Talk:Operation Accountability

Untitled
Agree with NPOV concern raised by prior editor. References should also be cited. "No reports have shown that any armed man from the Lebanese resistance was killed during this operation." is a non-NPOV statement that seems unverifiable - it is however falsifiable. It would also be a good idea if someone were to review records as to whether the various territorial claims are disputed or undisputed, such as "occupying ten percent of Lebanon by that time" and "still keeping Shebaa farms and some other areas all across the borders." GRBerry 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with GRBerry on the need to include references. I will try to include some references in two weeks after I get done with my exams. However, the ten percent figure is approximate and I think the actual percentage is slightly greater than ten. Israel occupied around 1100km2 of a total area of 10452km2. As for reports on casualties among armed men, it would be very difficult to find some references but I will check in the media that reported on that operation. (a_rihani) 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I really know nothing about the situation, is there a term for the disputed territory that we could wiki-link to like Golan Heights or something? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Shebaa farms" is capitalized in the article. We have a wiki page for it.  According to that page, there is a four-sided dispute as to which country that region belongs to (UN says Syria, Lebanon says Lebanon, Isreal says Golan Hieghts (and then muddles which country that belongs to), and Syria says Lebanon but won't take formal measures to transfer from Syria to Lebanon.  I'm going to attempt an edit to reflect the confusing state of this situation.  GRBerry 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just did a major edit to improve accuracy, cite more external sources, improve NPOV status, and cross-link to more other Wikipedia pages. GRBerry 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Article looks good, I'm a little wary on "Both sides in the conflict violated the laws of war." unless we're able to explain how each side did - plus placed at the beginning of that operation, it makes The operation destroyed infrastructure and civilian targets, such as electrical transformers and bridges, and resulted in 300,000 civilians displaced sound like it was equally Lebanese and Israeli action, which from my brief understanding, it wasn't. Glad to see an estimate of Hezbollah casualties (fatalities, I assume?), any chance on civilian deaths (if any)? Looking good though, I just updated "history of lebanon" to "Military action in Lebanon" in the "See also" section :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Editing to make more clear where I got that. (Though I thought "deaths" made it clear that fatalities were stated.) Civilian deaths in Lebanon were also in that source. Found Israeli civilian deaths in another, albeit related, source. GRBerry 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

a_rihani, how do your edits of this morning contribute to having a Neutral Point of View]?  As to the sentence beginning "However, Hezbollah declared..."  If we are to have one sides explanation of why its violation of the laws of war is justified, we need the other, and probably both should be set in a paragraph following the explanation of how each violated the laws of war.  This is to my eyes a clear step away from a NPOV.  Describing the forces involved could be another way of enhancing the article, but again both sides should be described.  We should probably both take a look at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to guide us in building out the article.  GRBerry 09:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done a few modifications this morning but did not have time to comment here. I agree with GRBerry point of view and I suggest that we write each sides justification for attacking civilian targets because it is very important. I did not find it appropriate to remove the destruction of houses in the South of Lebanon so I put it back. Is there any reason for removing it? I have also done some modifications to the civilian casualties. I have also added a description of the cease-fire agreement and added some more to the Taif Agreement para. By the way, I find mentioning Taif Agreement a move away from the scope of the article but I do not mind including such facts.

I suggest that we keep a log of the modifications to the article.

(a_rihani) 10:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment on the statement 'all of which is south of the Blue Line'. The Blue Line is the demarcation line for Israeli troops withdrawal and it is not a border line as written in the Blue Line page. I think we need to make it more obvious. In fact, Lebanon claims land in three spots along the Blue Line in addition to Shebaa farms. I can find some resources on this issue. (a_rihani)12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I was making a significant rewrite this morning, and got caught in an edit conflict because a user from 62.8.126.134 made changes while I was working on my draft. And my baby woke up, so I couldn't resolve and made no edit here. That draft is currently on my user talk page. I'll remove it from there once I get a chance to rework it with the more recent contributions, possibly tonight or over the weekend. Though I think a_rihani has already incorporated the sense of some of my draft revisions - thanks.

One of the reasons the Taif agreement is relevant is that the background to the event is relevant. See WikiProject Military history for a good suggestion as to what content we should include. As to the comment on the Blue Line page - if you think that isn't correct, go work to revise that page :-). GRBerry 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a major reedit, primarily working in the material referenecd above, but also sectioning the article. GRBerry 21:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job GRBerry. I have added a few things today and moved some text around. Still need work on citations. A rihani 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just edited to bring the SLA history in line with what is on the page for that organization. This page is starting to look fairly complete. Does it still deserve the stub tags? I'm not sure.

Also, as to an earlier comment above about keeping a record of changes, the history page (at the top) does that automatically. GRBerry 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with what was written about SLA funds. I edited that section and added some references. I've also put a comment on SLA page. I think we should add some pictures and complete the citations and we'll call it a day :) --A rihani 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sherurcij has deleted some of my last modifications. I think that the 10% figure gives the reader a good idea on the situation. We can also add names. As for the SLA members who fled to Israel, have you looked at the reference before modifying it? It is a US official report stating that "The Government initially held incommunicado most of the 3,000 SLA personnel who surrendered to authorities following the IDF's May 2000 withdrawal". This refutes the current statement! --A rihani 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The IDF's May 2000 withdrawal has nothing to do with Operation Accountability, just like paragraphs about other Arab-Israeli conflicts doesn't belong. If you can add the name for the territory, go for it.  But this article should, with the exception of the brief "Historical background" section be about Operation Accountability.  It's not that the other information is "bad", it's just that it belongs in other articles, not here. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are lots of extra information that shouldnt be here at all. Anyways, I find the historical background a bit "not accurate". I will try to do some edits tomorrow after my exam. I will also get some pics. One more thing, I suggest that we remove the SLA sentence if you guys want to keep it like this in spite of its contradiction with the reference I have attached. --A rihani 21:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I probably included too much in the first passes at historical background and at outcome. I think outcome is closer to being in better shape - if we just keep the ceasefire, casualty, and ceasefire didn't last paragraphs, while eliminating the withdrawal paragraph, we'd be in better shape.  The SLA is ultimately quite peripheral to this operation, so we could get away with just referencing its actual involvement - the radio broadcasts.  I'd say we do need a better reference to the security zone.  I'll go see if I can find a good one sentence description.

Neutrality
Personally, I'm in favour of removing the warning - I think it's a good example of an article where a handful of editors have all kept each other in check, and there's nothing Pro-Israeli, Pro-Lebanon, Pro-Syria, or anything else still evident in the article. But I'd like to hear if there's consensus on removing the tag, from Berry and Rihani first :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm ready to take down both the NPOV warning and the Stub markers GRBerry 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Images
Looking for an image or two would be nice - I find Israeli cobras during the operation on the IAF website, but hopefully one of you can find better :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my default behavior on seeing images in a web page is to assume it is an ad and try to block it out of my mental view. So I really don't care much about images.  Yes, I can see why it might be good to have one or two - I think a good one to have would be of a damaged village, but unless a reputable source states that it is from this operation, we shouldn't use it. GRBerry 00:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New Historical Background Section
I can't find a good one sentence way of including a bit about the Israeli Security Zone in the background section without a bit of rewriting. I'm going to put the old and new versions here, and if I don't get any feedback I'll put the new one up in a day or two. (What is truly disappointing is that I can't find even a good one sentence description of the zone in any of the Wikipedia articles, never mind one that would fit here - and the article on the zone itself has been tagged for cleanup since October 2005.)

Existing
During the Lebanese Civil War, Hezbollah was among several militant groups formed in response to the the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. Though chiefly funded by Iran, and later Syria, Hezbollah was believed to be receiving refuge from Lebanon.

When the Taif Agreement was created, it amended the Lebanese constitution to end the civil war, and disband all Lebanese militias. Argument then arose over whether Hezbollah's existence in Lebanon displayed a failure of the government, a blind eye, or clandestine support. Hezbollah themselves claimed that the Taif's statement that it would continue to oppose Israeli occupation meant that as a "resistance group", they were actually protected by the agreement. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah security general, also declared that while the Taif Agreement was a cessation of the Lebanese Civil War, Hezbollah had never involved itself in that war, and only existed to fight the foreign troops stationed in the country.

In late June 1993, Hezbollah launched rockets against an Israeli village, and the following month attacks by both Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine killed five Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers inside the disputed territory. These actions are generally considered to have been the catalyst for Operation Accountability.

New
During the Lebanese Civil War, attacks lauched from Lebanon on Israel became severe enough that in 1982 Israel invaded southern Lebanon. At the end of the invasion, they partially withdrew to a security zone varying in width from 4 to 12 kilometers along the border with Israel. Hezbollah was among several militant groups formed in response to the Israeli invasion. Though chiefly funded by Iran, and later Syria, Hezbollah was believed to be receiving refuge from Lebanon. When the Taif Agreement was created, it amended the Lebanese constitution to end the civil war, and disband all Lebanese militias. Argument then arose over whether Hezbollah's existence in Lebanon displayed a failure of the government, a blind eye, or clandestine support. Hezbollah themselves claimed that the Taif's statement that it would continue to oppose Israeli occupation meant that as a "resistance group", they were actually protected by the agreement. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah security general, also declared that while the Taif Agreement was a cessation of the Lebanese Civil War, Hezbollah had never involved itself in that war, and only existed to fight the foreign troops stationed in the country.

In late June 1993, Hezbollah launched rockets against an Israeli village, and early the following month attacks by both Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine killed five Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers inside the disputed territory. These actions are generally considered to have been the catalyst for Operation Accountability.

GRBerry 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The above section is obsolete, I have no further plan to make that edit given how the article has evolved. GRBerry 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Civilians
Disputed text:
 * Israel agreed to end its attack against Lebanese civilians and Hezbollah agreed to limit its military operations against the Israeli occupation in Lebanon

I see no support for the idea that Israel was "attacking Lebaneses civilians". As I understand it, Israel was shooting back at military forces who were attacking Israeli civilian areas. The attackers in Lebanon launched their attacks from areas heavily populated with civilians, thus using those civilians as human shields.

Perhaps the article text should say,
 * Israel agreed not to launch counter-attacks, when missiles or artillery are launched from staging areas surrounded by a dense civilian population, to avoid collateral damage.

In any case, the link I followed (upi-breaking) is apparently outdated, so we need a better source for whatever Israel actually said.

Also, is/was there an Israeli occupation of Lebanon? I may be lost in the murky corridors of memory on this one, but I thought the Hezbollah attacks were aggressive nature, not attempts to repel occupiers. (Unless they are using a novel definition of "occupation".) --Uncle Ed 15:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the blue link in your last paragraph starts to cover that question. Israel never occupied the entire country, but did for almost two decades occupy a portion of the country; see that blue-link and Israeli Security Zone.


 * Since the disputed text is in fact a quote from Global Security, I put it into quotation marks and said a bit more about the source of the quote. I don't recollect the upi-breaking Washington Post article, but since we can quote someone that seems a reasonable solution to me.  In fact, as an oral agreement, that is probably all we can do.  Better would be to quote the oral agreement, but I haven't been able to find any reliable source that offers such a quote.  So we are left with a need to use somebody else's statement of what the oral agreement was.


 * The currently used Human Rights Watch source in the prior section, and the other sources that I've found, agree on the general terms of the agreement. (The HRW source uses two paragraphs to discuss it and interweaves a lot of opinion on later behavior into that paragraph, so isn't suitable for direct quoting.)  I can't find a source that would support the proposed alternative text, so I don't think we should change to that.  We might be able to structure better text using the HRW source; open it and Ctrl-F find the word "contract" to get to the relevant section.


 * I'm sure that what I've done is an improvement, but not certain it is the best possible. Is it good enough to remove the POV flag?  GRBerry 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLA patch.png
Image:SLA patch.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Renamed to 1993 Lebanon war
As per WP:MILMOS, as this has two equally valid names from both sides. A factual representative name is the best alternative in this case.--Cerejota (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Documents at Amnesty International
The primary source is used, though the original link used in the article is dead. I wonder whether "original research" is used. --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)