Talk:Lebanon/Archive 6

Reasons for revert

 * Israel waged its war against Lebanon. CNN.com states "The Israeli Cabinet authorized 'severe and harsh' retaliation on Lebanon after Hezbollah guerillas kidnapped two soldiers and killed three others in a cross-border raid Wednesday.".

The Encarta Dictionary (2006) defines "siege" as:
 * Definition of siege:
 * 1) military operation: a military or police operation in which troops or the police surround a place and cut off all outside access to force surrender
 * 2) prolonged effort: a prolonged effort to gain or overcome something
 * 3) tiresome period: a prolonged and tedious period

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines "siege" as:
 * 1) military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender
 * 2) a persistent or serious account

It doesn't seem like the usage of the word "siege" in the article text is an "inaccurate description of Israeli operations in Lebanon." In fact, it seems like the perfect word for the Israeli operations in Lebanon. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also managed to dig up these two quotes which explicitly state that Israel held Lebanon fully responsible for the attack and that its war was directed against it.

I want to make it clear: This morning's events were not a terrorist attack, but the action of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason and without provocation. The Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions. &mdash;PM Olmert Israel views the government of Lebanon as responsible for today’s unprovoked aggression. &mdash;FM Livni

I hope this clarifies things more. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for making changes without posting first. I am a new user and was unfamiliar with the discussion board.


 * If this is the working definition of "seige," then I think we can agree that the residents of Northern Israel were placed under siege during the war as well. I therefore ask that a statement be added to the effect that at the same time as Israel placed "three million civilians under siege," Lebanese militants did the same to one million Israeli citizens. After all, Hezbollah engaged in a "prolonged effort to gain or overcome something," didn't they? Objectively, this wording should be extended to Hezbollah, and not just to Israel.
 * In addition, neither of the following quotations shows open war against Lebanon, only condemnations. If condemnations were open war, just about every country in the world would be at war with just about every other country. The sources do not in any way state that Israel declared open war against Lebanon.


 * I have two complaints regarding the way that this article is used [CNN.com]:


 * (1) The article is innacurate in its claim that Hezbollah demanded "direct negotiations" with Israel, since Hezbollah agreed to work only through indirect negotiations (as clearly stated in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article). If the article can confuse the word "indirect" with a word that means the exact opposite, surely it is possible that the nuanced difference between war in Lebanon and war on Lebanon could be missed as well. Another source should be used, or the terminology changed.


 * (2) The article does not state that a declaration of war against Lebanon was made. In fact, the word "war" does not appear in the article even once. It discusses a "severe and harsh" retaliation, the laying of blame with the Lebanese government and similar--certainly unpeaceful--actions on the part of Israel. But no declaration of war against Lebanon is mentionned in the article, nor in any other source I have seen. I have only seen mentions of open war between Israel and Hezbollah. The Lebanese government was not party to the conflict, and the Lebanese people were not its target, but an unfortunate casualty, and therefore it can be deduced that Israel did not engage in open war against Lebanon. If you can find a reliable source that explicitely says Israel declared "open war" against Lebanon, I will gladly withdraw this comment. My primary complaint is not over the terminology used, but over the fact that there is not a credible source backing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.31.184 (talk • contribs)


 * It's OK. There's no need for apologizing; it's perfectly normal for beginning editors to be a little unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's "protocols". I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of rearranging your post. On talk pages, comments are "stacked" one over the other, with indentation to tell out the different posts. Now on to my replies:
 * I guess we now agree that seige is not misused. As for saying that Hezbollah placed Northern Israel under seige, then I would have to say that, linguistically, this might not be so well justified. You argue that according to the definition I provided, Northern Israel was indeed under "seige". However, I believe this is not valid because:
 * Using seige within a military context means that the only correct definition is the first. As you can very well notice, both sources provide the dominant military-context definition as well as the definition of the word in different contexts (obvious through the use of vague, generalizing tone).
 * If you still want to use "seige" because it is (indeed) a correct word for what Hezbollah did under the second definition, then we can't possible use the same word to mean something different in the same sentence (i.e. saying that Hezbollah placed Northern Israel under seige and that Israel placed Lebanon under seige). Any reader who doesn't have previous knowledge will certainly confuse the two terms.
 * I don't understand your objection to the wording of the sources. "Lebanon is responsible and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions" is not clear enough? PM Olmert is not merely condemning Lebanon, he is explicity holding it responsible and declaring that Lebanon will bear the consequences. But aside from these declerations, I can't understand why you would say the war was not waged against Lebanon, but against Hezbollah. It's as if you are detaching Hezbollah from Lebanon. Hezbollah has always been a Lebanese party (Iran-backed, but still Lebanese). This is similar to how the US waged war on Iraq even though the intent was ending the standing regime and neutralizing the WMD threat (or at least what they thought where WMDs). Afghanistan is yet another example. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the ramifications of what Hezbollah did in Northern Israel and what Israel did in Southern Lebanon were the same (though the scale was not identical by far). Therefore to say that Israel placed three million Lebanese under seige (I'm paraphrasing here), while Hezbollah did the same to one million Israelis would not confuse any readers, in my opinion.
 * Holding Lebanon responsible for the terrorist attacks and threatening to turn the clock back on it twenty years are both very aggressive choices of words, but they don't constitute a declaration of war against Lebanon. Although Hezbollah is represented in the Lebanese government, it is an opposition party. The war was not conducted against the Lebanese government, but against Hezbollah, a totally seperate organization. If you can find a declaration of "open war" against Lebanon from a reliable source, I will withdraw this complaint. But, as far as I am aware, there was no fighting between Lebanese governmental forces and the IDF. There may have been isolated scuffles (of that I'm not sure), and it is true that Israel inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally, but claiming error) bombed several locations in which Lebanese soldiers were present, resulting in Lebanese military deaths. There was no declaration of war by Israel against Lebanon, or the other way around, unless I am gravely mistaken. There was only a declaration of war against Hezbollah (and the other way around). The analogies of Iraq and Afghanistan do not apply, since the target in that case was the government. I have tried to think of an historical analogy to this, but I can think of no other case in which a country sent its military force into another with the purpose not of attacking the government, but of destroying an organization which the government is either unwilling or unable to disarm.
 * The bottom line: in order to justify the claim that Israel declared open war against Lebanon, one must find a reliable source which states that Israel produced a declaration of war against Lebanon. That is a very specific kind of document, and something which may seem similar to it does not amount to one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.31.184 (talk • contribs)


 * Can you please provide me with a copy of the document in which Israel declares open war on Hezbollah? &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/764960.html Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper): Israel declared war on Hezbollah.
 * http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1193942006 Ditto from the Scotsman.
 * http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/01/04/2003343322 The Taipei Times agrees.
 * http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=273&Itemid=1 Even the Palestine News Network agrees the war was declared on Hezbollah, not Lebanon.
 * http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/Cabinet+Communique+16-Jul-2006.htm Statement of the Israeli government: "Prime Minister Olmert emphasized that Israel is not fighting Lebanon but the terrorist element there, led by Nasrallah and his cohorts, who have made Lebanon a hostage and created Syrian- and Iranian-sponsored terrorist enclaves of murder."
 * www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071400385.html Hezbollah declares open war on Israel.
 * However, having read the Wikipedia article about the war in Hebrew, I saw that there was not declaration of war against either Lebanon or Hezbollah. There was only an authorization of hostilities (and that was against Hezbollah). Perhaps that is why, although I had spent a long time looking for a declaration of war, I could not find one. Maybe the sentence should be altogether ommitted, or replaced with an accurate one. I m dude2002 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)i m dude2002


 * I'm going to reply to you with your own logic: a decleration of war "is a very specific kind of document, and something which may seem similar to it does not amount to one."&mdash;though it very much seems that war has retired from the dictionary of military terms, to be replaced by the ever so gentle euphemism decleration of hostilities. Nevertheless, I see no reason for the article to cite one reference over another in order to give more credence to either proposition (especially when the two references are the same). I am open to your suggestions for improvement. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having taken a second look at the article, I recommend omitting "against Lebanon" only, which would leave the sentence as "The operation quickly developed into widespread open war as Israel's air force continued to bombard...". I think that's vague enough for it to be NPOV. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am glad that we could come to concensus. I m dude2002 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)i m dude2002
 * My feelings exactly :). &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am blocked from changing the wording at the moment. Can you as an editor do this? I m dude2002 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is currently fully protected (i.e. protected from editing by all editors). I have added the proposed change to the to-do list. Once the article is unprotected (which should be soon), you or I can apply the change to the article. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

debate body
I think Jaakobou is right. It is indeed Hezbollah that's claiming the Farms, not Lebanon. The second statement involving Syria, though, (while quite possibly true) is a little shaky. I suggest at least finding a better reference (Wikipedia obviously can't reference itself). &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t 


 * there's plenty of references to mixed comments made by syrian officials, not to mention the maps still in use in syria which incorperate ALL OF LEBANON unter the syrian flag. Jaakobou 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then! I do hope you can dig up one or two (comments, maps, ...) to use them as references, which will make your point stronger. Google will probably take care of most of the work. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hezbollah cites the Shebaa farms as a reason for their continued resistance/agression, but Lebanon also claims the region. From the Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978): "Concerning the Shab'a farmlands, Lebanon's position is that this area lies within Lebanon, and the Syrian position is that the farmlands are Lebanese." — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny how Syria didn't give the land to Lebanon while it was under Syrian administration, but only decided that the land was Lebanese once it fell into Israeli hands. Why wasn't it ceded to Lebanon before the 1967 War? De facto, the Syrian position prior to 1967 was that the Sheeba Farms belonged to Syria. I m dude2002 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)i_m_dude2002


 * Just a little note to George: the position of Lebanon has long since changed on the matter. You're probably aware of the "talk table" (as the Lebanese dub it). The objective of these negotiations was reaching a general consensus among Lebanese parties concerning issues of dispute. One of their top priorities was settling the issue of the Sheb'a Farms. Naturally, the negotiations failed miserably. As far as I know, Lebanon is currently divided between people who acknowledge the Sheb'a Farms as Lebanese and people who don't (including the residents of the Sheb'a Farms themselves, go figure). But my knowledge is restricted to "what's on the ground" rather than the acutal official stance of Lebanon, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have much knowledge on the ground, but I am aware of the meeting you mention and the dispute about the Shebaa farms (among other things if I recall correctly). However, if official Lebanese government policy (based on the Secretary General's report) is that the Shebaa farms is a part of Lebanon, then that is what we should go with – even if a number of the members of the government disagree. Disputes about the status inside the Lebanese government are entirely relevant to the Shebaa farms article itself, however. — George Saliba[ talk ] 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This wasn't exactly a contentious issue before the war in 1967, so there wouldn't have really been any impetus for Syria to cede the land prior to that, or possibly there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to notice the issue at all. After the Israeli invasion in 1978, there also wouldn't have been any reason for Lebanon to mention the Shebaa farms, as there were troops throughout the southern part of Lebanon. The real question is did Lebanon make any mention of the Shebaa farms between 1967 and 1978, and if not, why not? Even if it wasn't mentioned, it could be as simple as Lebanon refusing to officially recognize the state of Israel for all I know, but it should be researched. I think there's little doubt that the whole thing could be cleared up by Syria if it so chose, but doing so is (evidently) not in their best interest at present. Maybe they prefer a discontent Lebanon, or they're happy with it as an excuse for Hezbollah's attacks, or maybe they secretely lay claim to the region for themselves - who knows? Speculation aside, all we can really go with is the information put forth as official policy. — George Saliba[ talk ] 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Run
Jaakobou -

1) It is true that Lebanon also "desire" the region although, they do not "demand" the region from Israel or ask it directly in a diplomatic fashion - thus the claim should be attributed to Hezbollah who demand it directly and profess at times that they only fight for the "captured lebanese land" and many times they state that they will not stop "resisting" until all of "occupied palestine.. haifa.. jerusalem.. eilat...".
 * I don't believe that the article says anything about Lebanon "demanding" the Shebaa farms. It says "...Lebanon claimed that Israel still occupied... the 'Shebaa Farms'." You changed it to state that Hezbollah claimed the Shebaa farms, which, while true, is only part of the story. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

2) yes, Syria has posted that they wish Israel give the territory (to Lebanon?), however - In August 1972, Syrian president Hafez al-Assad said, "Syria and Lebanon are a single country." and here's a sample map of tourism from Aug 8 2006 !!! which includes the sheeba farms as Syrian territory - there's no denying that syrian officials (and Iranian also), not to mention hizbullah, love doublespeech... one minute they say "we have no desire for non peacful situations" and the next they say "death to america, death to israel... the great satan... the little satan... blah blah blah.. 'the zionists gah!' hatespeech".
 * There is nothing about the map you've provided that makes me think that is it in any way intended as a geographic map, let alone an official statement by Syria. The border is a complete estimation throughout. It looks like a hand drawn map used for highlighting where roadways are for tourists and not much else.
 * Hafez al-Assad is (was) entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't make it necessarily the official stance of Syria, then or now. It's also relatively irrelevant regarding the current reality of Lebanon and Syria being two different countries with a disputed region between them in a region, the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel.
 * I don't disagree that politicians the world over love doublespech, and extremists hate others, but I don't see that it has any relevance. We deal with facts here. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3) there's plenty of information and no need to apply that doublespeech here just because you've seen a syrian/hizbullah say "sure, israel should give the sheeba farms away"/"we resist for lebanon" - you can look up all the little links given here: and here: [memritv.org] just to see how hatespeech and doublespeech are a common denominator.
 * Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Give me a concrete statement that you feel is hatespeech or doublespeech and I'll try to respond to it. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

4) i'll try and find a little more time this weekend to add maps to the lebanese section, or maybe remove it somehow as a stub linked to the "sheeba farms" topic although it's there for anyone who wants to take a deeper read.

last note to lestat: please check all the links i add. when i submit a change to the main article i make sure i put in a nice number of serious references.

Jaakobou 08:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

summary
 Lestat deLioncour t  : I think Jaakobou is right (see also "talk table" negotiations failure), the second statement involving Syria, needs a better reference.

Jaakobou : Syria gives mixed signals (doublespeech) on the international front while keeping a (vauge?) position that sheba belongs to them; plus maps which incorporate the sheeba farms (and sometimes all of Lebanon) as Syrian territory.example: map of tourism from Aug 8 2006 !!!

George Saliba[ talk ] : Hezbollah cites the Shebaa farms as a reason for their continued resistance/agression, but Lebanon also claims the region. I think the whole thing could be cleared up by Syria if it so chose, but doing so is (evidently) not in their best interest at present.

I m dude2002 : Syria didn't give the land to Lebanon while it was under Syrian administration.

extras
Hezbollah claimed the Shebaa farms, which, while true, is only part of the story. — George Saliba[ talk ]
 * True, I should have written down that Hezbullah demands sheba and all of "occupied" Palestine in the name of the Islamic Nation (there's no real concern to nationality although they love to say "Hezbullah is Lebanon"). Jaakobou 07:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

conclusions?
Jaakobou: i think this issue has been resolved that until Syria gives new and valid information (not just decoys) - we should have (in the Lebanon article) the only positive information which is that Hezbullah are the ones claiming lands in the name of Islam (not in the name of Lebanon). After "they" recieve sheba (not bloody likely to happen without a Syria-Israel-Lebanon(?) peace agreement) then Muslims could squabble over who gets it Syria/Lebanon. A link to the sheba farms, for extra refrences and positions, should be attached. Jaakobou 07:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

George.Saliba: In my opinion, since reliable sources indicate that the government of Lebanon itself disputes the status of the Shebaa farms being inside Syria, we should state so. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou: i'm suggesting these changes:
 * 1) "but Lebanon claimed that Israel still occupied a disputed region called the "Shebaa Farms"" -> "but there was left a disputed region called the "Shebaa Farms""
 * 2) "this area and all of occupied Palestine were liberated." -> "this area and what they proclaim to be "occupied Palestine" were liberated."


 * I believe the first is sufficiently vague to be neutral. I feel the second is redundant, as the quotation marks around "occupied Palestine" infer that it is a proclaimation being made by Hezbollah, and not an absolute fact. However, if you feel strongly about favoring the redundancy I don't view it as a major issue. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 11:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to comment on something Jaakobou said: Hezbollah is not claiming the land in the name of Islam. Sunni Muslims are very opposed to what Hezbollah is doing. Furthermore, Hezbollah always been careful to tie its cause to partiotic purposes, and generally claims that it is fighting for Lebanon. It would be misleading to say "claiming lands in the name of Islam (not in the name of Lebanon)". As for the suggested edits, I'm fine with both, though the wording of the first has to be worked on. I also agree with George; it's redundant to say "what they proclaim to be" and still use the quotation marks. It's either one or the other. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  12:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lestat, I don't think you've been watching a lot of Nasrallah speeches.. he allways confuses Hezbulla with both Lebanon and "The Ummah" (i.e. the Islamic "Nation") regardless of anyone's agreement with his totalitarian BS (i.e. "secondary gouvernment" debate) ... as for the qoutation mark, it's so that there will be no confusion that his opinion is far from concensus.


 * last note: I think we can open this topic to make this change and move on to continue the debate on the other topics... if you have suggestions on a better wording for what we agreed on for the first suggestion, i'm open for other suggestions. Jaakobou 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The first sentence would probably look better like this: "The UN determined that the withdrawal of Israeli troops beyond the blue line was in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, although a border region called the Sheb'a Farms is still disputed today." I think that this change satisfies the "vague enough to be neutral" requirement (let my reluctant approval be noted&mdash;this is going to be objected on in FAC). If everyone agrees, please say so, and hopefully we'll have this debate archived today. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this version more, although I'd suggest leaving off the word "today", as it may be redundant with "still disputed". Your call. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're right. I'll wait and see what Jaakobou thinks before adding this to the to-do list. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * agreed (without today), issue 1 resolved. Jaakobou 10:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Issue 3: "Evil" PM:
No one said the Israeil PM is evil. But I understand what Jaakobou meant, and I support changing "Prime Minister Olmert" to "Israel" or "the Israeli Cabinet".


 * I'm not sure you understand fully, i find it ridiculous how each and every israeli elected leader regardless of the steps he has taken towards achiving a diplomatic peace with our close neighbours is portrayed as a child killing butcher who drinks dara cola... sure, taking pictures out of context and inflating situations is "fun" and "dandy"... but where does "figurative toungue" makes way to realism? .. small example of the bullshit i encounter: .. let me know when you find something similar about the guy who chanted "it is our duty to kidnap israeli soldiers".. and if you do, let me know when you find something like that about every arab leader who was "democratically elected".
 * Jaakobou 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get me started about the charade of "democratically elected" Arab leaders. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot quote a nation as making a statement. The "act of war" was quoted from a speech by the Israeli PM. If you intend to change the meaning to state that it was considered an act of war by the country of Israel itself, remove the quotes. If you keep the quotes, then it should be changed back to the citation of the Israeli PM. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the quote citing the Israeli PM to a general statement about Israel's official stance. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)