn't really be 28 May, or last year, or, as some have said, 1000 years ago -- Kendrick7 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As for an end of the conflict? This would imply that Israel goes back to The Blue Line (north and south) of '48. I do not see that happening anytime soon, not least because of the investments made in disputed areas. Who is going to inherit that?

As for a democratic state including all provinces of Palestine, this will not happen because the Jews would be in minority, and the Muslims (frankly) are not mature enough to deal with that! MX44 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither are the Jews, as we have witnessed. MX44 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You say I've got my crayons mixed up? :) That may be so, the essence of what I say still holds. MX44 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My 'southern' reference was to Ashdod/Isdud occupied by Egypt ... What is the colour I am thinking of? It was part of the plan from '47 MX44 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1947. I have found this old map (sorry about the superimposed PLO propaganda) explaining why I say blue line. And as you say, the "who started what" goes back a long time, way before the British Mandate. MX44 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As for what I mean about the crayoned lines is, that there will be no solution as long as ppl insist on calling for personal interpretations of Gods vengence. MX44 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Conflict/war on ceasefire, so it is not ended. Althought the Korean war is called "ended" even tho all they have is an armistice wich is a weasel-word for ceasefire ;-).

2) The "Blue line" (follow link with map!) has jack manure to do with the 1940s. It is the name given to the UN-sanctioned and monitored border of Lebanon with Israel, and is called Blue LIne because of the Blue helmets. Damn kids, forgot your vitamins today?

3) The green line Tewfik explained. As to its colorfulness, Ill let him testify, although I am told there is some kind of berlin wall (except taller and better built) being built, so perhaps the name will change at some point.--Cerejota 05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of original raid

There has been some confusion over whether Hezbollah's initial raid was actually in Israeli territory. Could someone please provide a map or otherwise help clear this up?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.236.127 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Most news agencies (including Al-jazeera) and world governments say the attack occurred in Israel proper. Hezboallah claims otherwise. I believe it is in the article. Without a photograph and GPS devices, it will not get much clearer than that. -- Avi 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend we investigate this deeper THIS IS OF HUGE IMPORTANCE, GOOD THING YOUR BROUGHT THIS UP, IT'S POSSIBLE HEZZBOLLAH ATTACKED INSIDE THEIR TERRITORY OR SHEBA FARMS!

The last time we had this discussion, it didn't seem to be clear that Hezbollah made that claim (possibly an allusion, I think Cyde said something about it). The Shebaa farms area is nowhere near Zar'it or Ayta al-Sha'b. Tewfik 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Shebaa farms are not and never were Lebanese territory. Aleverde

Cease Fire broken

What a surpirse, fox news has just confirmed that in the last three hours, over 10 katusha rockets where fired from lebanon towards israeli outposts. Im going to keep looking for an article. But it was just on foxnews. --Zonerocks 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now israel is firing artilley --Zonerocks 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here foxnews website says it in the alert http://www.foxnews.com/

Im not seeing at at the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All I found in English was this, though Maariv is reporting the 10 katyushas claim. Tewfik 00:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, Fox News just reported that, but nothing about artillery being fired. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I read it as being attributed to AP, but I can't find an English language report yet...Tewfik 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Found this on Ynet, , still nothing about artillery. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So what it looks like is that they fired these missiles from a farther range, and I saw sean hannity and it was very close to the israeli border. In the direction of israeli outposts. --Zonerocks 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright here is a link. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Mideast_Conflict BEIRUT, Lebanon - Tens of thousands of Lebanese jammed bomb-cratered roads Monday as they returned to still-smoldering scenes of destruction after a tenuous cease-fire ended 34 days of vicious combat between Israel and Hezbollah. Highlighting the fragility of the peace, Hezbollah guerrillas fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets that landed in southern Lebanon early Tuesday, the Israeli army said, adding that nobody was injured. --Zonerocks 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I sourced it from yahoo/AP and rewrote the article text to be more faithful to the source. For example, we do not KNOW that they were fired at Israeli positions (who knows perhaps Hezbollah was aiming at some rogue camels :D ) Regardless, "into south Lebanin" is the better construction -- Avi 02:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there still Israeli troops in southern Lebanon? I mean not an avid Ynet reader like me can find anything?--Cerejota 08:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Yes Crejota, many news organizations reported that this morning. IDF is saying missiles where launched from central beirut and fired at israeli outposts in southeren Lebanon behind the litani river.--Zonerocks 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are. The agreement is for the IDF to hand over their locations directly to joint international/Lebanese forces when the latter are ready to take over each individual location. Therefore the withdrawals are expected to take at least several days, with the first handovers expected to occur on Thursday. And I heard that this morning on WABC radio (ABC network news), based on some of your user boxes I am pretty sure you can get that.  :) 6SJ7 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there's not much military forces from israel in haifa. So I would guess, there trying to kill civilans mdf

Seymour Hersh allegation

I came across a number of articles on Google News related to this article in The New Yorker. I've placed a reference to it in the section on the Israeli response to the initial attack, but I'm not sure that is the right place for it. Can anybody suggest something better? Damburger 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, we can't include analysis of what may or may not be in the future. As for the actual claims of collusion the report, from what I read about them they are far from mainstream. If that is an accurate assesment, then they would deserve extremely minimal, if any mention. Cheers, Tewfik 00:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very tenuous excuse for trying to keep it out of the article. His allegations have little to do with the future - they refer to events that occured before 12th July. Simply because they also mention a possible future strike on Iran doesn't make it a crystal ball. And it doesn't give you an excuse to censor. Damburger 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa - your addition focused on the claims of what may happen in the future, which is why I discussed that aspect. Nonetheless, what I said above holds true. Many noncontroversial and mainstream passages have been removed to subarticles; assuming that this is even something that could be included, it is unlikely to go in the main article, and certainly not more than the slightest mention.

Now for the sake of clarity, what specific point to you want to include? Tewfik 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not including a "point" I'm quoting a news story which is quite prominent when you do a Google News search for 'Israel'. I did not focus on what would happen in the future - I merely quoted a section reporting what US plans were. Quoting (alleged) plans by the US does not constitute crystal ball gazing. Damburger 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not crystal ball, perhaps,but it may very well not be notable. Can we have confirmation from multiple sources, maybe? -- Avi 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, you and I disagree on POV, but we agree on wikipedia, at least until now. :P --Cerejota 04:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this one of the articles you are talking about? - "Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon' ". It seems very relevant to this article.--Paraphelion 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What nuclear installations? Iran's nuclear energy installations? The USA and Israel have gone mad. They really are going to start something very serious if the USA invades Iran. Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a general chat forum Matthew, please leave comments like these to your talk page. --zero faults 10:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matthew... I don't know what you are talking about, did you mean to reply to me?--Paraphelion 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now who is the hypocrite? First you blabber on on how liberals are the devil, and now you want to ban soapboxing... like to have your cake and eat too don't ya?--Cerejota 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"exclusively at civilian targets"

This may have been discussed before, but is it a fact that Hizbollocks rockets have only been fired at civilian targets. They hit a group of IDF reservists preparing to go into lebanon. It might have been a lucky strike, but it also seems like the typical military tactic of bombarding the attackers rear areas during the build up of an attack, doesn't it? I can't really know for sure of course, but... pertn 08:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, the initial strike was purely against a military target. Damburger 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How many military personnel has the rocket salvo hit? Furthermore a beter question is, since they admit their rockets are not accurate, how can they still fire them knowing they most likely will not hit their target? This is actually against the geneva convention including the use of ball bearings in warheads when they are fired into civilian areas. If you look at the map that shows where the rockets have landed you will see they are way behind where the troop build up is. --zero faults 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a general chat forum, Zer0faults.  ;) Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When I get off topic and start ranting about WW3 let me know =) --zero faults 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of Hezbollah, the fact is that 'exclusively at civilian targets' has been rubbished. Damburger 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry don't know what you are talking about. Do you have answers to these questions? --zero faults 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Katyusha rockets are unguided, imprecise and designed primarily to instill terror, not disable military equipment or military units.

The fact that they hit an open air camp of IDF soldiers was by coincidence, not design.

If they had intended to hit military targets within Israel they would have had plenty of opportunities, since the political leadership within Israel-in its infinite wisdom-decided to leave thousands of tanks, artillery, and reservists idling near the Lebanese border for weeks before finally deciding to deploy them in the final days of this conflict.

Ruthfulbarbarity 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Ruthfulbarbarities alleged ability to read the collective minds of Hezbollah militants, the fact they did hit military targets means the statement is factually incorrect. Sorry if this contradicts your ideology. Damburger 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not taking sides but saying something is fired exclusively at civilian targets really cannot be debated by saying what it did hit, since the weapons are not accurate, it could have just as much been fired at civilians but by accident hit soldiers. Just pointing that out. Now saying its exclusively hit civilian targets would be something else, since its obvious it did once hit a military target. Would be interesting to know the percent of rockets that hit military targets and the number of rockets fired total. --zero faults 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please, that is pathetic. You are arguing that we ignore the facts because they don't point to the conclusion you want them to. The indisputed fact is these missiles have hit military targets. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, they have not been fired exclusively at civilians. Speculation at who Hezbollah were aiming at based on your own pro-Israel bias has no place in the article. Damburger 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I do not know what you are talking about and ask you remain civil as per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. What I am saying is that if the missles are not targetting military targets but hitting them, then they are exclusively targetting civilians. As I said I am not taking a side, just pointing out facts. If the target is civilians and they hit something military, then you can say they are exclusively targetting civilians. However if you can show they are targetting military targets and accidentally hitting civilian targets then you can say they are exclusively targetting military targets, get it? Please keep your accusations to yourself, they are disrespectful and quite frankly diminish any point you are trying to make when you throw around wild assumptions about people and their views. --zero faults 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

removed personal attack --zero faults 17:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems it should be changed. May I propose "indiscriminately"? pertn 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Flayer 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what we need to know is exactly where the missiles were launched and landed, and the positions of IDF facilities, etc, in order to gauge things like "exclusive" and "indiscriminate", even if such WP:OR was permitted at all. But current censorship in force in Israel will make this simply impossible to determine, so arguably any such adjectives are a slam-dunk violation of WP:V, even if some supposedly WP:RS states them. So they should be removed, but (sadly) I think it's predictable what will happen if they were removed. mdf 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You really should not specify Israel solely, there has already been articles by reporters stating they can only goto certain areas in Lebanon and are restricted as to what they take pictures of etc. So censorship is taking place on both sides. As for WP:RS sources they cannot be excluded because we think they may be under this censorship rule, we can only look a particular article that is known to have been affected by it, not discount an entire news agency. --zero faults 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated that it would be "interesting" to know what percentage of missiles hit a "military" target. I assert this is not, in fact, a means to discern "exclusively" or "indiscriminate" targeting of civilians: indeed, short of a direct admission of intent, such things are established from other factors like where the missile was launched, where it landed, and the distribution of IDF facilities. However, we can't carry out this research (even if it would be permitted here) since Israeli censorship specifically forbids publication of such things. I guess I could have babbled on about Hezbollah censorship, but, like, that would have had as much relevance to my point as Chinese censorship (ie, the missiles landed in Israel, not Lebanon or China). mdf 16:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldnt Hezbollah censorship prevent you from knowing: target, intent, launch location, missle accuracy, etc? Same things you are stating Israeli censorship prevents you from knowing. But I do get your point on WP:OR. It seems if a media source says they are exclusively targetting civilians then its permitted as long as that source is a WP:RS source. --zero faults 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the censorship rules. I think we need to find out how many missiles hezbollah has fired. By the way, hezbollah is trying to kill civilans. It's not inaccuracy pertn. --Zonerocks 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A vague guess is about 3000 (one month ~ 100/day). I'm sure the IDF has been carefully counting them as they lift off (and probably disappointed the mess didn't go on longer, further depleting Hezbollah supplies). How many of these were aimed at civilians and how many at military targets is anyone's guess. It is a no-brainer though that aiming a woefully inaccurate weapon into a civilian-dominated target area makes you a pretty big dickhead though, but even that alone doesn't allow one to use "exclusive" or "indiscriminate" re: targetting. mdf 16:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "indiscriminately" is a good compromise - there should be some verifiable, reliable sources regarding the accuracy of Hezbollah's rockets. If there are any statements from Hezbollah regarding what they're trying to hit, that should probably go in as well. TheronJ 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Either we know Hezbollah's intent or we do not, and all we know can come only from the sources. We can't look at the inherent inaccuracy of the Katyusha, the number fired, and make some determination on our own: this is called "original research" and is strictly forbidden. So we need to find a source that argues the use was "indiscriminate" or "exclusively" or whatever before this can be added here. As I argue above, though, I suspect there are going to be serious WP:V issues to surmount: there are probably no "reliable sources" in this instance that will support the use of these adjectives, just the usual propaganda from one side or another. mdf 16:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to engage in this speculative debate about intention, which as has been pointed out, borders on OR. Instead, lets just state what happened. One military target was hit (AFAIK), and hundreds of civilian targets. Just say something like "the vast majority of strikes hit civilian targets." Cheers, Tewfik 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The rockets are by nature indiscriminate. Katyushas contain NO guidance system (Israeli munitions on the other hand, often do) and therefore where they are aimed is of little consequence. They contain no guidance system that is worth noting and therefore cannot be truly targeted. Claymoney 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "indiscriminately", Hezbollah is unlikely to be able to hit a specific target with a Katyusha even if they tried, as it is unguided and not line-of-sight. It is undeniable that they are not targeting military targets. -- Avi 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We know there targeting civilan areas, hello, haifa, You have to be very stupid to believe that it isn't deiberate. --Zonerocks 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So there are no military targets in Haifa? If there were, and Hezbollah actually hit some of them, would we receive word of this? Or would we just get reports of the misses? Can you now perceive the WP:V problems re: reporting on on-going wars? Is Misplaced Pages to serve as a mouthpiece for Hezbollah or Israel or whoever? mdf 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But it is not "exclusively". Using "deliberately targeting civilians" is also good, but "exclusively" is not, IMO. -- Avi 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You at first claim you can't target these missiles, and now you assert it is possible ("deliberately targeting"). As I said above, it may be possible to remove these words from the article, but it is predictable what would happen if such were done. Why not just stick to what the "reliable sources" say? Surely some of them say "exclusively", "indiscriminant" and "deliberate". I would be shocked if this were not the case, in fact. mdf 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I always reserve the right to be wrong :D. Secondly, I guess it depends on the connotations of "target" is it merely "aiming and hoping to hit" or is it "aiminng and expecting to hit" I do not believe Katyusha's have any form of guidance, or can be adjusted like an artillery battery. So Hezbollah can target the greater Haifa area, but unlikely anywhere specific in Haifa, so while they may be AIMING for civilians, they don't have a set of crosshairs they are using. Whereas a Maverick or a Pave-something can actually be targeted at a specific structure. So, in essence, I'd say y'all are correct - just what do you mean by targeting? -- Avi 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's input. However, it seems we're talking in generalities here. Does someone with a good knowledge of the sources want to take a shot at writing something that is both (1) fair and (2) well sourced for use in discussion? Also, remember that Mdf is right -- we'll certainly know more two weeks from now than we do today, so it's more important to get something neutral and conservative (IMHO) than to write a perfect statement of fact today. Thanks, TheronJ 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, hitting a populated area with rockets is like a much reduced version, say, of carpet bombing or nuking, but the mindset behind it is somewhat similar. I think the idea is: You hit the military (low probability) - great! You hit munitions factories (also low chance) - not bad! Hit a worker in a munitions factory (also low) - fine, we'll take that too. You hit a house (high probability) - too bad. You hit an orphanage - regrettable. Nuking or carpet bombing a city is considered by many to be an atrocity, but is it aimed exclusively at civilians? 71.123.31.93 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Along similar lines, the asymmetry of the editorializing in the following sentence suggests a pro-Israel bias: "The organization has also strongly criticized Israel for using cluster bombs too close to civilians because of their inaccuracy and unreliability, and Hezbollah for filling its rockets with ball bearings, which suggests a desire to maximize harm to civilians." Consider for a moment the following revision: "The organization has also strongly criticized Hezbollah for filling its rockets with ball bearings, and Israel for using cluster bombs too close to civilians because of their inaccuracy and unreliability, which suggests a desire to maximize harm to civilians." The point is that "suggests" is a singular verb that binds to the nearest preceding clause. Why should Hezbollah's use of shrapnel weapons in civilian areas be uniquely suggestive of evil intent? Nobody uses sharapnel weapons in civilian areas unless they "desire to maximize harm to civilians." So, IMHO, "which suggests" should be replaced by "both of which suggest." But, I'll not attempt that edit unless and until there is a consensus on the matter. -- Anonymous 1:45, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

I disagree with this line of reasoning. That Hezbollah wants to maximize harm to civilians is clear. But if Israel wanted to maximize harm to civilians, then Israel would consistently drop bombs ON them rather than TOO CLOSE to them. Precis 10:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between ON and TOO CLOSE is moot in the case of cluster munitions. -- Anonymous 10:38 (PDT), 16 August 2006

This is moot - the line being questions are simply a paraphrasing of the original HRW report. The paraphrasing is only due to the length issues AFAIK. Tewfik 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggested edit adds two words "both of", which does not significantly expand the length but does make the sentence more neutral. -- Anonymous 10:44, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

Is the conflict still ongoing?

The first sentence of the article should be changed to the past tense and the word "ongoing" removed. If this isn't in fact the end of the conlflict, and it fighting resumes, we can simply change things back.Nwe 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Avraham beat me to it by a few seconds. Stephen B Streater 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The last cease fire lasted six weeks, this one has lasted almost two days. Practically a record! I just past-tensed most of the article, and besides, I think if things fall apart again it would have to be a new artcle. -- Kendrick7 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. You misunderstand the word ceasefire and its definition. There was a ceasefire during WW1 at Christmas time in 1915, when fighting resumed the next day it was still WW1. A ceasefire is not an end to the war in and of itself, but temporary stoppage of fighting. The conflict is still ongoing. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding the scope of this article, or at least how it was explained to me here. This article begins with the breach of the May ceasefire, and as such should end with the commencement of this August ceasefire. I originally thought it should cover all of 2006 too. This is perhaps one conflict in a larger war. I believe Israel and Lebanon are technically still at war and have been for dozens of years now. -- Kendrick7 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is ungoing, the end of the conflict will be the day israel leaves, they claim in 10 days, once they are gone, it's over, there will be some more casualties. Also, is there one good administrator here who will watch out for removal of important site, too much bias. what is victory? Israel's goal was to destroy Hezbolla militia, did they do it, not at all, except destroy Lebanon and people who have nothing to do with this war, including Christian areas. Hezbolla on average fired 150 rockets daily, on Sunday, last day of conflict 260+rockets, if this is victory, then I do not know what defeat it, let's remember the moral arguments, the descturcion of hospitals, infrastructure, homes and bridges (like warsaw 39 and 44), all those places had nothing to do with hezbolla but served mostly general public, therefore this argument is self evident and others can contradict it in their world only. As far as the ceasefire goes, it was broken by israel when they bombed hezbolla claiming they were in danger, that needs to be marked, so far 9 hezbolla fighters killed, i think one israeli, sending bombs in south lebanon, not across border is not provocation.When will hezbola disarm ? They will not, except they will not have arms in the south from the Litany river, that does not mean they will not be there, like rebuilding homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.137 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all we aren't ones to decide what victory is and is not. Secondly, not attaining your goals set at the beginning of the war doesn't necessarily mean your enemy has won. One could just as well say that since Israel killed 4 times as many Hezbollah members as IDF soldiers that died they won the conflict. IMO there was no winner to the conflict but there was definitely one loser and that is Lebanon. Yonatanh 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we describe the cessation neutrally, without alluding to whether "the conflict" continues or not, and then decribe any future hostilities based on our persepective when they happen. Tewfik 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Two cases in point: the fighting in the Bosnian War was brought to an end in a ceasefire on October 12, 1995, but the war itself didn't end until the final signing of the Dayton Agreement on December 14, 1995. Likewise the First World War ended on June 28, 1919, not November 11, 1918 when the Armistice went into effect. (That's why most war memorials list 1919, not 1918, as the end date of the war.) In other words, the end of the shooting is not the end of the conflict. -- ChrisO 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very premature to state that this conflict is history. When the Lebanese Army and the strengthened UNIFIL force is in place, and the Israelis have withdrawn to the other side of the border, we can assume that there will be a longer period of nomajor military activities in the area. At that point this conflict can be regarded as history, as any renewed outbreak of major hostilities would be labelled as a different conflict. However, if hostilities start again before this happens, the current ceasefire will just be a temporary break in the same conflict. So, let's stick to "ongoing" for now. Thomas Blomberg 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right - remember how many ceasefires there were in Bosnia? -- ChrisO 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why isn't the start of this conflict 26 May? -- Kendrick7 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it didnt begin then? The conflict described in this article began on July 12th when Hezbollah launched its raid. Its still ongoing, ceasefire doesnt mean the conflict it is over. Please read the article on ceasefire. It means a "temporary" halt in fighting, not a permanant end to the conflict. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It began then by your definition. There was a ceasefire 28 May, then hostilities resumed 12 July. You seem to want it both ways. -- Kendrick7 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relavant footnote. -- Kendrick7 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Kendrick here. It doesn't make sense to say that a conflict is ongoing if it began as a breach of a ceasefire and a new one was declared. It's status now has returned to its status before the begining of the conflict. 124.186.6.253 00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the page on the Korean war gives the date of the end of the war as the date of the armistice. An armistace can be a date for the end of a conflict, though I wounldn't claim that it's definitive. 124.186.6.253 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on whether it is considered the end or not. We have the ability to see that the Korean War ended then, if fighting occurs again it would be considered a different war. But the Vietnam war had a ceasefire in 1973, fighting then resumed later and it was considered the same war. We dont have enough knowledge to know if this is the end or not, the press isnt calling it the end, its merely a "shaky ceasefire." We have to leave it alone for the time being and see what the press, and experts determine. Because the May event was so small and because it is pretty much entirely forgotten (surprisingly, I had never once seen it mentioned in support of the Israeli rationale by anyone on TV, though it seems like something that could be used to strengthen their argument,) we dont consider it part of this because noone else does. We arent writing history, we are merely recording it. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the current status of the conflict, it is impossible to know whether the first sentence should say "is" or "was". I have therefore changed it to a grammatical middle ground, "has been". Grammatically correct? Probably not. Could we just leave it that way as a compromise anyway, for a little while? Please? The tagged word "is" looks really bad. 6SJ7 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Or we can just remove the tag. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You could, but you know what would happen then. I won't change it, but you know that others will. I was just trying to propose a compromise, but other than that I do not think it matters very much which word is used. Since there is no POV issue here, I would be satisfied in the knowledge that no matter which word is there, within a few weeks it will be clear which word is correct, and that is what the article will say. (To those who think they are going to quote this back to me about some other dispute, note the condition that there is no POV issue.) 6SJ7 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I still say dating this conflict from the end of the last ceasefire to the start of the current one eliminates any POV issues. It makes for nice logical and factual bookends to the article. It's not like there can't be more articles. Otherwise, it becomes a real open ended muddle. If we extend it forward, we'd need to extend it backwards too, and then there would be endless "who started it" debates. I don't know why she swallowed the fly! I mean, if the best counter-argument is that we should write whatever the TV tells us, that's a pretty lousy starting point. Anyway, I like Tewfik's current grammar solution for now. -- Kendrick7 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my grammar is off, but does is necessarily have to mean that the conflict is ongoing? Isn't it possible for the sentence to be phrased in present-tense without applying that tense to the subject? In any event, like Rangeley, I'm not sure that the tag actually adds anything. Tewfik 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Special Ops Chief Killed?

Shouldn't this be added to the article?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750941.html

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I am having trouble with this sentence:

"Thank God, no one in a leadership position has been martyred…even though we hope to be martyrs one day," said Sheik Naim Kassem, Hezbollah's deputy leader.

— Naim Kassem,

Isn't that a contradiction? Unless they wish to choose the time and place of their martydom, I guess. -- Avi 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Added. Flayer 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Air and Naval blockade

There is no mention that this is still enforced by Israel

Disclaimer in the Intro to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Loathe am I to add yet another discussion to the already overloaded talk page, but the constant addition of an unneeded disclaimer to the this comment in the intro of the argument needs to be settled.

"The conflict has killed hundreds of people, mostly Lebanese people (with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians), damaged infrastructure across Lebanon, displaced more than a million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis, and disrupted normal life across all of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel."

Some people have been arguing it's POV without the disclaimer.

Even if you include Israel's highest estimates of Hezbollah dead, and the lowest estimates of Lebanese civilian dead, the statement still holds true. I can't revert it back, but it'd be nice if someone would. It's rubbish to deny the fact that Lebanese civilians have been hit the most in this conflict - whether you want to blame Hezbollah or Israel for that is up to you, but "with a yet unknown proportion of fighters and civilians" is patent rubbish, since we have the figures right there. Iorek85 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not a fact.

It's your subjective opinion.

There were over a million Israelis who were bombarded with thousands of rockets for over a month, and hundreds of thousands of them who became essentially internal refugees because of the reckless violence of Hezbollah.

The fact that more Lebanese died does not mean that they were hit "harder," only that the infrastructure of Israel is more robust and advanced than that of Southern Lebanon, which sustained almost all of the major structural damage and loss of life during this conflict.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It should really just say "people". The casuality and their exact country of original, civilian, irregular, or enlisted status, is counted for elsewhere. I think this paragraph is really trying to explain the tragedy of the whole mess -- Kendrick7 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How anyone could claim that this was an equal conflict on both sides baffles me. By any measure, be it environmental, casualty figures, evacuations, physical damage, monetary, or sheer amount of explosives used, Lebanon came out by far the worst. Kendrick, I'd agree with you, but the purpose of the lead is to summarise the main points of the conflict - to lump everyone together (while each life is equal in value) hides the fact that the conflict was unequal. I'm not assigning any moral to that here, anyone can argue its justified or its not, but the lead presents the view that both sides were equally affected, and that's just not the case. Somewhere in that lead it should point out that Lebanon has suffered the most damage/casualties. Iorek85 06:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That Lebanese civilians were the biggest losers should be made clear, though I appreciate Kendrick's point. Is there perhaps a less crass way of getting the point across than "killed hundreds, mostly Lebanese" ? Maybe thats the only way... Tewfik 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Passage moved from intro (POV news analysis ; Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and introductions aren't place for editorializing. This is why I removed the following passage: "But key conditions for a lasting ceasefire may be difficult to meet. For example, two Hezbollah members have said that their militia would not disarm south of the Litani River, according to a senior member of the Lebanese cabinet while Israel has said it will stop withdrawing from South Lebanon if Lebanese troops aren't deployed there within days"

The invisible comment (just for editors) saying "please don't remove this, it is very important for negotiations of cease-fire" not only enforces the POV of this statement but its objective. Without going into any details, the objective of disarming the Hizbollah is nothing new. The new UN resolution certainly states it again, but Misplaced Pages is not a daily news report. ANy person aware of the Middle East context knows that this revendication is nothing new, and to put the blame of an eventual failure of the cease-fire on this point is without any doubt a personal opinion. Doubtlessly the Hizbollah will argue that any failure will be due to Israel's refusal to withdraw from Lebanese territories. Tazmaniacs 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it belongs in lead or not is a matter for discussion, but it belongs in the article, sans any editorializing, of course. I have slightly re-written the paragraph to be factual without opinions (I hope) and placed it in the "fragile" section, where it would belong if we have a consensus that it is not proper in the lead. -- Avi 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Wiki is not a "crystal ball", this is a "current event". Speculations and predictions are made throughout the news and media. Why not mention some of the more supported "crystal ball predictions" with references? --71.200.61.10 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The New Yorker

I found this article from The New Yorker on Hyphen5's user page. Guess which 'pedians make a cameo appearance in the 2nd paragraph . Happy editing, Tewfik 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon dead

Who will put faces of Lebanese dead and their pictures, there must be some dead after August 13 no doubt in israel from wounds, if somebody can find out directly from israel that would be grat. Even though hezbollah started this, let's remember israel bombed, killed and attacked Palestinians and hezbollah folks many times in the past. As far as the hezbollah hiding in the bushes and in civilian compounts, big deal... do they have rockets, powerful planes, technology to hide somewhere else, what else could have they done? Huge disproportion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.227 (talk • contribs)

Lebanon is not dead. However, Israel will be if its enemies have thier way. user:mnw2000 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Casus Belli Addition

On top of what we already have for the casus belli, it should be added that if Hezbollah had been disarmed as stated in the United Nations Security Resolution 1559, this conflict would not have happened. There would have been no Hezbollah and therefore no Hezbollah raid. This is part of the casus belli. Let's keep the facts!

Please read the wikipedia article on the United Nations Security Resolution 1559. It specifically states that Hezbollah must be disarmed. Many nations and media sources have stated that if the resolution had been followed, this conflict would not have happened.

It is critical to cite this. It illustrates that this conflict is not independent of other factors. Essentially it is important to look at the big picture and see that if the UN had followed up on resolution 1559, this conflict would not have happened. Sorry to repeat, but that is pretty important information! --68.1.182.215 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah, not between Hezbollah and the UN. The UN does not give the right to any entity to make that true. The Casus belli is the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers. The rest is original research and just a point of view. -- Szvest 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But the UN is involved. After all, it did pass a resolution to create a cease-fire. By claiming that Resolution 1559 is not part of the conflict, you are essentially stating the most recent resolution to end the conflict is equally invalid. If UNSC Resolution 1559 had been followed, there would be no conflict with Hezbollah. Unfortunately we can't just look at certain conflicts in isolation. If we zoom out and look at the bigger picture, we can see that there is a history trail. The failure of the UN to disarm Hezbollah per UN Resolution 1559 is pretty vaild because it helped foment Hezbollah's strength and led to the current conflict.

On another note, this has absolutely nothing to do with original research. Resolution 1559 is real and does exist. Look it up on google or view a listing of UN Security Council Resolutions. I belive in using as many facts as possible without using personal beliefs or opinions. --68.1.182.215 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You must understand the process of the UN resolutions first. The usage of force comes always w/ a separate and different resolution. -- Szvest 21:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The United Nations Security Council has more power and "effect" than other branches of the UN like the General Assembly. UN Resolution 1559 was passed by the Security Council. As quoted in the wikipedia article for the UN Security Council, "Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments must carry out under the United Nations Charter." Therefore any resolution passed by the Security Council must be enforced and that includes Resolution 1559, just as Resolution 1701 must be enforced. --68.1.182.215 21:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Targeting of civilians

The article implies that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, which clearly amounts to the charge that Israeli forces have committed war crimes. I am beginning a general article on Targeting of civilians to address this aspect.

The article should not assert that there were "Israeli strikes on Lebanon's civilian population". This wording implies deliberate targeting. Say rather that Israeli strikes aimed at Hezbollah militants ofter hit other people, and no one will dispute this. --Uncle Ed 21:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed! The article already exist... Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. -- Szvest 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)