Talk:Israeli Security Zone/archive

Problems with this page
First, I'm not really sure that this page is necessary. All the information is either handled (and handled better) in a variety of other more specific pages. Second, the page almost amounts to the definition of a term rather than a description of anything specific.

If this page is to stay, the description needs to be greatly improved. At a minimum the South Lebannon Army/"Free Lebanon"'s role in the security zone needs to be worked in. The reason Israeli losses were as low as they were is because the SLA was doing most of the dying for them.64.12.117.8 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article appears to reflect the personal opinion of the author/editor.

Purpose of the zone

 * unencylopedic text. Also, there's no "chicken and egg" issue here. The attacks started long before Israel occupied any area of Lebanon; the PLO fought from there against Israel's very existence

I'm not sure what is "unencyclopedic" about my addition to the intro. You acknowledge that the PLO fought from Lebanon against Israel. This would explain Israel's motive to "respond" with a security zone.

The chicken and egg issue concerns PR from the two sides. Hizbollah said it was "responding" to Israel, and Israel said it was "responding" to Hizbollah and company. The dispute over who is the aggressor and who is "fighting back" is what I meant by chicken and egg; I ought to have been more clear, I guess.

To be neutral, we must state both sides: not just the pro-Israel side (I am pro Israeli). We must also state the Hizbollah or other anti-Israeli side.

I tried to do this in the intro. --Uncle Ed 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "unencyclopedic" mainly referred to your last paragraph - "What is confusing about the issue is the chicken and egg problem of which was the provocation and which was the response. Did Israel establish the security zone in response to terrorism, i.e., as a defensive measure? Or did the anti-Israeli forces mount attacks on Israel in response to the invasion, i.e., to repel an act of aggression?". This is written in the tone of a text book, or a newspaper article. Asking questions and the likes is not very encyclopedic.
 * There's no chicken and egg issue here - the attacks were one-sided, and no one tried to dispute that. The PLO was launching terrorist actions on Israel before it entered Lebanon, for the purpose of "freeing Palestine" (mainly the territories captured in 1967, though the PLO was established in 1964, and refused to accept Israel's existence at all).
 * Hizballah was established in 1982, after Israel entered Lebanon, to fight it there, supposedly (and also to establish an Islamic republic in Lebanon). During the 1982 war the PLO was banished from Lebanon to Tunisia, but some of them remained. Israel then reckoned it should remain in Lebanon to prevent the PLO and other groups from returning there. Hizbollah grew in respond to that situation, using it as it's casus belli against Israel.
 * The zone was kept after Israel withdrew from the rest of Lebanon, and was against all kinds of incursions. Before the war there were plenty of terrorist actions against Israeli civilians, not just against school children. The zone was kept also to prevent Katyhusha and mortar fire against the northern towns.
 * I find your intro is misleading, and in some details just wrong. While we could use a good intro for this article, your current formulation isn't that good, and we're better off without it (sorry). okedem 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

South Lebanon security belt
I've come across the above article, which appears to cover a similar or identical topic to this one. I'm not sure which is the better title, but as this article is the older and more developed, I've proposed that article be merged here. Either way, they should probably be merged into one article. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)