Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 25

The map with the legend "Israeli Assault on Lebanon"
The map seems awfully POV (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg). It refers to the "Israeli Assault on Lebanon", and shows only places in Lebanon that were struck, not places in Israel. Further, the sidebar features a very non-balanced discussion of the issues, which are covered more encyclopedically in the article. The way the strikes are drawn with large circles seems calculated to convey the POV idea that destruction hit larger areas of Lebanon than is probably the case. Also, it highlights the strikes on August 13, which may have been important on August 13, but isn't now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.164.74.137 (talk • contribs).

For all these reasons, I think the map should be removed soon, and once someone finds a better one that can be added.
 * No. I can honestly say I havent read the side info, if its POV we can just cover it up with something. But the fact it only shows Israels attacks on Lebanon isnt POV, we have a map that shows where Hezbollah hit Israel too. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image for "Results of the conflict" section
The "results" section is currently led by this image. Might it be MUCH MUCH more NPOV to create a "side by side" comparison of covers representing both sides, or maybe something more NPOV like a headline reading "Who won?"? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion
What is Terrorism?, Reference broken, Message to AceMyth for editing, Iranian Aid for Hizbollah, Tasc deletions, Lebanese citizens in Israeli hands, Shi'a page, Casualty table removed..., Unavaliable link, UN Agrees to Resoultion, 'Captured' or 'kidnapped', Possibly the Beginning of WWIII Prisoners of War, Casus belli, Events leading up, Seymour Hersh allegation, Is the conflict still ongoing?, Hezbollah Special Ops Chief Killed?, Air and Naval blockade, Disclaimer in the Intro to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Passage moved from intro (POV news analysis ; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), What about the murder of Rafik Hariri?
 * Older Summaries
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive22
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive23
 * Damage inflicted on Lebanon, According to Haaretz, Questions Pertaining To The Infobox, Interesting photos, Israeli preparations for a response to Hizbollah, We have a vandal, Hersh says U.S. integral in conflict initation, Polls, Consensus, lack thereof, and removal of cited information, Conflict and Dates, Removing paragraph and source about South of Litani, The Fauxtography Scandal, Vote, Invalid voting, 206.255.1.73, The End of the Conflict?, Location of original raid, Cease Fire broken;
 * Consensus vote: Captured, Kidnapped, or Abducted; No consensus - 17 for captured, 21 for Kidnapped, 2 Abducted.
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive24

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)


 * I will leave you the right and time to check the fact i gave you above. -- Szvest 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why a source that I cited is illegitimate? I would appreciate an explanation. I would also like to see a citation on your part. --68.1.182.215 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lebanon also hasn't historically interpreted Resolution 1559 that way, as the article mentions somewhere. BTW, this link is pretty funny, I don't know why.... -- Kendrick7 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no citation 68.1. The usage of force resolutions always come after the original resolutions. Indeed, nobody has the right to attack anyone under the justification that it is applying a UN resolution. Please read this United Nations Security Council and see what i am talking about. The important notes there are the following:
 * The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:
 * Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
 * Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
 * Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and
 * Enforce its decisions militarily, if necessary.
 * In our case, resolution 1559 has just arrived to point 2.
 * You may also find this very useful as Kendrick tried to say... UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Cheers -- Szvest 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know that isnt an ordered list, its a numbered list. They do not have to do those actions in that order. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno which logic on earth teaches "to enforce decisions military" before "investigating" and "recommending peaceful resolutions"!!! -- Szvest 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think everything in the world is logical ... well its really not. Though as I said, its a numbered list not an ordered list, items can be skipped, no pursued or pursued in that order. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:07, 17 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 [loyal] paraphrasing of the original HRW report. The paraphrasing is only due to the length issues AFAIK.  Tewfik Talk 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)


 * The article on the targeting of civilians in this conflict quotes HRW as follow: "Human Rights Watch is of the view that neither weapon should be used in or near civilian areas as a matter of international law." IMHO, that is more NPOV. -- Anonymous 19:50, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

Here is a link, but to quote the relevant lines:


 * In addition, the warheads used suggest a desire to maximize harm to civilians. Some of the rockets launched against Haifa over the past two days contained hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.

Hope that this clears things up. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The the alternative used in the section on "Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons" in the article Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is: "Human Rights Watch is of the view that neither weapon should be used in or near civilian areas as a matter of international law." It has the advantage of being a direct quote (from here), more neutral, and more substantial in that it calls both uses of these dispersive weapons violations of internation law. -- Anonymous 00:50, 17 August 2006 (PDT)


 * That quote sounds subjective, not that they are saying international says they are illegal, just that Human Rights Watch thinking that neither should be used. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote is: "... should not be used near civilian areas as a matter of international law" meaning that it is a violation of international law to use them near civilian areas. Here are other quotes from that same HRW document: (1) "Like cluster munitions, the use of rocket heads filled with metal ball bearings cannot be targeted precisely and are indiscriminate weapons when used in populated areas." and (2) "... violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime." It follows that the use of cluster bombs and/or ball-bearing-filled warheads in populated areas is an "indiscriminate attack" and therefore a "war crime," which is exactly how I read "... should not be used in populated areas as a matter of international law." -- Anonymous 23:25, 17 August 2006
 * No the quote is "Human Rights Watch is of the view that neither weapon should be used in or near civilian areas as a matter of international law" There is the problem, however quoting something from the actual law would be more reliable as I do not know of its actual legality, however Human Rights Watch saying its illegal does not make it so. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From my reading of the Convention on cenventional weapons, it actually states that certain weapons cannot target civilians, however it does say there are instances where the targets importance can outweigh the civilian population in the area, if deemed an important enough target that is. Honeslty I am on the fence, to make your case however you should read through the Convention on conventional weapons, it will provide a factually sound, non opinionated quote for you. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that the Convention says that "indiscriminate attacks" are war crimes. And, dispersive weapons are "indiscriminate" when used against populated areas. -- Anonymous 16:27, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

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 Talk 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool! But only 4000? We're at 12,250 atm, making this the 7th (and soon to be 6th) most edited article on Wikipedia, ahead of WW2, 9/11, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. (885 of those edits are you, btw. :) ) Iorek85 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, mostly just the result of my abandoning the preview button as a result of tachy-editconflictia.  Tewfik Talk 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but we all deserver a big WOOT!!!. In spite of the eternal debates and the various conflicts, to date there are no bans and we have been able to troll along. Keep it up people! Be bold!!!--Cerejota 01:34, 17 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
 * That's not the point, the point is way too many innocent died, Israel will not be dead, almost impossible! Braindead, well that's a different story...
 * Can someone please explain this statement to me? I don't get it... Valtam 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone knows if it's okay to delete the above? It's not related to the article or editing. ehudshapira 00:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Going to delete this soon. ehudshapira 00:28, 20 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 exists… Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. -- Szvest 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So, let us engage in a hearty and robust discussion of this on said talk page Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict -- Avi 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't have enough time tonight Avi. 'll surely read your discussion later on and participate. Cheers -- Szvest 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither do I, to tell the truth, I'm just an antagonist trying to foment some rational and thought-provoking conversation that may or may not result in change, but at least we will get to hear the various sides. >:) -- Avi 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ;). That's true and Ed got a point somehow. -- Szvest 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That article is not a big news source liken fox news cnn msnbc nbc cbs, none like that. it's a wikipedia article that anyone couldve made and made up. --Zonerocks 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but i got glasses. I see BBC News, Jerusalem Post, New York Times, CBC, Amnesty intl reports, Reuters, CNN, HRW reports, Haaretz, Ynetnews.com, Al-Jazeera, The Guardian, The Jewish Press, ICRC reports, Daily Mail, Herald Sun, NYT, Der Spiegel, AP, SF Chronicle, As-Safir, Yedioth Internet, Peoples Daily China, International Herald Tribune. In total, there are 134 sources and references. Or are you talking about another article? -- Szvest 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel has deliberately targeted civilian areas, though say they were just aiming for Hezbollah. But if you're trying to kill Hezbollah, and you know civilians will be killed, it's not much different to targeting civilians. Iorek85 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Without prejudice to the ethics of the matter, as a former military man I can't help but point out the distinction between:
 * targeting an enemy position; and,
 * targeting a civilian area
 * The first means your purpose is to hit the enemy. The second means your purpose is general destruction of civilian property and people.


 * At issue is the ethics (and/or legality) of returning fire after being attacked from a civilian-populated area. I daresay this is the linchpin on which the bulk of the controversy hinges.


 * Anti-Israel advocates dismiss or ignore the "returning fire" argument, concentrating on the reports that (1) Israeli strikes have killed civilians; (2) It's always unethical/illegal to kill civilians; so (3) Israel is in the wrong here. --Uncle Ed 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So Ed, how do you propose we convey this point?  Tewfik Talk 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which area is not 'civilian'? Israel did not target 'areas', but rather striked specific targets. Hezbullah, howerver, was targeting areas, as most of their rockets are very non-precise. In addtion, the article correctly states that Hezbullah was using civilians as 'human shields', which is a war crime. In this situation, any strike at Hezbullah was bearing a risk of injuring civilians -- but who caused the problem? 63.81.16.66 00:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC) maxim

Israel certainly didn't admit to targeting civilians, though they must have said something about having targets in civilian areas. While Nasrallah's quote might be understood to infer attempts to strike civilian targets, is there any explicit statement to that effect? Could we agree on something like "Targets in civilian areas," or is there a clear (and verifiable) distinction between Israel and Hezbollah's declared targeting?

If nothing else, this question should raise awareness of the myriad subarticles, and the lack of attention that they have gotten lately. If everyone chooses one or two to bring up to date and clean up, the article group would look much better than it does now. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 00:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik has a point. One of the real problems is admittance of some or other actions by the parties involved. It's an approach that has proven to be flawed. Hitler admitted to creating concentration camps to 'save Jews from the rightful rage of [German] people'. Stalin never admitted killing millions. Democracies tend to be open, pluralistic and allow for free speach. Dictatorships, both on state and party/organization level, are closed and punish any decedent. As a result, you'll never hear a Hezbullah's member admitting atrocities, unless such a statement will be approved by the leaders of the organization.

The open and free information should be based on facts rather than on propaganda. Unfortunately, facts require study -- and that, in turn, require time, dedication and intelligence. The history of Arab - Israeli conflict didn't begin in 1982 when Hezbullah was organized. Attempts to pretend that both sides of the conflict are morally equal lead to advocacy of terrorism. 63.81.16.66 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC) maxim

Quite frankly, is getting boring!
Lets put the soapboxing under control: this article is not about your pet theories, your original research or for venting on how evil the other side is and how good and godly your side is. Its boring, its unhelpful, and it reads like a script when you meatpuppet via megaphone :D. Besides, we can all go to Fox News, Al-Manar or Haaretz when we need partisanship...

If you have that overwhelming, uncontrolable urge to soapbox, open a blog or comment in one. ANd call your likeminded buddies over (althought I find looking at a mirror boring ;-).

Please people lets concentrate on what we are supposed to be doing! ;)--Cerejota 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Militias in casualties
There is a minor factual error in the casualty box, which is the inclusion of Amal and PFLP-GC casualties under the Hezbollah heading. In my opinion they should be put under Lebanon, because its the only logical spot, as putting them only Hezbollah makes no sense to anyone who has even vague knowledge of the hatred between Amal and Hezbollah (the PFLP-GC is more friendly to Hezbollah, but still independent).

Furthermore there is no verfiably and reliably sourced material that says that either participated actively in this conflict.

Amal are Lebanase, and while PFLP-GC are not, we are including foreign nationals under the Lebanon heading anyways.

I don't think it is POV to have them there, I just think it makes no sense at all. ;)--Cerejota 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All set -- Kendrick7 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I feel mislead here, now that I read the sources. The CNN article says Berri, Amal's leader, said Amal has fought along side Hezbollah in every engagement of the conflict. Strange-bedfellows. PFLP-GC's one death from an Israeli airstrike on their HQ does seem that is should count under civilian deaths, since the person was esentially a non-combatant. -- Kendrick7 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What Jan Egeland said
In "Targeting of civilian areas" there has been a paragraph stating that Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending…among women and children” and condemned their pride at "having many more children and women dead than armed men." The cowardly blending thing is correct (although I've changed it slightly to the BBC version, as those three "..." make it look as if something had been omitted), but the end of the sentence was a very slanted version of his actual statement. What he actually said, according to the BBC, was: "I heard there was a statement they were proud they had lost very few fighters, and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think you want to be proud of having many more children and women than armed men [killed]". So he was referring to a hearsay statement, and basically said that if it was true that they had said they were proud that the civilians were bearing the brunt, his answer was that they shouldn't be proud. As the text was such a distortion and as he was just reacting to a rumour, there was no reason to keep it, so I removed it. If someone can find a reliable source to the claim that they actually said so, then we can put it back in. Thomas Blomberg 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm not opposed to shortening it for space reasons, it is important to note that there is also no proof that Israel employed white phosphorus or depleted uranium (or vacuum bombs etc.), yet we stil include the advisory statements dealing with the possibility.  Tewfik Talk 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the chronological order of two statements addressing two different things, made by the same person during the same trip, isn't vital at all, as you claimed in your revert. I chose to do it in that way in order to make it easier to read, and also to link it more directly to the Hezboallah statement in the previous paragraph (which you should appreciate). Secondly, the fact that Amnesty and HRW have condemned Israel for using white phosphorus and depleted uranium has nothing to do with this. The problem I have with the Jan Egeland paragraph is the end, as it distorts what he actually said. You have now reinserted it and have added the word "rumoured", in an attempt to make it look more neutral, so the text now states that he condemned their rumored pride at "having many more children and women dead than armed men." What "rumoured pride"? Where can we read about this rumour, which apparently is so very well known that there is no need for Wikipedia to explain it further? As this "rumour" isn't covered anywhere else, I think that last part should be removed. It has only been added to try to strengthen his already very strong statement about Hezbollah. Please note, that your addition of the distorted ending has already resulted in somebody inserting a counter text, stating that HRW "has disputed intentional use of human shields". One POV push will always be countered with a POV push in the opposite direction, and the end result is just a crap article. Let's try to be neutral! Thomas Blomberg 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. If the problem with the phrasing of the Egeland quote is that it presents as fact that there are rumours, then we can neutralise it, either as I have done, or simply using part of the quote instead. My point about the phosphorus and DU was that I thought you might have been saying that mention of the rumours was illegitimate because they are rumours, which hasn't been our standard until now, but since that isn't the case, this is moot. I don't find inclusion of the HRW quote to be POV pushing - they said what they said, and within the limits of our article structure it should be represented (and I incorporated it alongside the Egeland quote). Similarly, I don't think I am pushing a POV, but merely trying to accurately represent an important statement, especially so since it stands alone as an impartial voice making the accusation which it makes. My goal, like yours, is neutrality.  Tewfik Talk 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Human shields
I'm placing the HRW disputation next to the Engeland quote, and I'm removing Engeland's accusations of mutual international law violation, which is already stated by all the other NGOs quoted. What is unique about Engeland statement is the 'cowardly' part. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah caveat
This section is extremely relevant to the ceasefire discussion, and at least a condensed form belongs in the lead:

''though Hezbollah declared through its members in the Lebanese cabinet that they would not disarm south of the Litani river. ''

It is essentially a Hezbollah declaration that they are not going to uphold all parts of 1701. If you think it should be removed, please explain why.  Tewfik Talk 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it belongs: in the section about the ceasfire (currently titled "Current ceasefire", I believe). Not in the lead, which would be better off in its previous concise incarnation of recent times. Unless, of course, you want to push every bit of pro-Israel POV on this (as if there already isn't too much of that to go around) ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question of POV. When mentioning that there is a ceasefire, it is important to note whether it has been accepted. As Hezbollah doesn't accept a key premise, that should be stated. What would you say if Israel declared they accepted, but wouldn't leave S. Lebanon?  Tewfik Talk 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be in the header as its very important that one group involved has basically not accepted the terms. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aren't the terms are that Lebanon speeds up the disarmament of Hezbollah. That's not a term contingent on Hezbollah, is it? -- Kendrick7 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point it should be noted that both Lebanon and Hezbollah are non compliant as Hezbollah said they will not disarm and Lebanese officials said they will not force them. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the text of the resolution, under Determining, point 8 doesn't apply to Hezbollah (compare point 7, where it clearly says "all parties"), so you can't say they aren't compliant; you are right though about Lebanon. You can't really call it a loophole -- I'm sure Hezbollah would have never agreed to a cease-fire that actually put the onus on them to disarm themselves. -- Kendrick7 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In any event, if we do mention Hezbollah's declaration of acceptance in the Lead, we should temper it with their exception.  Tewfik Talk 19:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the aftermath of the cease-fire should be a whole other article, and if the ceasefire is breached it should be another-other article as this article is long enough. -- Kendrick7 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but can you agree that as long as it isn't...  Tewfik Talk 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as it is clear this is Lebanon's fault (and I think they would have promised to send unicorns to mars if it would stop their people being killed, even temporarily). There's nothing in Resolution 1701 where Hezbollah agreed to disarm. -- Kendrick7 22:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. All I am saying is that if Hezbollah's "assent" warrants inclusion in the Lead, so should the fact that it is only partial.  Tewfik Talk 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Source?
"The opinion... And the other opinion" is the Aljazeera moto, I know everyone here is in love with the State of Israel, but at least post the opinion of the "enemy" as a source, or at least read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.84.76.18 (talk • contribs).


 * What do you mean?  Tewfik Talk 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know what "the other opinion" of JihadTV is: one is Sunni Jihadists' opinion, and the other is Shiite Jihadists' opinion. Like in that report when Al-Jazeera's interviewer was singing together with a Hizballah's supporter immediately after the Zar'it incident, while giving him her microphone: "I say to you... anna irhabi (I'm terrorist)" Aleverde

AfD Nomination: Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
An article that you have been involved in editing, Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, has been listed at Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Length
The article is getting too long again, at 78kb. We need to make an effort to shrink it down - do we really need 5 references for the Lebanese casualty figure? Do we need such a long 'historical background' section? Iorek85 09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Hezbollah "historical background" section could be completely chunked; it's certaintly not history (perhaps one side was a little hopeful it soon would be?). The main Hezbollah article just needs to be edited to include the facts about their membership in the Lebanese parliment up top. -- Kendrick7 09:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did that. -- Kendrick7 10:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think, ceasefire attempts and proposals are no so important. A proposal that brought ceasefire was 1701 UNSC resolution. All the rest should be moved to Ceasefire attempts during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Flayer 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of those sections should definitely be reduced, but I wanted to point out that in general, the article has almost stabilised this last week, with very few drastic changes (most edits are the warring about capture/kidnap and the same POV insertions and deletions). After trimming the article down to around 64kb perhaps, we should have a renewed mobilisation towards improving the numerous subarticles. In particular, I feel many of them should be merged to reduce the amount of repeated information, though Thomas takes a different position on the matter. The bottom line is they should receive serious attention, as some of them now have their own subarticles (!). Anyways, I feel that further combat lacking, we may be removed from the main page soon, which would give us all more room to breathe Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)