Talk:South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)/Archive 1

Result
Clearly, in terms of "result," we need to come up with something that is short but captures the complexity of the situation. Merely saying "Hezbollah victory" &mdash; as some people keep trying to do &mdash; is misleading, and there are multiple nuances to the situation: Hezbollah did not exist at the start of the conflict (being formed under conflict, just as the Taliban Movement was formed under conflict), the goals of the other parties weren't to control Lebanon, Israel's 1985 withdrawal from most of Southern Lebanon was part of the peace plan (and, as such, might be considered the proper start of the South Lebanon conflict), Israel's 2000 withdrawal wasn't a "retreat" in the sense that they weren't under fire, Hezbollah lied and/or broke their promise about their goal (claiming they would disarm after Israel left Lebanon, which the UN recognized in 2005 &mdash; see Shebaa Farms &mdash; then failing to do so), and, finally, because it is not clear, "Hezbollah victory" is a propaganda phrase of Hezbollah supporters. People will continue to deface the page with "Hezbollah victory," but I think those who want an accurate representation should agree on one.

Obviously I like my "result" best. That said, anyone who objects to my explanation (in use as of now), please speak up as to why. Also, why no mention of the roles of Syria and Iran, without whom Hezbollah could not have continued? Calbaer 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel's 2000 withdrawal was a retreat under fire. The situation was that the SLA positions (Shia Muslim) in the center of the zone collapsed. The day after, the SLA positions in the east (Druze) collapsed. At that point, the Israeli forces began destroying the remaining weapons of the SLA and quickly retreating (over perhaps two days) out of Lebanon. The leader of the SLA had previously deserted his own men and was hiding in France.


 * There are many conspiracy theories about what Israel may or may not have planned to do in June 2000. But they can't go on the page unless there are facts to back them up.


 * As far as Hezbollah lying or breaking promises, it depends on who you listen to. To say that they lied would be to take a POV side in the Shebba Farms dispute (which should not happen in this article). I agree that Hezbollah Victory is too strong a term but its not just a term used by Hezbollah supporters, it is also used by the far Israeli right who use it for their own propaganda purposes. My view is that only the basic facts should be on the page and that the very concept of "victory" has no place in the article.


 * It would however be proper to describe the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as being unplanned and chaotic including a clearer description of events such as the disintegration of the SLA. 168.127.0.51 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My view is that it may have been poorly planned, but it was not unplanned. I believe Barak campaigned on withdrawal, and, considering that it was a military operation, the year-long lag from election to action was to be expected.  The BBC has well-known biases on international issues, including an anti-Israel POV that comes across most clearly in issues such as the Battle of Jenin, so its blurb about the withdrawal may not be the best summary of the events.


 * As far as taking a POV in the Shebaa Farms dispute, it is mainly a matter of language, albeit an important one. For example, one could say, "The UN found that Shebaa Farms was not part of Lebanon.  Hezbollah's critics and other international observers cite this as evidence that Hezbollah's goal is not the liberation of Lebanon from Israel, but rather the control of Southern Lebanon in order to wage campaigns against Israeli soldiers and civilians."  Likewise, one could say that, "Supporters of Hezbollah and other international observers view the withdrawal as a retreat, due to the chaos that accompanied it."  Of course, I'd want cites, but those are just examples. Calbaer 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should keep the Results simple in the summary. Either it's a win loss or draw or whatever you want to call draw. In this case it was clearly a loss for Israel as they lost the buffer zone and their proxy army. You could suggest that they were planning to leave all along but I think it should provide citations to show this. Pocopocopocopoco 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had my change reverted so I've changed it to "widely considered hezbollah victory". If I understand the reasoning of why some people believe this was not a hezbollah victory, some people believe that Israel moved out of Southern Lebanon in order to get international support if Hezbollah continued with attacks on Israel. That reasoning sounds really shakey at best.


 * I wonder why don't we simply say "Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon" for the result? No victory for anyone? It would be a nice and neutral way to resolve the conflict. :) Tryst Nguyen 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that there was a conflict and that we had reached consensus. How exactly was this not a victory for Hezbollah? The old argument, if I recall, went something along the lines of "Israel withdrew from Lebanon and so Israel got more global sympathy went Hezbollah continued their war against Israel so therefore this is not a victory for Hezbollah". Please correct me if I am wrong. This doesn't sound like a valid reason for removing the fact that this was "Widely considered a Hezbollah Victory" and it says so in the body of the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that Israel no longer considered the buffer-zone necessary, as even in its widest point, it was still shorter than the range of Hizbullah missiles. Thus, since it did not afford northern Israeli border towns any security anyway, Israeli presence in Lebanon was deemed not only unnecessary - but damaging to Israel. Despite the two serious cross-border raids and shelling in October 2000 and Summer 2006, essentially this idea was correct. Barak was indeed elected on the campaign promise to withdraw from Lebanon within a year of his election. I disagree with the characterization of the withdrawal as 'chaotic'. You cannot telegraph your moves to your enemy, and it was not a situation to have all the soldiers dress fancy and leave with a marching parade. It was obvious any which way Israel would leave under fire, but it was certainly a well-planned operation, initiated on the Israeli side and not something HizbAllah can really take any credit for. It was the Israeli vote which determined Israel's withdrawal, not anything HA did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.49.233 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But if Israel was being damaged by Hezbullah in the buffer zone and it withdrew due to to the unpopularity of the war in the Israeli population (due to loss of life caused by Hezbullah's attacks) then it is clear that the withdrawl was a victory for Hezbullah. Another point you make is that the range of missiles of Hezbullah are greater than the the bufferzone hence it withdrew .Well this doesn't make sense cause if Israel withdrew then that would put more towns and cities in the range of those missiles. And another thing the chief ally in Lebanon for Israel was the SLA (Hezbullah's only military rival)and it collapsed due to this withdrawl. So due to this withdrawl Hezbulah gained more land ,put more cities in the range of its missiles,gained more popularity and support in the Lebanese and Arab public and got rid of their main rival militia and seized alot of their weapons so this should be considered a victory for Hezbullah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.167 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hezbollah had almost no military progress during the conflict. The Israeli withdrawal were a combined result of international pressure and a so-called peace plan. Hezbollah was meant to disarm after the Israeli withdrawal, but failed to do so because of the Sheeba Farms dispute. Although this was a clear propaganda victory for Hezbollah, it's hard to state that they won a military victory as well. The only clear losers was the PLO, the Lebanese Resistance Movement and the SLA. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually don't find it problematic seeing Hezbollah as the victor. I agree that Israel wasn't "forced to leave" in any strict sense, but at the end of the day Hezbollah did achieve its aim. Whether Israel didn't see the buffer zone as effective anymore isn't relevant, because either way, Lebanese militants were the reason behind this change of tactic. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

POV
the article is POV making it seems like the area was "simply occupied" and also by the excessive used word resistance etc. Amoruso 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Southlebanonfighting.jpg
Image:Southlebanonfighting.jpg 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 insure 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) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (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)

Insurgency?
I'm not sure that I agree with the title change to use the term "insurgency" when describing this period. Defining "insurgency":


 * From Princeton WordNet: an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict


 * From the Wikipedia entry on [Insurgency]: The common concept, in a wide range of definitions, is that it involves a desire for political power, achieved through means illegal under the rules of the existing government... Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.


 * From Wiktionary: rebellion; revolt; the state of being insurgent (where insurgent is defined as rebellious, opposing authority)

The issue with this term is that at no point was the Israeli occupation that Hezbollah fought against a "constituted government". Hezbollah wasn't trying to overthrow the Lebanese government, nor the Israeli government. For quite some time during this period, there was no central authority in Lebanon, or more than one group claimed to be the government of Lebanon, and often Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli occupation was not "illegal under the rules of the existing government", but instead endorsed by the government.

What about naming this article the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon (1982–2000)? This title would better match the existing article on the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. ← George [ talk  ] 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, seems a good rename to me. Rwendland (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose, insurgency is not only against government but also an occupying force -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While technically correct, you need to take into account other definitions of the word I think. One could call something a "great battle", but the term would often be avoided due to the multiple meanings for the word "great" (that is, something really good, or something really large). In the same way, defining this as an insurgency, while technically correct based on some definitions, seems misleading to me. ← George [ talk  ] 21:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it as a NPOV version of resistance. Guerrilla war would also be fine. Occupation isn't a good name for a military conflict, no? -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) oh, found one even worse-- TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to call an 18 year period with sporadic fighting once every few years, in which one of the parties was inhabiting an area that they did not have legal jurisdiction over, an occupation, before I would call said period an insurgency (given the status of the forces being fought against as "occupiers", rather than the established government in the country). I guess conflict is a suitably generic term for the period, however. ← George [ talk  ] 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is unsettling is that the page was moved without discussion. I have re-moved the page back to South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000).  It is far more neutral.  This is well established - see WP:Military History for links to hundreds of other articles which are titled as conflicts.  This is the most neutral way to phrase an article title.  Nimur (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, right, no discussion. To wait 5 months for someone to reply. Try reading WP:BOLD -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I have added a line to the first paragraph which specifies different terminology used to describe the conflict. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia which does not perform original research - it only reports what other sources have said.  If any editor wishes to add a terminology to describe this conflict, please do so in this way; the burden of proof is on the editor to properly cite who called the conflict a _____.  Nimur (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations has termed the 1982 "conflict" as the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. 1982 occupation of Lebanon.

In 1982 Lebanon was invaded, the Lebanese army was not at war with Israel. Israel was at war with PLO forces who are not Lebanese and the Lebanese who were also fighting with the PLO. 1982 invasion because Israel invaded Lebanon. And occupied Lebanon for a long time illegally, UN resolutions were sanctioned against this. So the correct term would be invasion and occupation we can shorten it to occupation as George has suggested but to simply say this was a conflict is misleading. The Lebanese did not have conflict with the Israelis. The Lebanese were invaded by the Israelis and then the conflict began between some Lebanese and the Israelis. The U.N. recognizes it as the invasion and occupation of Lebanon.


 * http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6823.html


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7381364.stm


 * http://en.allexperts.com/e/0/1982_lebanon_war.htm


 * http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_198x_backgd.php

Major George C. Solley
 * THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE IN LEBANON, 1982-1985

On 6 June 1982, the armed forces of Israel invaded Lebanon in a campaign  which,  although initially perceived  as  limited  in purpose,  scope,  and duration,  would become the longest and most controversial military  action in  Israel's  history.


 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/SGC.htm


 * http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060819.htm

40 KM INTO LEBANON: ISRAEL'S 1982 INVASION (Paperback) by M. Thomas Davis (Author)
 * http://www.amazon.com/40-KM-INTO-LEBANON-INVASION/dp/0788123343


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Jhqgg3rCHLMC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=israel%27s+invasion+of+lebanon+1982&source=bl&ots=lemnhAOegu&sig=IpIJwXfORks1XCsBCLhUUzDnblc&hl=en&ei=9ReESrH3BIS6NeLOpNQE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Lebanese bebe (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * we already have an article about the 1982 invasion -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted some major disruptive edits, such as those made by LebaneseBebe (who also just tried a unilateral page-move). His edits, which altered the tone and introduced some POV content, seriously hampered the quality of the introduction, especially to someone not familiar with the topic.  Nimur (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a biased article written by people who did not experience this occupation or war? 1982-2000 is the length of time that South Lebanon was occupied. You cannot call it conflict because they were not conflicted for 20 years they were occupied for 20 years and I will call an administrator right now because this is vandalism. Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a military conflict between the Lebanese army...it was a military conflict with random Lebanese people and Lebanese groups and non Lebanese. Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely familiar with the topic LOL. U did not even know that the name Hezballah did not exist until 1985. Lebanese bebe (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's inaccurate - I'm very well aware of the fuzzy origins of the resistance organizations. The problem was that the article's "Chronology" section had very inaccurate year labels.  I have fixed this problem and hopefully created a better flow.  Specific incidents should have their year and date clearly indicated; but overall, the separation of the article into a year-by-year breakdown does not make for a very readable (or accurate) depiction of the war.  Nimur (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Real Content
The title of the article does not match the contents. Most of the content focuses on the partial history of Hezbolla and not the actual events of the war. There are many missing facts related the confllict (like the resistance in Beirut, the Withdrawal of Israel from Mount Lebanon, 17 May accord, etc...) at the same time it focuses on Hezbolla as the only resistance (which is not true until 1003)... I recommend either change the title to something "Hezbolla Resistance Timelines (1984-2000)" and rework the content accordingly, or keep the title and include the actual events of the conflict. --AboluayTalk2me 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments related to Conflict - vs. Occupation

 * I copied these comments from User talk:Nimur, because they are more relevant here. Nimur (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really took my changes into consideration. This "conflict" ur describing was an occupation. They have titled the Syrian presence in Lebanon as an occupation on the wiki article. There is no difference between the occupation and invasion. The 1982 "conflict" became a conflict because WE WERE OCCUPIED AND INVADED. There would not have been a conflict if we were not occupied nor invaded. Merci :) Lebanese bebe (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lebanese Bebe. Thanks for voicing your concerns.  First of all, I'm well aware of the Israeli occupation, and I'm very much aware of the timeline.  However, the purpose of the encyclopedia article is to inform people (most readers know less about Lebanese history than you and I).  The article needs to be written with these people in mind.  What actually caught my attention were your major changes to the introduction, notably these edits which discuss the backdrop of the invasion (you stated "The people of South Lebanon had been terrorized for years by the PLO.").  The trouble is, for a reader who is unfamiliar with Lebanese history, these statements are confusing - who invaded who?  Who occupied what?  Did the PLO invade Lebanon, or did the Israelis occupy PLO territory?
 * My point is that the Lebanese civil war at large has a lot of interacting players - it's our job to write the most clear, well-written article to explain what happened historically. And most importantly - this is very key - we need to cite sources.  I'm absolutely behind your position about calling the Israeli action an Occupation - that is clearly what it was, and many news and historical sources agree.  What I'm more concerned about is the introduction of non-neutral point of view, especially in the very first opening paragraph.  Let's work together to make this article better, and get all of the facts included, and source them with reliable references.  Okay?  Nimur (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article, and included some of your many references. Please, feel free to add those references as you see fit (I can help with the citations or you can see WP:CITE for syntax help).  I found sources for some of the topics we've discussed above - e.g. the terminology "invasion" is very widely used (as you mentioned); the "iron fist policy" seems to have proliferated in a lot of media; etc.  There are still some areas that need cleanup, particularly with regard to the timeline.  Nimur (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Background and title
With the addition of relevant context of greater historical longevity in Background, it raised valid questions concerning a more appropriate title for the article; I concur with the sentiments expressed. Although I also had planned to replace the old second sentence (Set against the backdrop…timeline of events differ.) with the following, I considered the Background additions sufficiently bold and then decided to let them cook alone for a while.
 * The conflict is set in an area of great religious significance against the historic backdrop of competition between colonialism, nationalism and diaspora nationalism, as well as the more recent tension and violence between indigenous Lebanese political groupings and influences from external Palestinian, Syrian and Israeli forces. The South Lebanon conflict can be seen as unresolved remnants of the region’s colonial past, specifically including the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Israel-Palestine conflict and the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, with historic Zionist expansion and resulting Arab resistance, as well as an integral part of the Lebanese Civil War, though the participants and timeline of events differ.

The subsequent intro edits, to incorporate these background additions, do much the same thing concerning the latter of the two sentences, but not the first. With the specific geography and time being the only absolute constants, one might also consider the addition of and Iranian and, and most recently the so-called War on Terror to be similarly relevant, just before the final phrase (due to the insufficiently adequate resolution of included and related conflicts, and their prolongation into the 21st century).

At this point, I am definitely tending toward option one, a rename, rather than a new article, for the time being. I base this on the consistent specific geography and time (as well as what I see as a different and far more relevant constant for a suggested article, considering the existence of similar occurrences in near-by geographic areas). I agree that better temporal restriction is necessary, and it is presently incorrect. After considering various following phrases to better characterize the included topics, I suggest South Lebanon Conflict since the 20th century, as being the best of the lot I considered. It is accurate plus or minus a few years on the bottom end; it is nearing a century politically and crossed the new millennium militarily, which made ‘in’ become ‘since’; and, unfortunately, I do not think that the fat lady has sung yet. At the same time, it is not being too specific and thus in need of a ref. From my basic RS’d approach to article content and naming, I consider these ref-able geographic and time constraints as being a sufficiently adequate and acceptable NPOV choice. There are, of course, other points of view and I will keep watching and hoping for additional comments. After considerable time spent since my last flurry of edits, however, I will likely move elsewhere for a while to avoid burnout on this particular article. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fatahland
The article says that Fatahland is a pejorative term for South Lebanon and the article Fatahland redirects here. This is problematic because the origin of the term Fatahland is in the 1960s, long before the 1982–2000 conflict; and because the term traditionally refers to the area between Yanta and the Shebaa Farms, which is technically in southern Lebanon, but not in the widely-accepted definition of Southern Lebanon. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this article mentions "Fatahland" in a section describing the background of the conflict in the 1960s and 1970s, so I'm not sure why usage of it here would be problematic. If the problem is that the term "Fatahland" redirects here, maybe redirect it back to Fatah, per this earlier discussion. It looks like some user boldly redirected it to here a couple months back. ← George talk 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Fatah would indeed be logical, but the article Fatah doesn't mention Fatahland even one time. Frankly I'm surprised at the reservations that some Wikipedians are having about using this term. Apparently it was very widely used in the 70s, so much that it appeared in some official maps. The source used in this article for the term also clearly says that: In the 1970s, the PLO had established it headquarters in west Beirut and had turned most of southern Lebanon into a mini Palestinian state, popularly known as Fatahland.
 * The problem is that, again, there is an area of Lebanon not commonly referred to as "south Lebanon" which is specifically what this term meant, which is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand what you mean when you say that "there is an area of Lebanon not commonly referred to as 'south Lebanon' which is specifically what this term meant", but I'm also not clear what change you're suggesting.
 * The term Fatahland is itself confusing, because while an area in southern Lebanon was called Fatahland in the 1970s (while the PLO controlled it), the term took on new, different meanings after the PLO was expelled from Lebanon. In the last couple decades, Fatahland is more commonly used when referring to the West Bank, as a counter point to Hamastan (aka, the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip). ← George talk 11:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The term is loosely used, historically - usually in a semi-irreverant fashion to describe de-facto control of any territory by Fatah. I find the term to be sarcastic and pejorative, rather than descriptive.  I think it's silly to assume that it ever had well-defined boundaries.  But, I was only able to find the source that's currently in the article; if you find other reliable uses of the term to refer to other places, please add those references.  Nimur (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * George: I am suggesting a few immediate changes, but also asking for comment about possible future changes that I am not sure how to go about (taking the aforementioned points into account).
 * In the short term, I suggest expanding the emergence of the conflict section into something more descriptive, adding more information about Fatah bases in the area. Also reorganizing the article a bit so that this section is part of the background (since it's not part of the 1982–2000 Lebanon conflict, it should not be in a section describing the actual conflict).
 * In the long term, I find it problematic that Fatahland redirects to this article, which deals primarily with southern Lebanon after Fatah left (kind of inappropriate, don't you think?). If someone can create an article about the 1967–1978 Lebanon conflict between Israel and Fatah, that would be an appropriate place, but currently there is no such article. At this point in time, Fatahland was used to refer mainly to southeastern Lebanon around the Shebaa Farms area.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion above on the background and title, but have since also found Israeli–Lebanese conflict, which may fit into this discussion. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I think I understand your concerns more clearly now. I agree it probably makes more sense mentioning of it here in a background section, or possibly removing it altogether if the material finds a better home. I still think the best place for this would be a new section in the Fatah article discussing the term "Fatahland", where we could explain that it was used to describe part of southern Lebanon for a certain period, and was later used to describe the West Bank. ← George talk 02:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Contentious edits
User_talk:Mikrobølgeovn made numerous recent major article changes, including an article move. He claims that he was unaware that these edits were contentious. I have reverted the page-move and the edits; I'm leaving a note so that other concerned editors can chime in with their opinions. Some of the content he added might have been valid, but I reviewed most of it and found it to be counter-factual. Please feel free to comment. I reverted to last version by CasualObserver. Nimur (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing that disturbes me, is that this article seems to be pro-Hezbollah. The reason why I feel so, is because it makes Hezbollah look victorious and Israel look defeated. This article claims that Operation Litani, Accountability and Grapes of Wrath was complete failure. This is contentious statements; in fact, in Operation Litani, IDF drove PLO out of South Lebanon. How could this be a military failure?--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just made another edit. This time, I only used sources which I have seen being used on Wikipedia before. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding my earlier concern. Please feel free to improve the article as you see fit.  I'm glad to see your citations, please keep the verifiablity policy in mind, and thanks for addressing my concern here.  Nimur (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

While only looking at the net result of recent edits, I still find some contention with them, in that they could have been corrected quite simply with the addition of a 'fully' in the previous less-than-proper phrasing; I understand and agree with Mikro's stated complaint, but will point out that there are also political results in addition to military and note Hezbollah was not in existence where I am editing. One additional ref, which is not too contentious at all is much appreciated. I do contend that its current presentation is less than optimally presented however, since the prose immediately available only presents the pro-Israeli aspects of its contents, while hiding the overall good summary below, in the notes. The JVL ref is redundant, only provides SYNTH, a word to avoid, and contention; it also pales by comparison on the reliability scale, when the other ref is properly cited. More care should be taken, than a quick cut and paste. I'll take an editorial stab at it to correct these concerns. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not contentious in making the edit, but considerations of context, notability, relevance, and neutrality were also involved. Save the parenthetical Marjayoun and Qlayaa mention, it is all in the existing reference, just more if it must be read, for one to V it. I dropped the inevitability of 1982 invasion mention, because of how it was cited; mentioning Sharon’s appointment as DM seemed too coatrack here and out of sequence. The edit also prompted some filling of holes in content elsewhere. Oops, signing late. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm going to be away from Wikipedia for more than a week, so I'll review the article as it stands sometime after the next few days.  I suspect that this round of editing might get interesting.  Thanks for the attention, CasualObserver - more eyes on the article is a good thing.  Nimur (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "scholars"
Scholars have described the Israeli occupation policy as "savagery"[16] and accuse the Israeli occupiers of "brutal degradation, repression, exploitation of cheap (including child) labor"[16]:60, and describes conditions of constant shelling and sniper fire[16]:62

The sole source for this is a section of a book by Noam Chomsky which mentions no "scholars". Not saying the claim isn't true, but it should have to rely on the claims of more than an anti-Israel/left wing extremist. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That section alone cites five separate news and academic sources:


 * 1) Norton, Augustus Richard; Journal of Palestine, 2000
 * 2) Chronicle of a Suicide Foretold: The Case of Israel. Immanuel Wallerstein, Commentary No. 249, Jan. 15, 2009.
 * 3) "Iron Fist:" CBS Newsmen are victims. Time Magazine, April 1, 1985. Retrieved online, 15 August 2009.
 * 4) Noam Chomsky. Pirates and emperors, old and new: international terrorism in the real world. 2002. Available from Google Books.
 * 5) Tension grows in South Lebanon as Israel bombs guerrilla targets. New York Times, November 8, 1991.
 * The claims are backed up by numerous other sources as well. If you disagree with Noam Chomsky's opinion, that is fine, but it is a fact that he published that opinion.  Individual readers can decide for themselves about his bias.  As far as the factual statements in the section, they are backed up by Wallerstein, New York Times, CBS, Time Magazine, and BBC News, among other sources.  Do you have a specific fact in dispute?  Nimur (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence I'm disputing is solely Chomsky's. I'm not sure why we should take his word for it, or why his view is particularly important. If you want to talk about "brutal degradation", "repression", and "cheap labor" then specific examples and numbers should be given, not mere accusations. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Casualties
There is no cited source on the casualty numbers in the article. Before anyone finds a source, we simply cannot say anything about the casualty numbers. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced statement
I removed the following statement recently: "By the end of the 1990s, continuing military strikes and casualties caused by Hezbollah made the occupation too costly for Israel". It is unsourced, and includes biased claims. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but i remember something about such claims being made back then both by Hizbullah and by the Israeli Peace activists, like "4 mothers" movement. Source required however, as you have mentioned.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Background
The partition policy of Mandate over former Ottoman territory is not directly linked to the conflict background in this case, as it represents a much earlier time period. This section is contradicting WP:NPV, mispresenting the 1982-2000 conflict between Israel and Lebanon as if it has begun in 1918. Therefore, in order not to make it an WP:NOR i propose removal, leaving a link to Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire page .Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no objections are raised i'm removing this section as proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.made-in-lebanon.com/cedarland/un/resolution575s.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MkativerataCCI (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the sources that the Israel-Hizbullah conflict lasted since 1982?

 * So one issue is timing the conflict - is it really since 82'? the 1982 war lasted until 1983, and i'm unfamiliar that Hizbullah or its origins made some serious actions during the war.
 * Another thing is that the article's main issue is the Israel - Hizbullah conflict, which greatly overshadowed the Palestinian organizations following the 82' war. However, PLO is still shown as a "belligerent" with Arafat as its commander, though they practically relocated all to other countries since the 1982 invasion (Tunisia for this matter). Shall we keep PLO "just for the principle"? It had clearly lost significance in south Lebanon since 1983.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Livia Rokach as source
Livia Rokach's book "Israel's sacred terrorism" (extremely ill-chosen title, by the way) has been called into question whether it's a reliable source. I would say yes, until proven wrong. I read the book decades ago but as I remember most of the text where (supposedly) verbatim quotes from Moshe Sharett's diaries published only in Hebrew. I vaguely remember the Sharett family threatening to sue her for copyright violation. I don´t recall them accusing her of faking it. Either Rokach faked all those quotes, and then source is worthless, or they are genuine - which I suspect - and then the source is OK. I'm sure Wikipedia has a lot of Hebrew readers who can check her claims. Rokach herself was extreme leftist (Matzpen?).

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Result (again)
Though Hezbollah's efficiency against the IDF is subject to debate, with the collapse of the SLA I fail to see how this conflict was not a Hezbollah victory. We could dig into how this conflict is widely perceived all over the world, but more importantly, it isn't exactly glorified in Israel today. Is there a chance that we could restart the debate that ended so indecisively some 6+ years ago? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don`t think Hebollah won. This wasn`t a war, but a low intensity fighting. Israel never intended            to stay in Lebanon forever. Israel left because it belived it achieved it`s goals, and now it should leave. I agree that Hezbolla `won`, but the result section is misleading because it seems like Israel lost, whats incorrect.Guy1286 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda
following constant attacks from the PLO on the civilian population of Galilee in northern Israel Becker is a novelist and you quote her Authorhouse reprint not the RS 1984 version. Secondly, in the lead you are not supposed to give one version. Thew PLO signed its first ceasefire agreement with Israel in 1978, and was active in trying to stop splinter groups attacking the northern Galilee. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to a detailed account in Becker's book, the Israeli government reported 270 terrorist attacks by the PLO from Lebanon in Israel, the occupied territories, and the Jordanian and Lebanese border (in addition to 20 attacks on Israeli interests abroad). That's the main reason why Israel wanted to oust the PLO from Lebanon once and for all, not the assassination attempt of Shlomo Argov. A summary of this important information should be represented in the lead.--Averysoda (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source you added was published by AuthorHouse, a vanity publisher. How exactly is a novelist writing in a self-published book a reliable source?  nableezy  - 21:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thats a violation of the 1RR.  nableezy  - 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many sources reporting PLO attacks from Lebanon as a reason for the 1982 Israeli invasion. I'm going to find them soon.--Averysoda (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to the fact that Becker is a reliable journalist, I found two more reliable sources (from books) in just a few minutes. Tomorrow I'll put them.--Averysoda (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please post your sources here and I'll add them if they look ok. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check this out--Averysoda (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You should really read the sources you cite, it will help you not misrepresent them by claiming they support half of what they actually say.  nableezy  - 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Becker is a journalist that was on the ground for the conflict. Elsewhere you claim this is enough to establish reliability. Are you having a change of heart? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources published her work on this topic? Ive said journalists who have been published by reliable sources can qualify as experts and that their own writings may then qualify as reliable sources. But whats the evidence of that here? As it stands, there is one self-published book cited, and that aint gonna cut it.  nableezy  - 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was talking to Nishidani, but that doesn't matter since Averysoda supplied two reliable sources above. I see now you're claiming he didn't represent the sources correctly? Here's a quote from Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, The: A Political, Social, and Military History. I hope Spencer Tucker is good enough: The PLO responded by attacking Israeli settlements in Galilee with rockets and mortars. It was this PLO shelling of the settlements rather than the attempted assassination of Argov that provoked the Israeli decision to invade Lebanon. Kindly explain why you think this doesn't support the text in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and this other source says: "The operation was called Operation Peace for Galilee and was launched in reply to ongoing PLO attacks from its Lebanese bases."--Averysoda (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this exact edit was made elsewhere Im just going to copy and paste what I had before: The line about the cause of the war being PLO attacks on civilians in northern Israel misrepresents the source just added. The source discusses attacks on both sides that killed civilians on both sides as well as Israel's support for the SLA. And not including that the Palestinian response (your source's words) was in response to is likewise a misrepresentation of the history, one made to push a narrative of Palestinians -> terrorists, Israelis -> white knights.  nableezy  - 18:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can keep the discussion on the other page since that is the main article for the war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Casualties
Can anyone dig up a source on Amal and Jammoul losses during this period?-- RM ( Be my friend ) 00:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

why all pictures are of IDF and SLA?
all the pictures are of IDF and SLA positions,soldiers, memorial etc. where is the opposing side? very biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.21 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

PFLP-GC
Aside from the Night of the Gliders, I don't know how prominent the PFLP-GC was in this conflict. I think we'd be doing ourselves a favor if we stick with the main combatants, as the infobox could otherwise include dozens of small militias. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Result
This discussion has been had a few times, but I really think we need community consensus. I think it should be changed to "widely considered a Hezbollah victory" or "Israeli withdrawal", because it's debatable how much effect Hezbollah had in driving the IDF out, and it's widely acknowledged that the 1997 Israeli helicopter disaster was probably the main catalyst to withdrawal, more than anything Hezbollah did.--RM (Be my friend) 06:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lebanese
change ((Lebanese)) to ((Lebanon|Lebanese)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)