Talk:Battle of Bint Jbeil

Taken?
I have heard that the city has been taken, does this mean the battle has ended? ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * see now. --TheFEARgod 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment
This is a very nice start, with a good degree of detail. I applaud your ability to remain objective and neutral in writing this; it is a very hard thing to do, considering the subject matter. The infobox needs a little work- the casualties do not seem very well organized, and there is a hanging phrase of "Israel claims..." But I am quite aware this is a work in progress, as it is a current event. For an event so well reported and published, I think a lot more could probably be said, which is why I'm giving it only a "Start" rating. Thank you again, though, for your hard work, and for writing this in such a neutral way. LordAmeth 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I added detail of a media report saying Hezbollah still hold Bint Jbeil in 'aftermath' section.82.29.227.171 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Result
I've put the result of the battle as "town held by Hezbollah", which I believe is what the sources say. The word "stalemate" is unacceptably vague and not even appropriate given that Israel has withdrawn. This is not to suggest that Israel has "lost" according to its goals: the casualties are of course listed separately. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Initially, Israel had no intention to capture Bint Jbeil. Rather, the IDF sought to control the city from outside. Brigadier General Shuky Shachrur, the Northern Command’s chief of staff, said the plan was to raid specific targets based on intelligence.

Israel didnt want to capture the town, fix it. Sprmni (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Israel actually succeeded to take the town but they did it too late. Fix the page Davidreznov (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Casualities
Why is the article only mentioning the IDF estimation of casualities, Hezbollah announced that 13 IDF soldiers were killed in the battle. According to israeli sources, most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements.The Israeli sources are estimating Hezbolla's losses ranges from 15-200 !! I believe this implies uncertainity, or even more, intentional exaggeration for morale boosting purposes, especially after IDF had to withdraw from the town (why would they do that if they killed 200 out of 200 Hezbolla fighters).

--12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Suspicous According to what israeli sources "most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements"? This is absolutely ridiculous. Hezbollah never published their real losses, but in ames of propaganda. Israeli losses published with names of soldiers and their photos. Shmuliko 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i meant that threats made by Hezbolla are taken seriously on the other side, this can be quoted from Israeli officials responses to Nasralla's statements. As to "Hezbollah never published their real losses" how can you be so sure, Hezbolla is announcing the names of its fallen on Manar TV, what am saying is that both sides are trying to under mine there losses & increase the other's so we shouldn't take israeli figures for granted especially when no independent press is able to enter the fighting area.

Shmuliko don't talk about something you don't know; Hizbollah not only published names of those who died (during the whole conflict on Al Manar TV) but also organised military funerals for most of them. weeks ago, they broadcasted video tapes of those who died during the war talking to their families, children and friends.

Hizzballa strategic victory?...
hizballa lost most of it's force in the area, and in the end of the battle itself, the town was compleatly under the control of the IDF. the IDF widrew its forces because it's job was done, not because hizballa still controlled the area. this is no "strategic victory", this is a tie.
 * Yes, STRATEGIC because they still control the town--TheFEARgod 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Firstly, is there any reference that says the "the town was completely under the control of the IDF"? Secondly, "strategic victory" etc. is POV. I'm changing it back to the plain fact of Hezbollah hold. &mdash;Ashley Y 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A strategic victory is one that accomplishes your goals the: Hezbollah goal was aparently to retain control of the town, something they acomplished. Also the perceived victory gives the Hezbollah forces a Large morale boost. Tacticaly it was indesicisive as neither force clearly defeated the other, and no major media outlets have reported that the Hezbollah forces at the town were virtualy destroyed. --72.145.144.254 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally the latest casualty counts are provided by MSNBC in the latest source and it says 18 so stop reverting.--72.145.144.254 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't touched the casualty counts. Israel can also claim this as a "strategic victory", it's entirely POV. The plain fact of the result is that Hezbollah held the town, everything else is interpretation. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

“Strategic victory” refers to the accomplishment of one’s goals. at the start of the campaign the Israeli goal was the destruction of the Hezbollah forces in the area and possibly the capture of the town, Nether of these were accomplished by the point of Israelis withdrawal, While Hezbollah as stated above accomplished their goals: the retention of the town and the preservation of their forces. (Although taking more casualties than Israel in the process). Finally the terms Tactical Victory& Strategic Victory are the correct and formal terms used by military annalists.--72.145.154.203 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Strategic victory is one that turns the war scenario. It is not the case. IDF cleaned the territory and kept the positions on controlling heights. That is exactly what they do in every village they enter. Today there no Hezbollah forces in the town and it is not their victory, however IDF has casualities, which is main Hezbollah aim. I'll remove the strategic vctory. Shmuliko 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC) NO single news post says that the teritory was cleaned they only mention a Hezbollah ambush and a IDF retreat, also the town is reported by all major news services to be under the control of Hezbollah, so none of the above you mentioned are true. Btw: strategic does not mean turning-point, it just represents the acomplisment or faliure of goals--72.145.143.215 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/middleeast/27fighting.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
 * http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
 * http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/

Hezbollah is a guerilla and that the town are still held by hezbollah are more than victory

Saying israel won the war is completely idiotic, israel declared a list of objectives before the war and failed to reach any of them, the two soldiers are still captured, hizbollah still have rockets (at least until the last day of the war) and hizbollah is still armed and well popular. therefore, hizbollah won this war.196.203.167.198 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back, it is quite clear that Israel won the military war (it was clearly victorious in most infantry encounters; the IDF conquered each targeted town; Hizbollah lost a great deal of its professional fighters and weapons, in far greater ratios than Israel did), Hizbollah won the PR war (despite the major military achievements, the Israeli press and public were highly critical of the IDF for not achieving a landslide, casualty-free victory), and the UN lost yet another battle for its authority (allowing Hizbollah to regroup in southern Lebanon and not stopping the massive arms smuggling from Iran and Syria).

Casualities
Unlike the Hezballa, IDF reports are official. When IDF says the were 8 israeli casualties and 22 wounded, it means that.

By the way, there were 2 israeli casualties around Bint Jbeil during the night before the battle of Bint Jbeil - this is official.

89.0.211.46 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed you’re correct, but the casualty figure you gave is marginally outdated check the MSNBC for a more recent figure.--72.145.154.203 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

C'mon... I don't need MSNBC to know how many israeli soldiers got killed there... Find some more sources (NOT Hezbollah sources) talking abount 18 dead israeli soldiers in Bint Jbeil... 89.0.211.46 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC) These aren't Hezbollah sources! they are MSNBC sources and paragraph 22 shows an official Israel body count. additionally by wikipedia rules and procedures this (MSNBC) Is a reliable source and more recent than the one you provided, so it supercedes it. --72.145.154.203 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, MSNBC mistaken... 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)(that is a very POV view, but nontheless it won't afect the use of updated casualty figures.)--72.145.154.203 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is POV, but "Hezbollah strategic victory" is also POV. Well, if MSNBC did not mistaken, there shuould be some more sources about 18 casualties... What about IDF official site? Any other site talking about 18 casualties? 89.0.211.46 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also you do know only a admin can protect pages. And putting up that Sprotect sign may count as vandalisim.--72.145.154.203 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * didn't know 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

thats ok we all make a mistake or two.--72.145.154.203 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

MSNBC is one of the largest and most respected news services but if you need more proof for the last three on the list see Paragraph.22
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/middleeast/27fighting.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
 * http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
 * http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_29543.shtml
 * http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=152385

hezbollah won the battle on July 30th: 2 weeks before the war ended, if Israel had won, they would hav occupied the town like they do with all of their captured territory...Israel knows they lost the war, but cant say it...all they say is that they killed more people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaganoushe96 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

8 vs. 18 casualties
All sources agree about total 36 casualties:

8 in day-1 near Zar'it

4 sailors on INS Hanit

1 pilot in helicopters crash

2 (MAGLAN unit) in Maroun-a-Ras

another 5 (EGOZ unit) in Maroun-a-Ras

2 pilots when MRLS rocket hit a helicopter

2 during the night before the battle of Bint-Jbeil in the area

8 in the battle of Bint-Jbeil

1 in the same day but in Maroun-a-Ras

3 yesterday in Ayat-a-Shaab

Total: 36 casualties - this is official and up to date! I can show you reliable sources about every one of this situations, as well as I can show an up-to-date source about total 36 casualties.

89.0.189.135 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This topic is about Bint-Jbeil, so it should be 8. Shmuliko 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will quote a post from a veteran user El C (Hi. Nine was just for one day: "It's not clear yet how many people died during three weeks of fighting in what Israel dubbed Hezbollah's "terror capital." Israel says 18 of its soldiers were killed here".) that post pretty much just says it all.--72.145.155.51 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is BULLSHIT... I'm gonna put here an IDF source... 89.0.243.231 07:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF official website: IDF Pulls Out of Bint Jbeil (Sunday 30/07/2006)
"  IDF forces withdrew from the village of Bint Jbeil today, having completed operations there.  It was in Bint Jbeil that heavy fighting erupted last week between IDF forces and Hezbollah terrorists, resulting in IDF casualties of eight soldiers dead and 22 wounded, some seriously.   "

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55319.EN

You can see here that there were no updates about anymore IDF casualties during the battle of Bint Jbeil:

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=54279.EN

89.0.243.231 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

the above links you gave are out dated aditionaly they seem to be broken and the news posts I gave are much newer.

The links are not broken, the IDF servers are oveloaded. 89.0.243.231 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Your sources are eighther mistake or fake. Wait when IDF sources come up. 89.0.243.231 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not fake you fool, they are from the NY times [MSNBC CNN some of the most prestigious News services around. no, CNN and NY times are owned by jewish and its neutrality cannot be fully trusted

[ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Temporary_screenshot.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Temporary_screenshot.JPG] "It's not clear yet how many people died during three weeks of fighting in what Israel dubbed Hezbollah's "terror capital." Israel says 18 of its soldiers were killed here".'')
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/middleeast/27fighting.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
 * http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
 * http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_29543.shtml
 * http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=152385
 * http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
 * http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/

Israel says 8 of its soldiers were killed here. That is what we see on IDF official site!

Probably here was a journalist who was not very focused, and some news agencies published this mistake!

Apparently not it seems to be written by multiple authors, therefore as per-wiki policy we will use the more recent (and numerous) msn/cnn articles. And will so unless the news services issue a retraction.--Freepsbane 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here (http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/02aug2006/shem.html) we can see (in russian) a list of israeli casualties, including IDF casualties, which is up to 2/08/2006. The total number of soldiers is 36 (up to 2/08/2006). I can show you an official source telling about every one of this soldiers (when and where he did killed). According to these sources, there were 28 casulties + X Bint-Jbeil casualties. While the total number is 36 (up to 2/08/2006), it is clear that 8 soldiers killed in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I cant read Russian however the above mentioned msn, cnn, New York times. hold priority over the smaller websites out there.--Freepsbane 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they have priority over IDF official website, which tells both in english and in hebrew that there were 8 soldiers that killed in Bint Jbeil that day, not 18?? Ask any of the israeli Wiki-moderators, ask any israli you find, and he will tell you the exact number od IDF casualties in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

the idf web-page you gave us is older than the 2nd msn article and the ny times also it seems you have made more than 3 reverts today a clear violation of wikipolicy.--72.145.156.5 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/- curently the most recent


 * Thats why I give you this and this . So you can see that no such update about 18 casualties was given. Flayer 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We can agree that 18 soldiers got killed in the area, but the battle of Maroun Ar-Ras was in Maroun Ar-Ras itself. Also, IDF troops withdrew from Maroun Ar-Ras, but not from the area, not from Bint Jbeil, for example. Flayer 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Victory?
I don't understand why the focus of a single battle event. This cannot be considered as a battle which is over. The Battle for Bint Jbail is not over. Israel is using a tactic against a guerrila advantage. Israel prefers to conduct search and destroy operations in the villages then withdraw. Why remain inside and be a target against an enemy who knows all the passageways, tunnels and bunkers. All you is inviting yourself to be a target of an anti-tank missile by remaining in one position too long. What Israel is doing is, fighting, killing and wounding some Hezbollah's then withdrawing. If they attempt to reinforce their dwindling numbers inside Bint Jbeil, they get attacked. If they try to withdraw they run the risk of attacks. If they stay put, they are a target for the next search and destroy incursion. So I don't think you cannot categorize this as a victory for Hezbollah, unless of course there is a cease-fire and they still hold the town and are not forced to withdraw or disarm. Until then, I categorize this battle as ongoing. Richardmiami 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As we can see from this news dispatch: "IDF forces operating in the south Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil spotted five Hizbullah cells on their way to launch anti-tank missiles; the soldiers opened fire and struck the gunmen." (source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286360,00.html)

The IDF is still coming in and out of the village. The Battle is still ongoing. I believe that the final decision of victory will be, who is in control after a cease-fire is declared and what consequences it brings (e.g. Hezbolllah withdrawal from village replaced by International monitors, or Hezbollah control despite cease-fire). Richardmiami 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

then create a new tactical battle article we could use the 2nd battle of Bint Jbeil, as a new article. it can be handeled like the fallujah battles were,--72.145.156.233 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the IDF announced from the beggining that their aim is to totally destroy Hezboll's fighting power, by the end of this war, if Hezbolla still have fighting capabilities this will only mean one thing, the israelis lost the battle.. this is what happens when you set a high ceiling without being sure of the ability to acheive it, note that Nasralla was aware of that fact & thats why he stated that ( we don't claim to be able to stop Israeli invasion but we promise to inflict damages on them wherever they go), so far that is exactly what Hezbolla is doing. As for the tactics used by IDF, what you said about killing some hezbolla fighters then withdrawing is incorrect, lets not forget that in every engagement so far both sides are having casualities, & i believe this have more influence upon the israelis..the main reason IDF invaded Bint jbeil was because they suspected that Katyushas are being fired from there & they wanted to stop that, the only way to do it is to keep the town in IDF control. Their failure to acheive that so far is the reason this was considered a defeat to the israeli army, else what is the use of controlling a village, losing a dozen soilders while doing so, then evacuating it so that Hezbolla fighters can go back in and launch some more missiles..--213.42.2.21 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)The man who sold the world

I have to agree with Richard, Isreal has stated that it has no intention to re-occupy southern Lebernam and has just stated that it will expand its opperations, Isreal is capturing areas, dismantaling Hezbollah infestructa and then leaving. It has no intention of controling the village in the long term. --88.108.217.33 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind this is not a traditional war between 2 armies where the victor is the side who gained more land, this is a guerilla war where all rules are changed,. Guerilla's can declare they won the war by acheiving the purpose behind it, Hezbolla had the right to declare a victory in 2000 cause their stated purpose was isareli withdrawal of the south. In the same manner IDF can claim victory if it acheived its goals from the operation, what exactly did it acheive in bint jbeil especially after withdrawing from the town. Engaging with Hezbolla in a close range battle is surely not an acheivment, suffering casualities is also a set back, if we accepted the Israeli backing of their frist accounced goal which was total destruction of Hezbolla to their second declared goal which is holding the land until multinational force arrive, then again they failed to do so since they withdrawed before they can handle it to the multinational force..even in their subsequent wide offensive in which they drove several kms into south lebanon, you can't state that they have controlled the land which they have taken since pockets of resistence is still costing them even greater losses than before. At the end of the war both sides will declare victory, Hezbolla will argue that israelis released lebanese prisoners & withdrawed from lebanese lands, israelis will state that Hezbolla will no longer target north israel with Katyushas. but come to think of it, Hezbolla offered to stop launching katyushas if israel stops its assault, yep..total mess..but in all, Hezbolla gained respect in the arab world for holding against such an assault, while the IDF lost some credibility for not being able to vanquish an enemy outnumbered 15 to 1 and lacking for air, naval & ground power. I don't think these are results Israel was hoping for.

Arbirated
The dispute has been steeled in favor of 18 casualties by the ruling of the administrator RyanGerbil10 [] if people continue to presist in removing the arbitrated version then I will allert the administrators, and have them enforce the rulling.[]--72.145.156.233 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny.. What did administrator RyanGerbil10 say to the parents of 10 soldiers that did not killed in the battle of Bint Jbeil?
 * No, what I did in the end is report both numbers in the infobox, as appears now, although I perosnally think more sources back up 18 rather than 8 casualties. If no consensus can be reached, as is obvious here, both numbers will be reported until conclusive evidence is presented that the number of casualties is definitely one or the other. This is the decision I will enforce. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * May I call the person that tried to put presure on me by writing this a liar? Flayer 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

you may if you do so wish to.--Freepsbane 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times"
"The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times" claims on the casualty list will be mentioned only after the official source, which is IDF website. Like IDF claims about the number of Hezballa casulties are mentioned second. Flayer 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The globe clearly says 18, does this mean that 18 is the official Israeli position? --Freepsbane 19:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. official Israeli position is 8 killed, 22 wounded.  Flayer 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Never the less Globe says 18.--Freepsbane 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why Globe is also mentioned. Flayer 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

so do the MSN, New York Times, Guardian,and CNN you have removed.--Freepsbane 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, only few of them are dated later than IDF source, but they will be mentioned only after an official source, which is IDF. Flayer 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli media
By the way, I'm gonna add all the israeli media reports about 8 (not 18) IDF casualties.... Both israeli and international reports will appear. Flayer 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NYT
The NYT article, which is being used as a source for the claim that 18 Israeli soldiers were killed actually says "two days of bitter combat that had left 10 soldiers dead". Please stop using it to support that claim. Isarig 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CNN
CNN is listed as a source for the 18 killed claim, but no CNN article is refernced. I am removing CNN until such cite is produced Isarig 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Guardian
The Guardian article, which is being used as a source for the claim that 18 Israeli soldiers were killed actually says "They eventually dragged eight corpses down a steep hillside under cover of darkness.". Please stop using it to support that claim. Isarig 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The NY times& guardian must have had older articles linked check for newer ones.--Freepsbane 13:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to check for newer ones - it's up to you, if you want to list them as references. Isarig 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

8 vs. 18 casualties (№2)
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm

This official source is far more updated than news agencies that had claimed 18 casualties. And of course it says: "Eight soldiers from the Golani Brigade were killed in battle in Bint Jbeil: Maj. Ro'i Klein, 31, of Eli; Lt. Amihai Merhavia, 24, of Eli; Lt. Alexander Shwartzman, 24, of Akko; Sgt. Shimon Adega, 21, of Kiryat Gat; St.-Sgt. Edan Cohen, 21, of Jaffa; St.-Sgt. Shimon Dahan, 20, of Ashdod; Cpl. Ohad Klausner, 20, of Bet Horon; and Cpl. Assaf Namer, 27, of Kiryat Yam. "

89.0.229.237 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The battle isn't over
It is clear now that the battle isn't over, 'cause another IDF soldier killed there now and some wounded.

Creating "Battle of Bint Jbeil #2" is a waste. The date of the battle (still going) and the result (unclear yet) should be edited. 89.1.237.106 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Isarig 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also published that two more soldiers was killed today (August 7) morning. 89.0.219.66


 * Fine. I will unprotect the page. But I want clean, appropriate contributions. I have wasted a lot of time making sure this page stays neutral, and if I have to block anyone, you can be sure I won't be lenient. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 89.0.219.66 20:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's arguably a second battle, though, isn't it? Rather than creating another page, we could rename this to "Battles of Bint Jbeil". &mdash;Ashley Y 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is necessary, though we can have two different battle-tables on the same page called "Battles of Bint Jbeil". 89.1.255.244 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I have added a NPOV tag. Nearly all of the sources are from Israeli media sources. There seems to be disagreement among editors as to certain facts and timelines. Much of the article is anecdotal stories from the IDF troops as told to Israeli newspapers. This article should adhere to the guidelines in NPOV. Nimur 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * RE- Drive-by tagging: I have added my discussion here.  Please see the talk-page before reverting an NPOV tag.  Thank you, Nimur 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * proper procedure is to discuss any charges of non-NPOV edits on Talk, and tag the article only if there is no consensus on how to arrive at NPOV on Talk. I have thus reverted your drive-by tagging. Now that we are discussing your actual points: (1) The references include arab sources such as Al Jezeera and Al bawab, as well as numerous non-israeli and non-Arab sources, such as The Guardian, CNN and Reuters. So the claim that "Nearly all of the sources are from Israeli media sources" is false. (2) There is (or rather, was) some disagreement with regards to some facts, but that is common to most WP articles, and there have only been 2 edits yesterday, and not many more than that the previous 4 days. If you have any specific issues with edits that you claim to be non-NP0V, let's hear them, but tagging an entire article based on the fact that there is some disagrement over facts is over the top. Isarig 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah victory....
...Israeli claim: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750990.html--TheFEARgod 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a claim of a person, not a Hezbollah victory. Yon can put it in the end. Flayer 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a big mistake in this article .It says that in the battle of bint jbail, the IDF captured 5 hizbullah warriors!!! this contadicts with the 4 hizbullah gurrilas who where exchanged for returning  the 2 IDF soldier bodies in 2008.

Recent edits - july 24 and result
User:Freepsbane removed my last 2 edits with the summary "1st link supports claim". Not clear to me which of the first links he is referring to (I removed 2 sets of links), but neither one supports the claims it is used as a refernce for. The first set of links is related to the events of July 24th. The first link in that groups is to the Isreali MoFA site which lists all Israeli casualites. It indeed mentions two soldiers killed on 7/24, one in a tank flip, the other in an anti-tank missile attack - but nowhere does it link these two deaths to Bint Jbeil. The second set of links is related to the results of the battle. The 1st link very clearly and explictly says 'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters'. Isarig 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did Israeli forces try to take Bint Jbeil?
What was the strategic importance of the battle from the Israeli point of view? Was it a form of insanity? Can anybody shed light on this riddle? Abu ali 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Initially, Israel had no intention to capture Bint Jbeil. Rather, the IDF sought to control the city from outside. Brigadier General Shuky Shachrur, the Northern Command’s chief of staff, said the plan was to raid specific targets based on intelligence.

There were no intentions to capture the city. Sprmni (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed reference to Hezbollah stronghold
Now that I jumped into this edit war, can somebody tell me which side I am on? Seriously, Hezbollah still being there means?? they won?? Anyways, please advise.... --Tom 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

RyanG's disruptive editing
Before protecting this page, RyanG admitted in his own edit summary that the msnbc article being used to claim Hezbollah still holds the town is vague. I have now added a current article, which shows the UN holds the town, and asked that this not be reverted prior to discussing on Talk. RyanG has not addressed my previous Talk comment (from 19 August 2006) to the effect that the "vague" article actually explictly says "'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters', and yet still reverted to the claim that the town was held by Hizbullah, based on that same "vague" article that actually says the opposite. Isarig 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't think I'm being disruptive. The fist article, from 19 August, does not state that there are no Hezbollah fighters in Bint Jbeil. This news article, which I actually used to source another statement in the Bint Jbeil article, states that there are no Israeli soldiers in Bint Jbeil, and that the United Nations in fact controls the twon. The September 3 article does not mention whether Hezbollah fighters are still in Bint Jbeil. Neith the August 19 nor the September 3 articles state whether or not there are Hezbollah fighters remaining in Bint Jbeil. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being disruptive, and disingenious. The 8/19 article clearly says 'There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters'. It was being used foa a very stong claim - that the town is still in Hezbollah hands - but that claim is not supported by the article. For you to reintroduce that claim based on that source, after admitting the articel is vague is being disruptive. Isarig 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On my revert
The discussion on AN/I and the the article itself states: "Hezbollah's fighters remain as deadly as they are elusive." Clearly, they must be present to be deadly. I am re-adding the source, and if this continues, I will request the page be re-protected. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is far from clear. They can be deadly elswhere, or deadly from afar. To jump from a statement such as '"Hezbollah's fighters remain as deadly as they are elusive." to the conclusion that Bint Jbeil is still in Hizbolah hands is Original Research, and has no place in WP. No one was claiming the Hezbollah fighters were eradicated to the last man, so clearly those that remain are deadly. But the  article clearly states they are nowhere to be seen in BJ. Extraordinary claims require extarordinary proof - this article, described by as you vague" does not even come close. Please find a better source if you want to add this claim to the article. Isarig 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Isarig's logic is correct for this particular phrase. The Land 08:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Isarig is correct. The source says nothing about them being present - which is in fact not true. They weren't. This should be deleted immediately. Amoruso 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Freepsbane - please see the above. If you have good reason for reverting my changes - let's hear them. Your refusal to use Talk to explain your edits reflects badly on you. Isarig 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit by User:BintJbeil
I removed the recent edit which reaqd "New Israeli reports revealed that after the IDF failed to capture Bint Jbeil, army leaders requested several soldiers to take pictures showing the Israeli flag on top of a house in the town; several soldiers were killed by Hezbollah fighters while attempting to carry out the order.". This is sourced to IMEMC - which is not a WP:RS, and partisan in nature. The information is dubious for several reasons: (1) the article claimes it is based on "IMEMC & Agencies" - but a google search on relevant items (e.g. the named soldier "Eyal Bloom") yeilds zero hits. (2) The Israeli enquiry commision has not yet issued its report, making the source of this alleged "report" questionable. Isarig 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Isarig, IMEMC is a reliable independent source, why is it not RS?.  Nielswik(talk) 09:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is self published. It is explictly partisn and one sided. And as noted above, the recent claim is dubious and appears nowhere else in a mainstream media source. Isarig 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T A CREDIBLE REPORT. ALL OF THE MAIN INFO CAME FROM ONE ARTICLE> FROM THE JERUSALEM POST, WORD FOR WORD. Ahmadhusseini 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (AHMAD)
 * There are 21 differnt sources for this article. Please read more carefully and stop shouting. Isarig 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Outcome
Attention User:RyanGerbil10. We don't need a novel in the factbox about who won. And it's obvious the parties here will just refight the battle. Let's just put a simple "contested" or "disputed" for the outcome. Let the reader decide.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can show consensus support for this view, I will be happy to unprotect, but I am unwilling to do so until I see evidence that edit-warring will at least temporarily stop. This article was without protection for almost an entire year - stability is possible on this article. RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere." --google translate" Godspeed John Glenn! Will 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The battalion's deputy commander, Major Roi Klein was killed when he covered a grenade with his body to save his comrades

Is this for real, i mean am sure everyone on both sides died in a (heroic way), but this is wikipedia, not a movie directed by Spielberg

i have changed it to be (among the dead was Major Roi Klein, the battalion's deputy commander) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

roi klein jumping on the grenade was verified by his soldiers as eye-witnesses. any credible source sees this as fact. no reason to add "allegedly" you dmbfk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.190.157 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Results and Goals:
The IDF goal was to occupy the City, but they failed twice so it's hezbollah and Amal Victroy.

Results and Goals:
The IDF goal was to occupy the City, but they failed twice so it's hezbollah and Amal Victroy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.98.181 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The IDF goal wasn't to occupy the city. Flayer (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Newsweek quote removed
I have removed a sentence with a misleading quote from Newsweek:


 * As a tentative ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon began, Journalists who visited the town reported that while "Hizbullah's fighters were as elusive last week as they were deadly", on August 14 "there was no sign of Hizbullah fighters".

The original link is dead but it can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060825184507/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14208385/site/newsweek/

Both quotes are technically correct but none of the refers to Bint Jbeil or to the situation as of Aug. 14. They are doctored to create the impression that Hezbollah had withdrawn from the town before the cease-fire, while in fact they did not and not even Israel claims that they did. People have referred to this passage as evidence that they really did withdraw. The first quote refers to the general situation in Southern Lebanon during the war:


 * “Hizbullah's fighters were as elusive last week as they were deadly. Thousands of them were dug in around southern Lebanon, and yet encounters with the hundreds of journalists also in the area were rare, and furtive. Like Hussein, as he chose to call himself, who popped out of the rubble in the blasted town of Bint Jbeil, site of what Hizbullah is calling its Great Victory...”

The second quote describes the situation at a very specific but unspecified olive grove FIVE miles from Bint Jbeil:


 * “In an olive grove about five miles away [from Bint Jbeil]… [there] was a GMC truck with a rocket-launching platform... There was no sign of Hizbullah fighters...”

The article was dated August 14, but was apparently written about a week earlier (judging from the cited Israeli casualty figures and the cited number of rocket strikes on Israel). The visit to Bint Jbeil probably took place during the Israeli air strike pause July 31 - Aug. 1) when several foreign journalists visited the town. And the Newsweek journalists actually did meet a Hezbollah fighter in Bint Jbeil that day.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Major revision
I have recently made some substantial revisions of this article. I will continue to add some more material in coming days.

The article was really very bad before I started working on it. It contained a lot of incorrect information even some deliberate misinformation (see previous item on the discussion page). It was badly sourced, sometimes with no sources or only dead links. It also had a confused, and at times missleading, time line and no clear conclusion of the battle. Large sections were cut-and-paste from Jerusalem Post articles. The article did not attempt to explain what Israel tried to achieve or why it failed. It also had very little info from Lebanese sources. I believe that the main problem was that the article to a large extent was written in real time at the heat of the battle. Now five years later tempers may have cooled and more accurate information available.

I don’t pretend to have solved all these issues but I think I have made a good start. Any feed-back or further contributions are welcome. I have mainly used mainstream Israeli military correspondents articles and books as sources. But I have also used some Lebanese accounts, especially about Lebanese casualties.

I made a similar revision of Battle of Ayta ash-Shab and took a lot of flak for that. The main problem seems to be persons who cannot accept the fact the IDF may actually have lost a battle. My conclusion is that Israel repeatedly tried to conquer these towns but failed in spite of heavy casualties. In this sense it was a huge Hezbollah victory. But Hezbollah also took heavy losses, especially in Bint Jbeil. Two of the commanders killed in Bint Jbeil were probably the highest ranking Hezbollah leaders killed in the war. I would be surprised if any serious person today would dispute this conclusion.

I was delighted when I discovered that the Jewish Virtual Library reused a lot of my stuff from Ayta ash-Sha'b and rewrote their account of the Second Lebanon war: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lebanon2.html

One idea I have is to merge this article with Battle of Maroun al-Ras and include accounts on the fighting in Aytaroun. In reality this was really just one battle. The Israeli conquest of Maroun ar-Ras was mainly a stepping stone towards Bint Jbeil. Most of the Israeli fatalities at Maroun ar-Ras was actually caused by missiles fired from Bint Jbeil. The Lebanese fought under a joint command headed by Khalid Bazzi in the area of Bint Jbeil-Aynata-Aytaroun-Maroun ar-Ras (nick-named the "Square of Steadfastness"). Lebanese fighters moved frequently between these towns.

Any comments?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody find a (preferable a direct) source for the Israel/IDF claim that that 80 Hezbollah fighters died in Bint Jbeil? I have the feeling that this is a "Wikipedia implant". I have goggled it and find no primary source.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * here you go - http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_israel-says-70-hezbollah-fighters-killed-in-three-days_1044440 Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but these 70-80 killed refer to all of south Lebanon, "mainly in Bint Jbeil and Marun Al-Ras", during the three day period (26-29 aug). I already have that covered by an IDF-quote claiming 40 killed in Bint Jbeil in this period. These real time announcements probably have little information value (from either side - Hezbollah was also claiming to be killing the Israelis by the dozens during this time). In the middle of a chaotic night-time battle you simply have no idea how many of the enemy you have hit, much less killed, - unless you actually defeat them and can count the bodies (I think the IDF "captured" 3-4 bodies in Bint Jbeil, thoughout the war). Even less so when they were killed by shelling from air and artillery. What I would like to have is an official, or semi-official, Israeli estimate for the whole battle, made after the war. Or, even better, a serious study made by academics. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah fatalities
Could someone explain to me how this section is not WP:OR?--Shrike (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no Original Research in the list of Hizbollah fatalities, just simple quotations from sources (apart from the transcription of names from Arabic). If you want to discuss the explanatory note please do so. I feel however that it is important to clarify (evident from the sources) that the lists of fatalities refer to locals killed in the 2006 war. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But what it has do with the battle?If it explicitly said that they not died in it?--Shrike (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source certainly does not say that they did not die in this battle. The majority of those who fought in the battle were locals. But Lebanese accounts often make no distinctions between the fighting in Bint Jbeil, Aynata, Aytaroun and Maroun ar-Ras but treat it as a single battle. Hizballah forces moved frequently between these locations during the war. Different Lebanese accounts mention at least 11 named Hizballah fighters who died in the battle but I believe that this number vastly understates the number of its fatalities.
 * As far as I know IDF did not release any official casualty numbers for this battle. The list of IDF fatalities is a minimum based fatalities that has explicitly been identified by the IDF as having died in Bint Jbeil (although most of them actually died in Aynata).Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the source didn't explicitly says they died in the battle it shouldn't be used we should bring Hizbollah claims to the box and IDF claims we have claim only for one part of the battle then for other part we can that the info wasn't realized.--Shrike (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I really do not understand your English. And I don't get your point. Most of the information of this kind is uncertain. Many of the local fighters of Aynata/Bint Jbeil also fought in Aytaroun and Maroun ar-Ras and we know the names of some who died there. Should I include footnotes in these cases? There are also two fatalities in the battle that were from other places in Lebanon. They are mentioned in the text but they are not included in the list. Should they be included as well?
 * We have a similar problem with IDF casualties. Several of the IDF fatalities at Maroun ar-Ras were killed by missiles fired from Bint Jbeil. So in which battle should they be included? There are also IDF fatalities from the end of the war where the IDF - to my knowledge - did not publish the details of where they died. Several IDF soldiers were also killed in a place called "Rajamin" which I can't locate on any map. So there is uncertainty about IDF fatalities as well. We have to use the best available information.
 * I suggested some time ago (see Talk page above) to merge this article with that of Battle of Maroun al-Ras. I did not receive any response to this suggestion. Maybe that would solve your problem? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My problem and the problem of this article would solved if you would use WP:RS that say how many are dead from each side if such information is not provided by WP:RS those field should be left blank.--Shrike (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah vs. Islamic Resistance
Hezbollah is a political movement with military, political, social and religious activities. The Islamic Resistance is the armed wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has hundreds of thousands members while the Islamic Resistance only has several thousands. The Israeli government is trying to confuse this point by discussing Hezbollah fatalities instead of Islamic Resistance casualties. According to Israeli Daily Yediot Achronoth the MAIN explanation of the difference between Israeli and Lebanese estimates of the number of Hezbollah fatalities w<as the DEFINITION of Hezbollah. Official Israeli accounts include non-combatant Hezbollah members, such as mayors, nurses, teachers, public workers or bankers.

Its like discussing Zionist vs. Non-Zionist casualties on the Israeli side, instead of IDF vs. civilian casualties. There is a fundamental difference between the 15 Israelis killed in Bint Jbeil and those eight killed in the Haifa railway station on 14/7-06. EVEN IF all of them where "reserve soldiers on leave", they were NOT combatants at the time of their death.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COMMONNAME almost all of the sources talk about Hezbollah even in this article and don't make differentiation between different wings of this terror organisation.--Shrike (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The important point is to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Lebanese sources discussing Lebanon war casualties generally make a distinction between civilians and fighters ("resistors", muqawimoun). Israel is trying to blur this line. There is no reason why Wikipedia should adhere to this policy. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't use Lebanese sources as reference point but what most of the sources use the rest of your statement is WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We should always use correct and clear language. Hezbollah is a political party that has a military wing officially called the Islamic Resistance. Israel makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants in its war against Hezbollah. When Israel claims to have killed a Hezbollah member that could mean an armed combatant or it could mean a nurse in a Hezbollah-run hospital or a journalist working for Hezbollah TV station al-Manar. According to Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth the difference between Israeli and Lebanese accounts of Hezbollah fatalities in the Lebanon war (700 and 300 respectively) was mainly explained by the distinction made by the Lebanese between "combatant" and "civilian" members of Hezbollah.

http://www.ynet.co.il/yaan/0,7340,L-799018-Nzk5MDE4XzE3NTE2NzU0Nl8xNDg2ODcyMDAeq-FreeYaan,00.html
 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read WP:COMMONNAME?--Shrike (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

List of fatalities
A list of fatalities does not contravene WP:NOTMEMORIAL:

"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."

I was the one who introduced the list of fatalities and I have to relationship, however remote, to any of the dead soldiers.

Almost every article in Wikipedia on terrorist attacks in Israel has such a list of fatalities. If you want to gain credibility for your claim please remove all these list first. The real reason why some people want to do away with list of fatalities in articles about the Lebanon war is because they want to manipulate the real number of IDF fatalities.

We saw it recently when Jiujitsuguy first deleted the list of names claiming "excessive detail" and then later lowered the number from 15 to 14. Soon some anonymous contributor will lower it to 8, as was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil&diff=479307587&oldid=479018846

As long as we keep a list of names it will be very difficult to manipulate the statistics, as was the case with almost every Wikipedia article about Lebanese battles 6 months ago. If you claim that fewer than 15 soldiers died in the battle of Bint Jbeil you have to tell us who of these 15 soldiers did not die in Bint Jbeil.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Flayer (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A list of fatalities does not contravene this policy. It is standard in Wikipedia articles. Please explain why the battle of Bint Jbeil is differentJokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE anyhow please explain how its not contravene the policy--Shrike (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Disinformation
1) I have removed the inaccurate claim, introduced by Jiujitsuguy (talk) that Israel conquered Bint Jbeil and that the outcome of the battle somehow is disputed, since both sides claim victory. IDF never conquered the town and Hezbollah never withdrew from it. Hezbollah indeed claimed victory but Israel certainly did not.

No serious source claims that Israel ever occupied Bint Jbeil during the 2006 war. The Winograd report specifically points out that the town was never occupied (p. 364 and 368) as does the Knesset website: http://www.knesset.gov.il/lexicon/eng/Lebanon_war2_eng.htm

This is also confirmed by Mathews (p. 47).

There are no indications that IDF forces ever advanced very far into the town. The first incursion was stopped at an olive grove in the outskirts of Aynata, the next door village of Bint Jbeil, while the “Battle of the flag” was stopped at the northern entrance of the town. Indeed the Winograd report concludes (p.375) that "the battle of Bint Jbeil" was no more than a series of clashes on the outskirts of the town.

Winograd Commission described the battle - in the words of Amos Harel - as a "colossal failure". http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/an-army-run-like-a-jungle-1.238477

Israeli military analyst Reuven Pedatzur called it a "knockout" and "defeat" for Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-day-after-how-we-suffered-a-knockout-1.195274

The former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz testified that it was "the most blatant non-achievement or failure" of the war. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/halutz-idf-s-greatest-failure-was-inability-to-end-war-quickly-stop-katyusha-rockets-1.220346 Jiujitsuguy is relying on a single source that cannot be described as a reliable source. Robert Werdine is an American and rather extremely pro-Israeli blogger who describes himself as "self-employed" and a student "pursuing advanced degrees in education and in Middle Eastern Studies". http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/robert-werdine/

Plus a few newspaper reporting that at the time credited the later thoroughly discredited Israeli claim to have "complete control" of the town by July 25.

2) I have also removed the claim of 80 Hezbollah fatalities. This was included for many years in this Wikipedia article but no one has ever been able to provide a source for it, so it was removed. Jiujitsuguy reintroduced it and gave the blogger/student Werdine as the source. He in turn provided no source for this number (although he provided footnotes for other claims in the article) and he most probably took it from the old version of this Wikipedia article. If somebody can provide a more credible source for this number, please feel free to include it again.

Instead I have included an estimate of “dozens” Hezbollah fighters taken from Dr. Ehrlich’s study. This semi-official Israeli study was “privileged to enjoy the cooperation of every potential source of information in Israel” (according to the introduction, p.3). If they couldn’t come up with a more precise estimate I can’t understand how Mr. Werdine ever could. Or anybody else - outside Hezbollah - for that matter.

3) I have restored relevant and sourced material deleted by Jiujitsuguy and in some cased fixed dead links. I have even provided a source for the “joyous audience” formulation.

The quote from Nasrallah is highly relevant for this article for two reasons. It explains Hezbollah’s determination of getting it’s prisoners back. The anger this statement provoked in Israel was a major reason – according to many observers – why it targeted Bint Jbeil in the first place, thereby walking into Hezbollah’s trap.

I refuse however to add a source to the claim that Bint Jbeil was a center for the resistance during the occupation, since this statement is not the least controversial. If you somehow disagree we me, here are some sources that you can use. Please feel free to add any or all of them. You can choose between Washington Post, Yediot Achronoth, Daily Mail, CS Monitor and Washington Times. All of them explain – with virtually identical formulation – that Bint Jbeil earned the title Capital of the Resistance “because it was a center for Hezbollah guerrilla action against Israel during the Jewish state's 18-year occupation of the south, which ended in 2000.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3969374,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073101356.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320572/Ahmadinejads-controversial-visit-Lebanons-border-Israel.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/14/ahmadinejad-addresses-rally-near-israels-border/?page=all

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1014/Ahmadinejad-taunts-Israel-from-border-with-Lebanon

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Qana
Qana incident again is added though sources don't mention the battle in any way.So its clear case of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to promote WP:POV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Shrike, Please stop sabotaging the article and start contributing to it. You have removed uncontroversial info in the article by claiming it unsourced and yet again removed it when sources were provided for it, on a flimsy excuse that it is WP:SYNTH AND WP:OR AND WP:POV. Then you tag the entire article as OR. Then you again remove the whole paragraph. And never do you even attempt to explain how sourced info could be construed as Original Research or which non-neutral point of view it is promoting.


 * The paragraph on the Qana strike is essential for explaining events in battle of Bint Jbeil. Israel declared a unilateral halt of all airstrikes in southern Lebanon. Since Bint Jbeil is situated in southern Lebanon the suspension also applied here. This is not controversial at all; it is confirmed by numerous other sources and is not disputed by anybody. I have therefore expanded the text to clarify the text. There is no Original Research here and no neutrality issue.


 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If its "essential for explaining events in battle of Bint Jbeil" then WP:RS would mention it in this context but they don't.Many things have source but it doesn't mean we should include it in the article.These is clear breach of policy and the first time.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain what is your problem. We know from many sources that Israel attacked a civilian building in Qana that killed many civilians, including children. We also know from many sources that this prompted the Israeli government to declare a unilateral 48 hours suspension of air attacks in southern Lebanon, to allow for an investigation of the massacre, as well as the evacuation of remaining civilians in southern Lebanon. This presumably included Bint Jbeil, since Bint Jbeil is in fact situated in southern Lebanon. We also know from several sources that a cease-fire of sorts was observed in Bint Jbeil during this period and that this allowed for an evacuation of civilians from this town.
 * Is your point that since none of the supplied sources explicitly link the "specific" 48 hour suspension in Bint Jbeil to that of the "general" 48 hour suspension in southern Lebanon at the same time, then the former could be unrelated to the latter and the cease-fire in Bint Jbeil thus be unconnected to the Qana incident? If I supply a source that explicitly link the ceasefire in Bint jbeil to the incident in Qana, would then the paragraph be OK?
 * Or is your point that there is some sort of blanket prohibition of including ANY source that does not explicitly mention Bint Jbeil in the article about the battle of Bint Jbeil? Such a position seems to me to be completely ridiculous. Could you please supply support for this position.
 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The probelm is that if no source directly discusses the Qana attack or subsequent respite in the context of the battle for Bint Jbeil, then connecting the two, as you are doing, is original research and synthesis. Indication of this original research are phrases like "This presumably included Bint Jbeil". We do not presume here - we find sources that make this explicit connection, And if we can't we don't add them based on our analysis. They think it&#39;s all over (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can´t be serious? Are you really suggesting that the Israeli suspension of air attacks on Bint Jbeil was unconnected to the general suspension of air attacks on southern Lebanon? Without any support in sources?
 * Most importantly, we must have Shrike's opinion. He is the one responsible for sabotaging the article. I believe he has a much more radical interpretation of Wikipedia rules. Take an example. On July 24 a Merkava IV tank was destroyed by a mine in Bint Jbeil. I strongly believe that according to Shrike, adding a comment explaining that the Merkava IV was ”a 65 tonnes heavy battle tank with a 120 mm main gun”, based upon a source that does not mention at all the battle of Bint Jbeil would be "Original Research"? Conceivably the Merkava IV tanks that took part in the battle could be of a different kind than the standard model. Let's have Shrike deny this interpretation before proceeding.
 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not accept your logic. Of course they are related. It is simply ridiculous to suggest otherwise. But here is a source that actually links the two events:
 * "As Israel announced a 48-hour suspension of air strikes following the deadly attack on Qana, residents of Tyre and Bint Jbeil rushed to flee their houses and shelters." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/Aug/01/Survivors-flee-as-Israel-suspends-air-strikes-in-South.ashx#ixzz2GN2Mx25M
 * OK? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I am reverting recent disruptive edits made by Avaya1 (talk) on this and several other Wikipedia articles.

Avaya1 made 5 massive changes in 7 minutes to 2006 Lebanon War, then spent 2 minutes making changes on Operation Change of Direction 11, 1 minute on Battle of Bint Jbeil and a further 2 minutes on Battle of Ayta ash-Shab.

The changes were whole-sale deletions of all the additions made after a particular date, selected for unclear reasons. Some of the changes he deleted had been agreed upon by other editors in talk page discussions. A lot of well-sourced material has been deleted. In the case of Battle of Bint Jbeil meticulously added references has been deleted and replaced with. None of the changes were explained in summaries or in talkpages. Avaya1 has previously made intermittent contributions to 2006 Lebanon War but has not previously been involved in the editing of the other articles.

Any well-sourced addition to this article is welcome as are deletions if they are clearly explained in the talkpage. I return the page to where it was before Avaya1's deletions.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ayava1's changes
I have removed recent changes made by Avaya1 (talk) since they are only politically motivated and not supported by sources. The Hizbullah commander interviewed by as-Safir makes no mention of "casualties amongst Hezbollah reinforcements". The commander only said that 18 "sons of Bint Jbeil" and 14 "sons of Aynata" died as martyrs (as well as 18 civilians in Bint Jbeil).

Ehrlich did not claim that "A very large number" of Hizbullah fighters died in Bint Jbeil. He only claimed that "dozens" were killed clarifying that this was "a relatively high number considering the limited space." He similarly said that the IDF suffered "high number" of casualties.(p.79)

I have also corrected the page number reference in Ehrlich's study.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Winograd report says a "very large number", so we will quote it. The death toll on the Israeli side will follow WP:RS policy, and the project-wide use of death tolls from national governments for recent conflicts. Ehrlich doesn't say anything useful for the subject, but we can quote him as himself (and not as 'Israel'). The Hezbollah commander only mentions the two groups of local fighters, and not the group of non-local fighters who came as re-inforcements, who we know there were additional causalties amongst. Therefore the commander's quote refers only to local fighters - and we could re-phrase it to make that clear, since that is all that the source supports.


 * The politically motivated edits made on here are apparently by you (the article already seems have quite a POV, which if anything needs to be more balanced). I will work more on it in the future. Avaya1 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Strength of IDF
The strength of the IDF is listed in Brigades, and Battalions. I cannot find any reliable sources on the actual strengths of the Israeli Battalions, as the 101st Unit seems to have a strength of only 50 men. Could we add an estimate to the Israeli strength in the battle? Hasan Kheireddine (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Result
The initial and end target was not to capture the city.

“Initially, Israel had no intention to capture Bint Jbeil. Rather, the IDF sought to control the city from outside. Brigadier General Shuky Shachrur, the Northern Command’s chief of staff, said the plan was to raid specific targets based on intelligence.”

The result was accomplished and israel achieved victory, which was to raid specific targets and eliminate them. Sprmni (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Citations (19&20)
Citation 19 does not exist, as well as it was published by a left-party journalist and it is a lie. There was never such an intention.

Citation 20 does not represent the true intentions of the commander which named the operation “Web of Steel” - that means not to capture, but to “web” - to souround and slow the town so nobody can enter or retreat - and that was achieved. Sprmni (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Report references
This article references "Final Winograd Report" several times, but doesn't complete that reference. Is more information available -- an online source, an ISBN or DOI number, maybe? Why can't a full citation be provided? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Mikeblas please see Winograd Commission; Huldra (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one of the references at that article can you use to provide a usable reference here? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that the report is available in English; pinging User:Bolter21 and User:RolandR; they might know more, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the report was ever published in English. The site to which the article linked has been hijacked by spammers, so I have replaced the link to an archived version, where the full report (in Hebrew) is available as a pdf. It's over 600 pages long, so I'm not going to read it; but I'd be happy to check any of the specific references, if needed. RolandR (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2021
This entire piece was written by Hezbollah. It is not editorial, it is fictional. None of the sources mention the subjective writing in this section. Mtreston (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2023
At the end of the battle israel succeeded to conquer the town Davidreznov (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Israel succeeded to conquer the town Davidreznov (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2023
Davidreznov (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) I want to edit because there are many wrong things in the article and I can help to fix it
 * because there is nothing to do. You need to propose specific changes, with sources as appropriate, in the form "change X to Y", or "delete X" or "add X after Y" or something similar. You have proposed absolutely nothing. The purpose of an edit request is to propose constructive changes, not to air complaints. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The result of the battle
The result of the battle in the page isn't true. The Israeli troops succeeded to take the village and they succeeded to find the weapons Davidreznov (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose the wording you want to replace and cite a reliable source to back up your claim. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the plan was to raid the city find weapons and documents Davidreznov (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to read or fail to comprehend the previous comment? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Editor has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Result?
Just a question, why does it state that "Israel failed to conquer the town" instead of simply "Hezbollah victory"? Aren't those two things synonymous? If I'm wrong please do correct me. Haskko (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the result section of the military engagement infobox is meant to say that, not be descriptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey! Sorry if I'm disturbing you but someone changed the result to "Indecisive" when it used to say "Israel failed to conquer the town". Also there are many sources that state this was a Hezbollah victory, that I can provide if you want. Could you please change it back since I don't have enough edits to change it. Haskko (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources, then please provide them, because sourcing on this is weak. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/15/israelandthepalestinians.syria1
 * Source 82 of the Article
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20060921034621/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1218814,00.html Haskko (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wipe from the air"
On 18 July, I removed the following claim, sourced to this Haaretz link:

"According to a newspaper reports, Chief of Staff Dan Halutz at one time demanded that Bint Jbeil be "wipe[d] out from the air " but the demand was rejected by the defence minister."

The article, which is a book review and not a news article, says instead:

"...Peretz realized there was no real purpose behind the chief of staff's demand to escalate air force operations (in order to wipe out Bint Jbail from the air, for example)"

This is a fundamentally different meaning and it is mendacious to pervert the link's language, which shouldn't be included in this situation anyway. This source absolutely does not support Halutz making such an incendiary statement, and it is especially reckless to do in Wikivoice.

On 29 July, @Jokkmokks-Goran reverted the removal (with no edit summary). I will remove this statement, unless @Jokkmokks-Goran can explain themselves here. Longhornsg (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The text takes some liberties, but are there any broader issues with the quote from the newspapers? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. AGF and not to put words in your mouth, but reads to me like you don’t see a problem that an editor distorted a quote to say something different than the RS, and in a way that defames a living person? In a topic so contentious, Im absolutely not inclined to allow editors to “take some liberties”. Longhornsg (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I misread it. I see it's not part of a quote. Weird thing to insert in square brackets. Go ahead and remove it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)