Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 14

Latest Developments
IDF website I would suggest to go from 'conflict' to 'war'. Even the IDF websites calls it a war by now.

....IDF hopes that the fighting in Lebanon against the Hezbollah terror organization will be finished quickly but at the same time is prepared, in logistics and morale, for as long a period of time as the task requires. "We are doing everything possibly to shorten the operation while still reaching the objectives we have set for ourselves," said the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dan Halutz. IDF enjoys widespread support among the Israeli public, which backs the war, feeling that there is no other choice in the matter. The Israeli home front is showing its strength and much fortitude, and there is a sensation that the public is prepared, if necessary, for the long haul. http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55050.EN --Attraho 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

War (Israeli official statement)

Amir Peretz mentioned a state of war. Many agencies mention war. Why not change now to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War or 2006 Lebanon War (like 1982 Lebanon War)


 * see:
 * 

--TheFEARgod 16:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

+ If this was a war, why not this--TheFEARgod 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that most Western media sources are uncomfortable with going all out and proclaiming the conflict as a war, instead going with a more gentler "conflict" or, in CNN's case, a "Middle East on the Brink" title. Should we stay with these media outlets that are well respected or go with war because Peretz mentioned a state of war?  This is truly a predicament.  No, that was not sarcasm. 71.230.21.190 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli "war" usage

I removed the following:


 * (also known in israel as "war between borders" - "מלחמת בין המצרים" "milhemet bein mezarim" in hebrew, for the fight in the southern border in gaza against hamas and the fight in the northern border against hezbollah)

I have noticed some usage of this term though, so if we can find some reliable sources, we should somehow formulate its use.  Tewfik Talk 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet more evidence that the article should be renamed to "war", not "conflict". And by the way, you were right to remove that obviously pro-Israeli (here fowl language was used and was deleted) from the article. What's up with people adding in such un-encyclopedic stuff, complete with improper capitalization, as if copied out of an email message? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel government didn't formally declare war on Lebanon or even 'in' Lebanon yet, here the official term used is "security situation" . One government difficulty appears to arise from conflicts classification as a "war" and payment of compensation/monetary aid to war affected people/regions.


 * The term is think the original editor meant was probably "war of the straits".
 * "'Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz announced that the current conflict between Israel and the Hizbullah would be recorded in history as Milhemet Bein Hameitzarim'"
 * Whether this announcement was in public or in private or in which history it was to be recorded is not clear from the article. Apparently this period is a 3 week period of mourning for the destroyed Temples incl. festival of Tisha B'Av. This mourning period is known in Hebrew language as "Bein hametzarim" or "The Three Weeks", meaning "between the straits."


 * I believe that status as 'conflict' is fine, use of the "straits" moniker appears not to have taken off, add to this the alleged reluctance of Israeli government to confirm status of conflict means it shouldnt probably be included. Its worth noting that the conflict is also called the "re-engagement war" here demonstrating that there will be fluctuations and names from pundits too which might gain wider currency than "announcements".


 * There is also the problem of wikipedia being used to endorse some symbolism to the conflict which until some moniker (if any) sticks to it might generate the wrong impression ] 82.29.227.171 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"War" Poll (This Poll is closed now - 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
On the question whether this conflict already constitutes a "war" or not, I would like to state the WP definition, to be found here. In the introduction of this article a "war" is defined as follows:  ''War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war. Until the end of World War II, participants usually issued formal declaration of war''. Other terms for war, often used euphemistically, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action [...].  In order to get a clear view on the question of going from "conflict" to "war" we should do another poll. --Attraho 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)


 * 1) Oppose. Israel is not at "war" with Lebanon. It's at war with Hezbollah, so renaming to "Isreal-Lebanon War" would be inappropriate.  Lebanon has officially disavowed Hezbollah's actions and want a cease fire (as stated in the main article).  Hezbollah is only a party within Lebanon and was formed in Iran and receives funding from Syria and Iran (also referenced in the article).  I suggest leaving the title as it is and calling it a war when quoting or paraphrasing someone who already did so. mhsia 13:31, 7/27/2006 (EST)
 * 2) Oppose. This is part of the War on Terror.  I oppose despite Emile Lahoud's statement that he "respects Nasrallah" and if Lebanon "reaches the point of no return" then the Lebanese will fight alongside of Hezbollah.  He also commands the military and is a former general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patchouli (talk • contribs).
 * 3) Oppose. We have already had a poll like this. Once again its not a war. Its certainly not a war between Israel and Lebanon and I certainly don't believe you can have a 'war' against a random group. It is, and should remain, the preserve of nation states. --Narson 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea how to do a strike through, but cancel this vote, now that Israeli troops are deep into lebanon, it alters things.--Narson 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. I oppose changing to war, on the basis that it will provoke the same on Wikinews :-).  Seriously though, the UK goverment was never in my memory reported as having declared war on the IRA, and I wonder if declaring war on a terrorist organisation is anything more than a variation on declaring war on common nouns - a soundbite that mainstream media can serve up to the public. --Brianmc 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't like voting in polls but thought I'd continue to oppose the addition of war until it's commonly perceived/declared as war. I was moved to vote as the definition we have on wikipedia of war is very surprising to me. MLA 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Like MLA the term isnt current andto oppose the addition of war until it's commonly perceived/declared as war. I was moved to vote as the definition we have on wikipedia of war is very surprising to me. MLA 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Rush to have conflict reclassified to suit a POV which isnt widely held or citable. 82.29.227.171 10:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I think that 2006 Lebanon massacre is the most accurate title for this conflict. Tell me to get back to work! 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strongly mega-oppose A war is between nations. Lebanon has so far refrained from entering it. Furthermore, the only sources one can find who call it a war are partisan sources. Not even the UN, arguably the people who have the last call on calling a conflict a war, are calling it a war. I think wikipedia will do a lot of harm to its credibility if this was catalogized as a war, when no reliable source is calling it so.--Cerejota 04:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly oppose As long as the UN and the majority of the major international, reasonably neutral media with high journalistic integrity (like the BBC, CBS, CNN, The Times and the Washington Post) don't call it war, Wikipedia definitely shouldn't. The fact that some editors use the word "war" in a headline doesn't change this. Claiming that this conflict is comparable to Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq, like CP/M does, is just silly. Israel has so far been involved in five conflicts that are regarded as having been wars, but have had numerous operations and conflicts in between, several of them involving more troops and material than this, that have not been labelled "war"; not even the 1956 Suez Crisis and the 1978 Operation Litani. When (hopefully not), Israel launches a major ground offensive across the border, involving 100 000 soldiers or more, there may be reason to change the name of the article. However, for now "conflict" covers it fine. As for the Wikipedia definition of "war", it's so loosely written that it could be applied to almost any military conflict. I can't understand why some people from day one have spent so much time trying to change the heading of this and related articles in order to be able to write the word "war". Do you find it exciting, or? Thomas Blomberg 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Hezbollah, a group of armed militants, did a provocation attack on IDF soldiers. Israle launched brutal attacks all over Lebanon. Maybe call it "The Hezbollah-provoked Israeli Murderous Attacks in which US Bombs Were Dropped On Lebanese Civilians?" Nah. that just doesn't have a ring to it. Stick with Israeli-Lebanon Conflict.Edison 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose While Reuters is now calling it a war, most mainstream media are not, so renaming at this point would be premature.  Tewfik Talk 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The poll is to be closed in 24 h (09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Support "War" (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

NOTE: The poll is to be closed in 24 h (09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
 * 1) Support. There is definately territory(that is the issue in here), both Israel and Hizbollah can surrender, and/or collapse. And since this is after WWII, no declaration is needed.
 * 2) Support. Territory, check. Leading person or organization on each side, both of which can surrender, check. After WWII, check. Full scale assaults - organized use of physical force and weapons - by both sides, check. Insane99 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. This is a war certainly, waged by participants willing total destruction of the enemy. But change the name also....2006 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Because this is definitively a war, fought on all three spheres of warfare (land, air and sea) and the local impact is definitively that of a war, and the mounting casualties definitively show that isn't a "conflict" but a full-scale war. dott.Piergiorgio 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Meets all the criteria to be a war. Hypnosadist 14:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Invading a country with infantry and tanks supported by airpower, killing several hundred civilians and destroying their homes, is outright warfare. The Lebanese people are a party in this war, whether their government acknowledges it or not. Also, Dutch media, notably NOS, call it a war. Qwertyus 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. "conflict" seems like an understatement and does not render well the use of heavy weapons by both sides for more than 2 weeks now. could the bombing of civilian houses and facilities be justified in any other context than full-fledged warfare? besides, the Israelian Cabinet itself spoke of "act of war", held the Lebanese government responsible and threatened to go further than southern Lebanon Sadly, "Israel-Lebanon war" does seem appropriate Laurent paris 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. It's a full-scale war, with both sides overtly targeting both military and civilians. Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq were considered more than just conflicts, and this war, with Israel acting and promising to bomb down Lebanon 20 years back, has at least a comparable scale. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. following our definition of war: War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons (Israeli tanks, Hezbollah's missiles) and physical force by states (Israel, Lebanon) or other large-scale groups (Hezbollah). Israel stated to drive away Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. So, this conflict involves both territory and an organization that can collapse. After World War 2 it's no longer common to 'declare war'. Mauro Bieg 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support The words "state of war" have been used by Israel. Furthermore, a war need not be between nationstates. The current war in Iraq is no longer between the US and Iraq, it's between the US and Al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia, however you spell that.Umlautbob 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Israel has invaded lebanon territory its a war, even the UN says so.Br2387 10:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. People who don't consider this a war are cynical bastards. It's a war according all definitions and it's called a war in the media: --Sloane 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. It's a real shooting war, with large numbers of people dying, at least on one side; the objections that a war is somehow only possible between states, or state-like entities, belongs to those bewhiskered mouldering types who endlessly relive the "great wars" of the past; the nature of warfare has changed irrevocably. It's been called "war" plenty of places in mainstream media reports, government statements, etc. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, and as a rebuttal to Thomas Blomberg, both CNN and the Washington Post are now referring to it as a war. I don't have a NYT account but I suspect they may be calling it that too.  And as for Fox News ... hell, this isn't just a war to them, it's World War III.  -- Cyde↔Weys  02:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support As I said in the earlier discussion about now calling it a war, Israeli troops seem to now be deep in lebanon and engaged in operations. Perfectly happy with war going in, though with the proviso that we should probaby include Hezbollah in the title. Israeli-Hezbollah War in Lebanon has been proposed by others. --Narson 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) SUPPORT CNN has a War Bulliten each night and every day. Israeli troops are advancing towards Beiruit. This is definitly a war! Wiki  e Zach|  talk  23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Mainstream media already refers to it as a War. --Shizane 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support It's becoming commonly used now. So the article show be changed to war.--Scott3 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments relating to the poll:
 * not an argument --TheFEARgod 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (comment relating to the 2. opposing vote, but at its original place in the middle of the poll it disrupted the numeration of the poll --Attraho 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
 * I would just like to comment that this is not a part of the War on Terror. This is a separate war caused by separate causes to the War on Terror, primarily, though not exclusively, the kindapping of the two Israeli soldiers. Insane99 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with insane99, this is definatly part of the war on terror, the US administration thinks so certainly. Also i accept that this has a different Casus Belli than the war in Iraq, even different groups involved but this was very common in the cold war. That war covered south america and asia and the mid-east with 100's of different groups over 40 years yet they are linked into one Meta war made of many individual conflictzones.Hypnosadist 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be fine and dandy, Hypnosadist, except for that conflict between Israel and other states and factions in that region has been going on since before most of those states and factions even had names. This conflict/war whatever is the result of further escalating tensions between Israel and everything else, not the American involvement over there. Insane99 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A war need not be a conflict between nation states, see civil war. Qwertyus 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, whether or not this is a war is not at issue. The poll is regarding whether or not to change the title of the article to include the word "war" instead of "conflict" (see Attraho's poll intro above). I think the argument that it is not a war between Israel and Lebanon (i.e. the country of Lebanon) still stands.  This is discussed further below and a similar conclusion is reached. --mhsia 15:25, 29 July 2006 (EST)
 * to Brianmc, the RAF did not bomb Irish towns to take the IRA down either, even during the Irish "WAR" of Independence Laurent paris 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To Cerejota: A war is not necessarily between nations. Moreover 'Conflict' is a POV euphemism for war and dose not resemble a NPOV. If we apply our own definition of war, the present military engagement is definitely war. The only question to cope with is whether this is
 * 2006 Israel-Lebanon-War
 * 2006 Israel-Hezbollah-War in Southern Lebanon
 * or something else including war.
 * And by the way: After the Yom Kippur War no peace agreement was signed between Lebanon and Israel. Therefore they are still in a state of war. And I don't even want to mention, that Hezbollah has de facto control over southern Lebanon. --Attraho 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You must be mistaken, as Lebanon was not party to the Yom Kippur War. During the 1982 Lebabon War, a peace deal was brokered by the US and agreed to by the Lebanese parliament, but it fell through due to various other pressures.  Tewfik Talk 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right.....I messed it up somehow. Always better to discuss things on talk before changing anything controversial. --Attraho 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To Cyde↔Weys : Sorry, but CNN labels it "Crisis in the Middle East" and uses headers like "Latest on conflict". See . Washington Post labels it "Crisis in the Middle East" . The fact that Washington Post have a sub-headline called "Wider Ground War Approved" doesn't mean that they call it a war. Throughout their texts they refer to "the conflict". Thomas Blomberg 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to rename article to "war"?
I think it may be time to rename this article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. It's now regularly being referred to as a war in the media, and what with Israel's latest announcement of a larger land invasion, it just feels apt now, whereas it didn't really feel apt two weeks ago. What do you guys think? -- Cyde↔Weys 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When the troops go in then yeah, that will be. If it wasn't a hotly debated and highly controversial issue I'd probably say go for War now, but introducing heated changes like that before they are necessary probably won't help encyclopedic quality. Best off leaving the breaking news to Wikinews and we deal more with the past tense. So once the troops go in its a war. --Narson 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about the name of the article is already taking place here: Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. This discussion also features a poll on the question of renaming this article. --Attraho 23:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Lebanese Daily Star newspaper seems to be calling it the "July War", which seems a bit optimistic considering that it's August now and the conflict is still continuing... -- ChrisO 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"We will stop the war when the threat is removed ..., our captive soldiers return home in peace, and you are able to live in safety and security.", - Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres --BillyTFried 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just rename it "2006 Israel - Lebanon war", plain and simple. --Sloane 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel Massing troops
Sorry if this is already on the talk page - I didn't see it.

Israel is calling up reserves and massing troops on the border. We can probably expect a ground invasion soon. Source

Archived info from discussion of lebanese casualty figures
The Lebanese casualty figure in the infobox has a lot of problems.

What we do know from sources is :
 * 1) Civilians have been killed in Lebanon.
 * 2) Roughly 400-450 people have been killed, almost all sources point out these are mostly civilians, some say "almost all".
 * 3) as of 07-17 166 civilians in Lebanon were killed
 * 4) as of 07-20 300 civilians in Lebanon were killed
 * 5) other sources prior to the above source have noted an exact civilian death count

Some people like to use the fact that most sources don't specify how many "Lebanese killed" are civilians, and they remove the sources that do give some number of civilian killed, to justify omitting from the infobox that any Lebanese civilians have been killed. An example is User:Bibigon in this edit -, in which he does not even mention the deletion of sources in the edit summary. There is no reason we have to hide the fact that Lebanese civilians have been killed. We can show how many, according to sources, are civilians, and specify those of unknown status, either by subtracting the number, or saying something like "total 450 of unknown status".--Paraphelion 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since several editors are fond of removing sources, we can keep a list here :


 * Sydney Morning Herald - Israeli air strike kills 54
 * http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israeli-air-strike-kills-51/2006/07/30/115|4197998127.html
 * "An Israeli air strike killed at least 54 Lebanese civilians, including 37 children"


 * BBC - Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea - 07-26
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm
 * "More than 400 Lebanese"


 * Chosun - Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300 - 07-20
 * http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200607/200607200001.html -
 * "Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300"
 * "Lebanese death toll passed 300, almost all civilians."
 * The title is the only place this article specifies civilians, however the rest of the article does not contradict this


 * AP / Yahoo - Israel hints at full-scale Lebanon attack - 07-20
 * http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel
 * "Death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon"


 * News 24 - 45 killed in new strikes - 07-16
 * http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1968721,00.html
 * "At least 45 people were killed"
 * "Nineteen civilians died in an Israeli attack"
 * "Almost all of those killed and injured since the beginning of the Israeli assault on Wednesday were civilians."


 * Reuters - Israel pounds Lebanon - 07-17
 * http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-17T112055Z_01_L11538533_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml -
 * "Israel's campaign has killed 179 people, all but 13 of them civilians" (note 2nd page of article)

317 injured

at least 54 civilians in Qana (523+54=577 ?)

Tewfik Talk 


 * And what do the Lebanese do? Some pledge loyalty Hezbollah and flash the V-sign + Hezbollah and some green flag.  Also, Emile Lahoud lauds Nasrallah and Siniora sympathizes.--Patchouli 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're going to approach a problem soon and it is rooted in the above statement. Hezbollah does a dual business in attacks on Israeli civilians and vigorous humanitarian aid for the displaced, bombed-at Lebanese. An interview with some Lebanese civilians who had lost their homes (and many loved ones, friends, etc.) caught my ear on NPR yesterday - the interview was of a distraught Lebanese man who voiced that before, he and his family, friends were not against Israel, nor in favor of Hezbollah but the bombing had convinced him that if/when Israel's troops showed up, he would fight. Support for Hezbollah is growing, if only because they're providing basic needs no one else can get the Lebanese because of the bombing. We all should be so lucky to sit at our computers and contemplate Hezbollah as a militant organization with only violent actions - but these humanitarian efforts are going to turn our "Civilian Deaths" infobox into a quagmire - more so than it already is, trying to see how many Hezbollah members are within the Lebanese civilian figures. Now we must consider how many Lebanese civilians aligned themselves in support of Hezbollah - with very non-civilian actions. Ranieldule 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty hard to give services to regions that your own army is scared to goto. People stating they will fight are not always doing it in favor of Hezbollah, they arent gonig to join the rank and file, they are simply fighting against Israel. Just because we have a common enemy does not mean you are my ally. Furthermore the illegal tactics of Hezbollah is what causes the situation in the infobox, any Hezbollah member without a gun at the time their corpse is picked up is a civilian, unless the coroner was lucky enough to find a Hezbollah glow in the dark membership ring on them. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't purport to ascertain Hezbollah's (or Israel's) actions as legal or illegal - nor would I attach either claim to Lebanese joining Hezbollah against Israel, collaborating with Hezbollah without actual membership or fighting Israel independent of all groups but themselves. The already blurry distinctions of who's a civvie and who's a combatant are likely to get much, much more muddled. Ranieldule 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't have to consider very much other than what is reported.--Paraphelion 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to figure out which of the dead are of "unknown status"? Cant think of any nonPOV reporting or announcements on Lebanese civilian casualties that ive read that would allow further discrimination of who was/wasnt purely resistance/Hezbollah/non-combatant. How is that going to happen? 82.29.227.171 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think there is any other way but basic subtraction, which I used to come up with "Civilians : 300 (plus 100 or more of unknown status)". I know this isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to be able to both keep the civilian tag in the infobox for Lebanon and come up with accurate figures based on what sources there are.--Paraphelion 09:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a reference to an attack on the city of Qana made ten years ago. While the attack committed recently was probably the source of international criticism, I doubt that the Qana attack of ten years ago has much relevance.Di4gram 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0728-04.htm Reaper7 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to add the reference for the Qana killings 10 years back, This is important because it was a U.N base in Qana that was attacked 10 years back and this time a refugee building for the kids, mainly handicapped was bombed past midnight mercilessly resulting in loss of 60+ civilan lives with 37 of them being children (one was aged 1day).

we should understand that Israel have in past been attacking UN posts 'deliberately" and this is not a new thing world is watching, therefore, this has to be added to show the actual picture and background of this conflict. As regarding the actual amount of "civilans", the sources normally quote that 700+ civilans have been killed and if a person does not believe on independent sources, then you cannot make him believe any thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5228554.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5232434.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5231832.stm

We should also think onthe grounds that when a country is attacked, how loosly bounded a person to his birth place, he fights back with the fullest swing, therefore, thinking that Hezbollah is making the Labenese people terrorist is wrong. It is aactually the Isreali killings that is turning Hezbollah stronger in the hearts of labense people bescause they see Hezbollah as the only defender of their land and this is highly natural in these conditions that people will support Hezbollah and fight Israel. We better start opening our eyes and look from it from the view point of common people in Lebanon. [User:Infinite]

Israeli Casualities
Please add a reference to the following statement: "Over 1,200,000 Israeli civilians were evacuated to shelters and other safe locations in fear of Hezbollah's rocket attacks. Over 1600 missiles have been fired by Hezbollah on Israel leaving over 600 buildings in damaged condition." PJ 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, in the info box it says that 300,000 Israelis have been displaced, quoting an article by NY Times. If we accept these figures, it would mean that 800,000 of those 1.2 million have been using shelters nearby their homes or places of work, and "only" 300,000 have moved elsewhere. Considering the fact that the total population of the Northern District is 2 million, whereof Haifa accounts for 270,000, and that there are an additional 20,000 Israelis living in the occupied Golan Heights, these figures may be correct. They would mean that 15-17% of the Northern District and Golan Height population have packed their belongings and moved to relatives further down south at one point in the conflict, and that half of the remaining 1.7 million have spent some time in air-raid shelters. Considering how officials tend to play with numbers to prove a point, it is, however, impossible know if the 300,000 displaced refer only to people who have left the area permanently during the hostilities, or if the figure also includes people who just left for a few days and then came back; and, similarly, if the 800,000 using shelters include everyone who at one point or another during the conflict have visited a shelter, or if the figure only refers to those who stay in shelters more or less constantly. Thomas Blomberg 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that someone has removed the Depotblasthaifa.jpg image, which showed the bloody aftermath of a Hezbollah rocket attack on the Israeli city of Haifa. Obviously someone wants us to believe that the Lebanese are the only ones suffering civilian casualties.

Amal Casualties?

 * I wasn't aware of these.
 * In fact, I didn't even realize that Amal was still an armed militia, and had been under the impression that their paramilitary capability had been effectively wiped out by Hezbollah towards the denouement of the Lebanese Civil War.
 * Can someone please clarify this issue.

Ruthfulbarbarity 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've checked around, and it seems that the only reference to it is the CNN story used as citation, which states that "CNN learned Wednesday that Hezbollah isn't the only militia in Lebanon fighting Israeli troops. Officials with the Amal Party, headed by speaker of the Lebanese parliament Nabih Berri, said militias loyal to Berri have been involved in every major battle since fighting began. Eight Amal fighters have been killed in the past three days, during which Berri met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss a solution to the crisis." To me it sounds like an unconfirmed claim by an Amal guy, feeling left in the shadow of Hezbollah. If it had been true, Israel would have made a big PR thing of it, considering Berri's position in the Parliament. Thomas Blomberg 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian Casualties
There has been a huge edit war with the lowest possible figures usually winning through. I suggest we believe the Lebanese Health Minister's figures, like for example today when he said the figure is a around 750+ instead of certain members making their own little calculations which is what we have now and ending up with 577. Support or Oppose the Lebanese Health Minister's figures over wiki member's own calculations:


 * 1) Support Reaper7 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This isn't even up for debate. Not doing this is OR. Bibigon 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't something to be supported or opposed. The Lebanese health minister said that the [upper limit] (if I recall from the direct quote which is no longer featured in the linked article) was 750. So far, mainstream media sources have quoted him, but not cited that as the definite count. We've dealt with this plenty before, but what it boils down to is that the numbers reported by the media do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. The 'calculations' were suggested by others as a compromise, and while I agree that it borders on OR, thus far the work has been pretty well documented by those carrying it out, so that all numbers are sourced. If you find a number reported by mainstream media, we can use it. If it does not say 'civilians,' then we must remove that qualification from the conflict box. Thus far, the 750 number meets neither of these criteria. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think user 'Tewfik' is only trying to minimze the death toll and making the facts foggy. He is of the kind of people who look for their own sources instead of relying on any of the reliable source. When Labenese minister himself says that the deat toll is 750+, then how come you proceed with an argument while living in safe heavens??? ... you have given only a wage statement to drop people's concentration here from the figure of 750. I know if the media had told that the death toll is 750 and the labenese minister quoted a smaller figure, then you would have sided with the minister by opposing the media. Just let me know what do you believe in actuality??? .. If you dont have a single belief then better shut up and get out of the discussion, dont make fuss all around.

I'd use the smaller number maybe in the info box and go into the figures in the main section. We should always guess downwards, in my opinion, in the info box, the 'at a glance section'. And as for the paragraph above mine...whatever happened to 'Assume Good Faith'?--Narson 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war
Would it be more accurate to refer to Hezbollah as mafia? Or radical Islamic militants?


 * Doesn't the UN recognize them as a terrorist organization, I know there is a resolution from long ago telling them to disarm? -- zero faults   ' '' 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Air strike on Qana
The relevant page of this article states that Israel claims that the house that collapsed was not targeted. In fact in an IDF briefing, July 30th, the IDF made it quite clear that the building was targeted. The General who spoke said that had the IDF known that civilians were in the building at the time they would not have ordered the strike. Further more the IDF claimed that while the building was struck between midnight and 1 am, the building had collapsed only around 7:30 am, hinting but not claiming that explosives that were in the building may have caused its collapse. I don't know if there is room for what the IDF claims but at least the first part(Israel basic claim) should be changed.

Civilian attacks
I think the page about civillian attacks is too long. to quote every single senior human rights official about possible war crimes is "problamatic". If you adopt the perspective of UN officials weren't war crimes committed in every single war? how many civilians were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are there any targets that the United States did not attack in these places that Israel is attacking in Lebanon? was the american "response" any more "proportional"? and yet looking up these wars on wikipedia you will not hear about "war crimes".


 * Well, the fact is, "war crimes" have occurred in almost every war (to pick one at random, the American Revolution - the British treatment [housing, mainly] of American enlisted soldiers would violate the Geneva Convention today), but since almost all major wars happened before the UN existed, it wouldn't really make sense to apply that retrospectively.


 * The victors write the history books. Most high school students would probably not even think for one fleeting moment that carpet bombing in Dresden constituted war crimes, but everyone, at least in passing, knows that Slobodan Milosevic and Adolf Hitler committed war crimes. Even Stalin's purges are covered in less detail than the Holocaust - because, after all, Stalin was on the winning side in WW2 while Hitler was on the losing side. So, in short... in 20 years, I think this conflict will become condensed into something like - "Hezbollah fires rockets - Israel retaliates in self-defense - [whatever the outcome is]" with no mention of war crimes or anything of that sort. But right now, with the conflict still ongoing... ugen64 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon
I call for the removal of the beginning chapter where it notes Hezbollah's and "Lebanese Police" (there are hardly any Lebanese government presence in the border area other than Hezbollah) assertion that the IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon. This is a blatant accusation without any proof whatsoever. Here are the facts: 1)The Katyusha and mortar attacks commenced before the actual kidnapping to provide cover and a distraction 2)The 2 armored Humvees were destroyed and their remains were inside Israel, in the road used by the IDF to patrol its border. Had the kidnapping occured inside Lebanon, why weren't the Humvees there? 3)The unit attacked (3 KIA, otherws WIA and 2 captured) were made of reservists doing their annual duty. If the IDF was going to send a force inside Lebanon, it would not have been, reservists doing their 2 weeks of service, rather, they would have been conscript Special Forces. 4)The only vehicle remains that were in Lebanon, was that of the Merkava that ran over a mine inside Lebanon, which was sent to intercept the guerrilas AFTER the initial kidnapping. 5)The U.S., U.N, EU and other G-8 countries all agreed that it was an initial Hezbollah agression inside Israeli territory that precipitated the conflict.

Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest that the entry mentioning Hezbollah claims be deleted. For Wikipedia to include such entry is tantamount to include an entry of 9/11 where Hezbollah claims it was the Mossad who launched the attacks against the Twin Towers. Richardmiami


 * If Hezbollah really has said that they were captured in Lebanon, then it is accurate to say that "Hezbollah said that they were captured in Lebanon", even though it might be unlikely that the statement is correct. We should state the official viewpoint of both Israel and Hezbollah, even though they both are biased. But is this really the official viewpoint of Hezbollah? For example, did Nasrallah say on video that that the attack was in Lebanon (or in Israel)?
 * By the way, many of the things that is said about Hezbollah here is not that very well sourced. For example, the statement that Hezbollah calls this "Operation Truthful Promise". A good source for what the Hezbollah viewpoint would for example be some Hezbollah official saying something on video. Now we mostle have bad sources, just saying "Hezbollah says...", "Hezbollah claims...", without mentioning a name of the person who said this. --Battra 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree...hear are the facts the world knows that ISraeli media can not be trusted and is highly censored. Everything Hezbollah has said has been deemed more accurate than Israel or the IDF. How long as the IDF been making claims about capturing places it has not. The soilders were caught in Lebanon. What is also interesting is the connection to oil and how a week earlier according to the Jerusalem Post troops were called up or former NATO COmmander CLarks comments that this was planned over a year ago. It is clear what is going on. The facts scream that Israel is being very dishonoust. 69.196.164.190


 * Are you stupid? the fact that the israeli soldiers were captured within israel has been explained very clearly just a few paragraphs above. open your eyes and read. idiot. 213.42.2.25 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that this is the official position of Hezbollah. The assertion that the IDF soldiers were captured inside Lebanon seems to have appeared on the wire services on July 12, and disappeared shortly thereafter.  Hezbollah has had ample opportunities since then to explain its version of events.  If someone can find a recent statement from Hezbollah that makes the claim, that can go in the article.  As it is, the contradictory wire service stories from July 12 probably just reflect the confusion of the moment.  Sanguinalis 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think people using street language should be banned here (reffering to the article posted by User:213.42.2.25|213.42.2.25). Hezbollah is the part of war and it is the one fighting Israel, therefore, it has got its own statement and its own fact book which should be, for the sake of showing the actual picture, included in this article. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia and it shows the view point of both sides, this is not an Israeli or Labenese blog post where you can implement your desires and attack others with abusive language. [Infinite]

to Sanguinalis - Hezb. leader Hassan Nasrallah did an interview with Al Jazeera on July 20. See here: [ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20060722&articleId=2790 ] In it, he makes lots of threats and accusation regarding Israel, but doesn't see fit to mention that the IDF men were captured within Lebanon. Similar is true of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who at a press conference after a major meeting in Rome, Italy, was quite vituperative as regards Israel, but likewise didn't mention this, despite the fact that if anyone were in touch with the Lebanese police, you'd expect it to be he. --Lopakhin 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is because I'm new here that I'm sensing a disconnect. All this discussion over which side fo the border is all well and good, but the problem is that the article, itself, only mentions that Hezbollah/Lebanese Police claims that they were in Lebanon. For the sake of parity, the Israeli claim (and that of much of the media) that the soldiers were not in Lebanon must be presented right then and there. Then, a quick sidebar to the legal status of the Sheba Farms area (with the appropriate references to the UN blue line, complete withdrawal as attested to by UN res 1583, Syria's (not lebanon's) loss of the territory in an attack on Israel in 67 (as attested to on the sheba farms wikipage). If one side makes a claim and it is listed, shouldn't the claim of the other side be listed as well?

Cause of the conflict
The current start of the article gives the impression that the conflict was a result of the Hezbollah operation to kidnap Israeli soldiers. As far as I am aware the situation is far more complex than this. This statement by Noam Chomsky claims that the Hezbollah operation was a response to the abduction of 2 Palastinian civilians on 24th June. Whether or not this is the case I'm sure it can't be as simple as what the article implies, which is that nothing was happening until the Hezbollah operation and that this is what's responsible. Kernow 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kernow,


 * I suggest you review the Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict section above, as well as the archives linked to there. I hope this will clear everything up. Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I have skim-read the archives about this and I'd just like to leave a drive-by comment. I think that this "Casus belli" field is inherently POV and shit-stirring on any article about any war, and therefore should be dropped from the template. How can you summarise the cause of any conflict (which sometimes have a very long pre-war history) in a few words and expect everybody to agree? It's simply ridiculous.

Failing that all opinions should be represented. PizzaMargherita 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct that we cannot summarise all the causes of the conflict, however there is a convention of including the casus belli, which is the legal initiation of hostilities by whichever side. The US may have been agitating the Japanese by denying them scrap and other resources, but the bombing of Pearl Harbour was an "act of war." So to here, despite all the nasty things the Lebanese/Hezbollah say that Israel had done to them, the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers.  Tewfik Talk 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is true, and for much of the begining of the conflict it was generally accepted that this was the causus belli. Yet, as is the case with 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, as information emerges, the causus belli of the encyclopedic article might change to match the information. So I think we must not be dogmatic about it.


 * However, those who allege the causus belli was an Israeli incursion into Lebanon have the burden of proof, as the bulk of the veriafiable and reliable sources, and even official Hezbollah communications, do not question this causus belli as it stands. This is why I support it continued inclusion as is, but think a paragraph must be included alluding to the sourced alternative.


 * Nevertheless even in this respect, things are not clear: It can be argued that the causus belli is the continued existence of Lebanese prisioners in Israeli jails, which forced Hezbollah to capture Israeli soldiers in order to use them as leverage in an exchange. This is were the Pearl Harbor analogy breaks down:


 * The USA and Japan were not involved in open armed conflict, nor had been involved before Pearl Harbor in one. However strong their disagreements, they where diplomatic not armed.


 * However, Israel has been involved in conflict with Lebanon since its founding, has been involved in its internal affairs, and wields strong political influence in Lebanon. It also occupied southern Lebanon for over 18 years, which is more than the entire lifetime of more than one wikipedian. This could also be considered a causus belli.


 * So you see, its not as simple as saying "So to here, despite all the nasty things the Lebanese/Hezbollah say that Israel had done to them, the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers". And "Lebanese/Hezbollah" don't say nasty things. Israel is doing nasty things, however you want to deny it. That Hezbollah is also doing them is a fact that doesn't diminish the former.--Cerejota 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this before. Unless you can provide overwhelming evidence, or at least a number of relaible sources (Noam chomsky is not one) then it should stay as it is - with the global consensus in the infobox and the dispute noted in the relevant section. --Iorek85 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as to the article editing but see above.--Cerejota 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

An 18 year occupation might be a casus belli (I don't know enough about international law), but an 18 year occupation certified as ended by the UN is not a casus belli. I also think you may have misunderstood my analogy, as I haven't denied anything. Good day,  Tewfik Talk 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct that we cannot summarise all the causes of the conflict, however there is a convention of including the casus belli 
 * To that I say, fuck conventions. There are such things as bad conventions. There is also a convention about archiving talk pages without making such a confusing mess, but people are free to break them, in this case with horrific results. If DNA reproduced itself following the convention we would still be amoebae. PizzaMargherita 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers" If the abduction of Israeli soldiers counts as an "act of war" the why doesn't the abduction of Palestinian civilians? If anything, abduction of civilians is a more serious crime than abduction of soldiers. Kernow 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that abduction of Palestinians took place and that they were being treated as an independant entity, this would belong on 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. Making a connection between such an occurence and the events here is original research without reliable sources verifying that that is indeed a mainstream theory. Let me know if you still have any questions. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant facts
Should this article be a place for irrelevant facts? The Qana reference, as I mentioned somewhere above (where it is undoubtedly lost in other conversations), seems too unrelated. Someone immediately reverted my change and said it "provides context". Excuse me? I think that in the 60 years of this God-forsaken conflict, there is enough "context" to fill fifty articles, and it certainly does not belong here. This is specifically about the current (2006) conflict, and not about what happened ten years ago. While I don't mind if there is a brief historical section, I think that history should be placed in it and not in other parts of the article. What happened ten years ago is horrible, but it is not relevant to the recent bombing, and it doesn't seem to be relevant to international criticism either. It seems to be an excuse to add in just one more mark against Israel's civilian casualty record, or at least muddy the waters.Di4gram 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that Lebanon had recently recovered from both a bloody civil war and a prior Israeli invasion and occupation of sourthern Lebanon before the current conflict started is of course relevant. Sanguinalis 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, except I don't understand the reference. Why does it matter if this same place was attacked 10 years ago? Does it have strategic signficance? Does it have cultural signficance? Does it have any significane to the current conflict?Di4gram 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

moving casualties
I propose to move casualties to a seprate article because the article is too long. We can add the statistic of Foreign nationals and UN casualties in the table of casualties.--Accessible 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Sounds good to me. --Iorek85 08:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Stupid idea Reaper7 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - care to elaborate? The article is still over 65kb and growing, and casualties is a large section. --Iorek85 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) OPPOSE Clearly casualty information belongs here. Moving it would amount to a coverup. This conflict is more than a shouting match. Edison 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose By all means condense the section, but not discussing casualties in the main article on a conflict or war strains credulity. Fishhead64 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The spirit is right, but the action would be wrong. A good condensing will do much better instead of plunking it down elsewhere.Ranieldule 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a separate article, and leaving this as the summary?

I don't know much about tables, so it could do with a little work to make it prettier, but it would be better. Maybe the casualties could be removed from the infobox if this is here? We'd want to move the rest out to a separate article because it shows the stories behind the deaths (why and by whom) instead of replacing it. --Iorek85 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support I think it is an excellent idea. The information belongs in the article, but perhaps all the prose and details are not necessary and sure adds to this already large article. A to round the section up. Mceder 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't know how to link the three columns for casualties in the infobox, though. Anyone with good table editing skills would be much appreciated. --Iorek85 06:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Strong Oppose Return the Casualty box to its original status, this big stupid box you have created is confused and the original box was far better. I cannot believe yet another key casualty reminder was removed from the main page after only one supprot vote, disgusting. Another stupid and needless move without support by Iorek. Reaper7 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Opppose Perhaps keeping track of each countries civilian loss is just not that important. Keep the count in the infobox and keep it simple. Lebanese civilians are civilians in lebanon, israeli civilians are civilians in israel, that is how we should treat people od dual nationality or who were on vacation. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a good comprimise, and since someone else thought it was a good idea, I was bold and changed it. No one else seems to have a problem. I don't see what you mean by 'confused'. And casualty reminder? It now has it's own article, and a summary in this article, which is more than it had before. --Iorek85 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Megaphone Software & "the battle for the internet"
In light of the fact that online polls, forums, and chatrooms are now part of some systematic effort to shape opinion I think everyone should be wary of editors arriving here to fight "the toughest battle - the battle for public opinion on the internet".

That means keep a closer than usual eye for non neutral editing, images, comments, quotations etc. Be aware of the possible casual removal of facts, events, etc. And while im sure everyone has an opinion on the rights&wrongs of the war, we are aiming for a balance in the article that reflects the facts of the events. Wikipedia shouldnt become a propaganda mouthpiece for one side or the other.

Offence is not my intent but as the articles show the danger of losing neutrality to some script is not imagined.

"the toughest battle - the battle for public opinion on the internet" 82.29.227.171 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just placed the same notice on the Qana Aistrike page as its obviously being targeted by these people. 82.29.227.171 20:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a rather interesting fact, in itself. Perhaps we should mention this propaganda war in the main article.


 * It was but has been removed for space issued. Propaganda efforts both sides will be getting their own section I imagine but its difficult to do that without getting sued by various people. 82.29.227.171 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A much shorter mention was made, but it too was deleted, for reasons I believe that are unrelated to length. I'm going to add it to the Israeli response section, because it is an official Israeli response. AdamKesher 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's still there. I can't tell if it was deleted then readded, there's been so much vandalism. AdamKesher 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

References broken
It seems the reference section has been broken after #140. Is this a technical limitation of Wikipedia, or is there a more mundane fix? --Keyne 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One option is to remove duplicate sources that only reinforce one item. The other is to consolidate sources, find a good source and use it for more then its current location. For instance if reference 10 covers everything reference 19 does then remove 19 and source its location with reference 10. Look for duplicate sources. Sometimes a website carries an article by another paper. I am not sure if there is a wiki work around. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The references for the section "IDF agrees to cease air operations for 48 hours" direct to the wrong links, the number is right, the link is wrong. I worry some overzealous editors may delete links without checking the code for the URL. Numbers are 127 82.29.227.171 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The links are numbered when you flick one it takes you to the bottom and you find the number you clicked, they always for some reason show a dif number in the URL. I believe this is because they do not update as the numbers in the article body do. I am really sure as to the why, just match number in article with number at bottom and you are all set.-- zero faults   ' '' 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * references seems to work OK with M$ IE6 but break differently, with Firefox and Mozilla, at the same point. That is 49... Anon user 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not war so what is war
Image:London-beyrut.jpg


 * If it's not war, it's an armed conflict. ;) -- 72.201.35.139 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli soliders landing in Baalbeck
Could someone post this story in the article. I'll make a Wikipedia article on it later, but am currently trying to find more info on this story. Hello32020 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Quickly added sentence someone please lengthen. Hello32020 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some detail on operations that began last night in Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict section.  82.29.227.171 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Added
The images on this article focus on the Lebanon civilian casualties. Despite targeting of civilians by Hezbollah this article seems to ignore that and focus on Israel. This is clearly NPOV. Until someone’s wishes to balance the images by either showing deaths on both sides or none at all it should be tagged NPOV. Redd Dragon  talk 09:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, 3 out of 3 pictures show Lebanese casualties and damage. 481 (at best) and 750 (at worst) Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israel (507-776 of all nationalities). 19 Israeli civlians have been killed by Hezbollah. So, of the civilian damage, which is what we're showing in these pics, 96.2% at best, 97.5% at worst, have been Lebanese. If we give one of the pics to Israel, that would actually be more pro Israeli POV than the article currently is pro Lebanon. NPOV does not mean 50:50 either side. Anyway, all this is irrelivent. The actual problem is a lack of images without copyright. If you can find some, feel free to add them. --Iorek85 09:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your logic doesn't make any sense. So the number of pictures has to be exactly proportional? Thats ridiculous. Hezbollah's attacks do not even carry the pretense of targeting anything but civilian targets with no military importance.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article isnt civilian casulties however, so the 3/3 images in favor of Lebanon isnt fair. The casus belli for the attack in the firs tplace is the indicriminate firing of rockets, so there should be at least 1 image showing rocket attacks in Israel. However isnt the haifa picture still up depicting just that? -- zero faults   ' '' 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually its not and so I favor adding the haifa picture back. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hezbollah regretfully admits that their rockets are a pile of junk, unable to maintain an even and balanced civilian casualty record. Furthermore, for the sake of Wikipedias NPOV, they would also have liked the number of displaced Israelis to be twenty times more rather than twenty times less (than the Lebanese 500000) MX44 10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Image of the damage to Israeli civilians shouldnt have been removed, was it a copyright violation? Please reinstate it- I thought 2 Lebanese casualty images to 1 Israeli casualty image was the previous agreement. Also dont believe the Qana aftermath image is appropriate or needed in the article it stirs up too much emotion.


 * If images have to be added please make them of the combatants or fighting- one for the IDF already exists there needs to be one for Islamic Resistance arm of Hezbollah. An image of a pro-conflict/israel demo would also be a good idea too- there is agitation/support for & against the conflict. 82.29.227.171 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has become totally POV, the 3 out of 3 pictures is just one example of this. Just because Hezbollah can't kill as many innocent civilians as they want to does not mean that they are the good guys. The dead girl should be there as a the reality of war picture, but the whole ballance of the article is off. Another example is the diagram of Isreal bombing covers more days and is higher up the article that the Hezbollah rocket diagram that started this whole war. I'm adding the NPOV tag.Hypnosadist 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you explain, from reading your post it seems like you added a NPOV tag because the placement of a single picture? Couldnt you just swap the two pictures? are the pictures in the sections talking about them? If you can effectively swap the pictures without destroying relevance, feel free to do so. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is (seriously) claiming that Hezbollah are the "good guys", however, one cannot ignore that Israel is currently effectively massacreing Lebanese civilians left and right. The entire situation is bad all 'round, and the innocent people on both sides are getting the shaft.  --Keyne 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure plenty of people can argue they are not "massacreing Lebanese civilians". -- zero faults   ' '' 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When the civilian mortality rates are 25-38 times the other side (500-750 vs 20), that's pretty damning no matter how you spin it, especially when the soldier counts are fairly close. --Keyne 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When you tell people to leave the building and area will be blown up and instead they go in their basement ... This isnt the place for this discussion anyway, my apologies for even starting to participate in it. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Justify it however you want, but it does not alter that the infrastructure has been systematically dismantled which rather directly affects escaping. There is no "good" in this conflict.  (yes, Im done preaching :)  --Keyne 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a point I thought it was worth making... Israel claim they have the right of self-defence as a sovereign nation. Then why do Israel think they can order Lebanese civilians - citizens of another sovereign country - around, using the pretense that they are trying to minimize civilian casualties? And anyway, people simply don't like to leave their homes, whether it's because of pride, stubbornness, stupidity... and I think it's understandable that a Muslim family, having lived in their home for many years, would not be very appreciative of Israel ordering them to leave that home to accommodate (in their view) unjustified attacks... ugen64 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good guys? There are no "good guys" in this conflict. Never has and never will be! This is yet another "Cowboys vs Indians" conflict, where "The only good Indian is a dead Indian ...", except that in this case the Muslims and Jews fighting each other are gentically brothers and cousins. MX44 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So to get back to the topic, anyone got any images that show damage to Israeli side, pro-israel/war rallies or combatants on Hezbollah side? There is a powerpoint slideshow of rocket damage images from the Israeli government on their homepage (direct link to pps file)I assume that it would be ok to use some of them assuming the source is acceptable to everyone. 82.29.227.171 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some photos here, but the source is unclear
 * http://israel-forum.org/showpost.php?p=1246377&postcount=1
 * 89.0.211.46 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag. Having reviewed this discussion I see no basis for it. The text seems balanced to me and any issue over the photos don't justify this tag that hits the credibility of the whole article. I would add that if there are NPOV issues then the solution is to add balancing text, photos etc not to tag the article. BlueValour 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures show clear POV
Fuck you people, you show a dead girl as a picture, yet the Israeli blood picture was taken down...this is clearly POV on the pictures. Shame on you people--Jerluvsthecubs 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This fair use photograph from AFP/Getty illustrates what actually happened. As I understand the issue, the Israeli picture you are refering to had copyroght problems, and was removed for no other reason than that. The way to solve this problem is by adding photographs from the Israeli side, not deleting photographs. You're free to use this image as a template for how to do this if you wish. I'm restoring this image to the page. AdamKesher 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see that this image was deleted by an anonymous user without explanation, not you. Sorry for making that implication in my response. AdamKesher 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I added an image representing Israeli casualties as well. Please feel free to be bold and add your own. AdamKesher 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting this news service image, which user tasc has deleted, claiming it to be propaganda. To see this user's judgement on these issues, I invite people to read the mediation case Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict, in which tasc highlighted a frontpage newspaper photograph of casualties of Israeli airstrikes, declaring: "'Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example.'" Above one victim in the advanced stages of rigor mortis has been added the caption, "'I see non-dead people?'" Please discuss on talk before deleting WP:V information from the article. AdamKesher 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're not. -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * tasc, you deleted this news service image once again without justification, claiming that it wasa "minor edit." I will revert this once. If you persist in deleting verifiable WP:V images from this artucle, we will again have to move to the next step. AdamKesher 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This news service images - staged. I'm reverting and edits automaticaly marked as minor. I don't see how 'verifability' can be used in referring to this images. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * tasc, please explain to us why you believe that this photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse and Getty Images has been "staged." AdamKesher 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reasons to belive that this girl's body was taken from that building? do you have any reasons to belive that this girl died in that building? do you have any reasons to belive that building collapse was somehow related to the airstrike? did you read this? -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AFP is a legit source, unless the image is proven to be staged beyond a shadow of a doubt, it follows WP:V. A blog does not counter a legit news agency. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

tasc, you deleted these news service images once again without justification, claiming that this was a "minor edit." I have no recourse but to request informal moderation on this dispute. Please see Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_Photographs. AdamKesher 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you'd considered reading my responses. Thanks. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * News sources are considered reliable. You therefore have to provide evidence they aren't. And some conspiracy page is not evidence; but even ignoring that, that page doesn't actually refer to those photos you've removed. By applying this unproven claim to them, you are, in effect, saying all images of the conflict cannot be included because you think they are all fake. --Iorek85 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't if they publish staged images. I didm't say that all images are fake. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * YOu have yet to prove any of them are fake. Better yet you cannot prove it, someone else has to or its WP:OR and furthermore a blog is not a reliable source to do so. Especially when the majority of publications disagree. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Would a moderator please take a look at this complaint and request for assistance? This problem is persistant and widespread. AdamKesher 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to agree with tasc on one point, it is quite clear to my eyes the picture in question is propagandic in nature and there really is no proof that it isn't. Same with the articles at hand. In my opinion, they shouldn't go back up.  John D&#39;Adamo 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The image being discussed is a fair use photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. This appears on CNN's website (link). Therefore, would you also say that CNN is using photographs that are "staged" or "propagandic in nature"? AdamKesher 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole "Qana is fake" propaganda exercise is gradually being debunked one falsehood at a time- check talk on the Qana II page. The agencies concerned deny everything about posing or being manipulated. Really do wish people would give it up, even IDF admits they bombed the building. I think image AdamKesher has is actually positive image- there is destruction but people are helping- it shows the spirit of the Lebanese in adversity which is one side of this conflict to show. 82.29.227.171 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian Cup
I was hoping to mention somewhere that Lebanon has now pulled out of all of its qualifiers for the Asian Cup (refer ). This is as a direct consequence of Israeli strikes on infrastructure and homes. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of dubious ecyclopedic merit, TBH. Considering all the info already crammed in. And we'd likely have to include the fact that Liverpool FC are protesting any attempt to make them play a home game against Haifa in the Champions League due to rockets falling (And its a wonderful late equaliser by the Iranian scud?) --Narson 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG PWND!!!
Got to say that regardless of the continuing and inevitable POV wars and the fact that we need to clean up the text for style reasons,. this set of articles and related articles is comming out great, in particular I loved the new casualties table (which while still needing some work, is such a great idea my second barnstar will go to that editor, User:Iorek85) and things have gone generally well with the sub-articles and the transfer of things there for article size reasons... althought we must pay attention to those because they are suffering a lot under POV attack from all sides (they are the lebanese civilians of wikipedia!!!) I think we are emerging with a very deep, fact based, view of the conflict, helpful to readers and in an encyclopedic perspective. We have not dishonored our front page status... now... lets keep it on!--Cerejota 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

International Law
I think it would add alot to this article to include a section on the implications of International Law. Human Rights Watch has compiled a quite good FQA on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah at http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm. PJ 08:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I Was Thinking
How do the Israelis know the exact number of rockets that hit in Israel. Today they said 190 hit, but how do they know. Thats why I'm here to ask someone to include this into the article. Do they go to each site and count the sites or is it shown on radar? Thanks, Little Spike 11:54am EST, August 2nd, 2006.
 * they go and count. -- tasc wordsdeeds 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * exactly. the remains of the rockets are also taken away... 89.0.169.123 16:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Radar, aerial photgraphs and video, reports, surveying the land etc. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the entire area of the conflict is rather small. One high-tech radar outpost could easily track every rocket launched, and I bet Israel has high-tech radar (we sell them lots of military equipment, right?). -- Cyde Weys 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New images every second.
Every second there is a new image replacing another. The current images I see as of 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) are fine. Do you think it would be a good idea to not change them? I am not talking about the changing of POV pictures (What I spoke of before). The article has changed pictures almost daily. Unless some huge development happens. For example: Israel nukes all of Lebanon. That won’t happen, but in that case it is such a huge development a picture is a must. The current changes are so unnecessary. For example changing a picture of a dead civilian to another picture of a dead civilian. It is not needed to have a new picture each day. Redd Dragon  talk 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Redd, could you please guide me to an agreement related to avoid inserting pictures? -- Szvest 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the "NPOV Tag Added" in this talk page. The NPOV was removed when those pictures were removed. Redd Dragon   talk 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The last picture of the dead child was very hardcore, but I think it sums up the situation. Wiki is an unsensored site for just such a reason, so we can show the world the reality of war. There have been worse pictures, but this one seems fair, I would keep it - atleast one should be in.


 * 1) Support Reaper7


 * Please guys, note that the legality of a vote comes only if there are any policies doubting about, let's say inserting relevant pics to an article. In Wikipedia, there are policies and they come first. Later on come guidelines and than and only when there's a gray line between things, only then comes voting. -- Szvest 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

I only oppose pictures of corpses in the info box,as it is the first pic people see. One image in the targetting of civilian areas is necessary, as is one of the damage caused by the bombing. One of the damage in Israel would also be nice. I don't understand what you claim in your edit summary, Redd Dragon, that because the images are in the sub article, adding them to the main page is POV. That protest pic is in the sub article, is putting it in the main article POV? This article is a summary of the sub articles and needs pictures to illustrate the conflict. Why is showing the damage in Lebanon, where the vast majority of damage is caused, POV? I'd agree if the article was peppered with 20 pictures of dying children and weeping Lebanese mothers, but two pictures is not bias. --Iorek85 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I believe they are POV in both articles. However, I don’t feel like arguing a POV problem in both articles. My head will explode with keeping track of discussion pages. The way I see fixing the problem would be keeping one Lebanese picture and adding one Israeli picture. Then on the main article (Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) adding some Israeli pictures and spread the Lebanese around the article rather than bunching them together. That is what I believe would fix the POV problem. Redd Dragon   talk 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Lebanon has been completely destroyed, nearly one thousand people have been killed, the vast majority civilians, and half the country are now refugees. As opposed to how many Israeli civilians killed? 20? Who is being POV here. The fundamental characteristic of this conflict is the death and destruction inflicted on the LEBANESE civilian population. This should be reflected in the article and a picture of (one of the dozens, if not hundreds) of children who have been killed by the Israeli army is definitely needed. --Burgas00 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand. I haven't looked at the sub article, will do now. Technically a 50:50 balance in this is actually less fair, because the vast majority of damage is in Lebanon, but I definitely think we should have a picture of the damage in Israel. We already had the crying soldiers, I don't know where that went. --Iorek85 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The crying soldiers picture is actually more relevant than a picture of Israeli civilian casualties would be, because more Israeli soldiers have died than civilians. Regardless, I think a picture of Israeli civilian casualties should be added - when you start playing number games, you forget the human aspect of the situation: 20 people are still dead in Israel. I think (regardless of my personal views on the conflict) that we are obligated to cover that in any non-biased article. ugen64 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the background to the conflict
This article is written as though the conflict exists in a vacuum. What started the conflict? How was it escalated? No such information is given. 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The section beginning of conflict, Israeli response, Hezbollah rocket campaign, and historical background don't contain enough context? --Iorek85 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently, some vandal erased the background when I was editing and was reverted. Guy Montag 03:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested article title change
Having reviewed this article, its edit history, and the back and forth on the discussion page, I would like to suggest that the title of the article be changed to Israeli Rationale for the Invasion of Lebanon 2006. --172.192.114.34 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. That would not be a good idea.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he is joking, I think he is trying to say where tryng to make a rationale for Israel. Well were not, the media has already done that, and if your not joking, well then make yiur ow wikipedia page. --Zonerocks 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not joking. There should be a page centrally about the conflict, and not just a bunch of scattered articles.  You can make a 'rationale for israel' article, however, if you want to.  Doesn't matter what the rationale is, in the end, now does it?  Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He does have a point, however--creating a new article for these issues would suffice. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Im talking about the 172 guy. --Zonerocks 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, just what we need, yet another POV fork! Yes! Long live anarchy! WOOT!

Seriously, the rationale is not complicated: Hezbollah attacked, Israel retaliated. Simple no? Of course there is all kinds of ancillary infomation, but I don't see how we cannot fit it in the main page. I mean, causus belli and rationale are PRIME information, entirely supposeed to be in the manin article. I simply think this propossed page would be a POV fork, and an exercise in lazyness and/or POV driven inability to bring the main page to a good standard. sorry, but I much rather have that info on the main page. An "Israeli rationale" sounds a bit POV,a lthought I could live with it if no alternative emerges.--Cerejota 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually not the case. You cannot say that a conflict which really began with Israel refusing to return captured Lebanese to thier homeland, is the fault of Hezbollah.  Furthermore, western powers like the USA and Great Britain are partially responsible for not interfering before this got messy, and staging fake debates about 'ceasefire'.    Also, there is some evidence emerging that suggests that this may be the first major invasion over water sources of the 21st century, , in which case it is all just about Israel expanding its territory and control of resources, using this one of many militia-attacks throughout their history as a strategic pretext.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not proposing a fork, and in a sense, I was joking. My point is that this article is ridiculously POV. The entire story is told from the official Israeli standpoint. Source quotes which say that the capture of Israeli soldiers took place on Lebanese territory are suppressed. This article could be a press release from Dick Cheney's office, or backgrounder in the New York Post. So therefore, why pretend that it is an objective article about the conflict? Why not give it a title that honestly proclaims, "this is the preferred Israeli version of the story?" Sincerely, 172.194.74.72 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) "the 172 guy."

THanks for telling me am the cyborg's stooge. I appreciate it. The article has major NPOV problems but that is not one of them. Hezbollah attacked first hasn't even been denied by Hezbollah itself.--Cerejota 07:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct heading
Hey, did lebanese government fight Israel or hezbolla? stop vandalizing, we need to add that this was aka Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.23 (talk • contribs).

Conflict against Hezbolla, only
I guess, there are so many "smart" people here they can not recognize this fact... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.1.73 (talk • contribs).


 * Read the talk archive. There has been an emerging trend to name current conflicts based on geographical locations rather than combatants, when one of the combatants is a non-State actor. For example, see the renamof 2006 Israel-Hamas conflict to 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict.


 * Of course, you could try to convince us otherwise, but you you got off in the wrong foot by implying we are dumb. Man, there is hardheaded totalitarians, religious fanatics, cooky conspiracists, and all kinds of things among us, but I have yet to meet smarter people. :D--Cerejota 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well im looking for liberal intellect and I haven't found anything cerejota :D --Zonerocks 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, being a soapboxing totalitarian who makes Mussolini weep makes you blind. Seems like I missed the short-buser among us. :D --Cerejota 08:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think that the American television 'mainstream media' has become nothing more than a televised version of Yellow Journalism. They never cite facts anymore, always appeal to emotions, have 'scary' headlines like 'Terror in the Sky', and are totally sensationalist.  The way they are covering this conflict, with the exception of a few journalists, is just pathetic.  Matthew A.J.י.B. 10:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Is it fine now? --Iorek85 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)