Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Lebanon War

Edit warring
As a reminder, when there is a dispute about an article such that editors are reverting each other, it is very important to place an explanation at the talkpage. Please don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Observer report
There is no justification for GHcool's revert, the report is notable relatively to the article. And this is a sub-sub-article, Lapsed Pacifist is not trying to insert the material in 2006 Lebanon War nor in Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War. The material fits very well here. Imad marie (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it violates WP:Undue weight since it is based on anecdotal evidence from an unreliable source. It adds nothing to the article whatsoever.  --GHcool (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * GHcool, how are you defining unreliable source? Usually The Guardian is fairly reliable, and the "anecdotal evidence" phrase seems to have been added by an editor, as that term is not used anywhere in the source. --Elonka 00:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring for a moment arguments by both sides on WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, and whether this sentence should or shouldn't be included, the structure of this sentence, if kept, should be improved. I'd propose something like:
 * "'On August 6, 2008, Yonatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from reserve duty after signing a 'refusnik' letter in 2004, said that some Israeli fighter pilots had deliberately missed targets in order to avoid harming civilians, as disquiet grew in the military about flawed intelligence.'"
 * I think that is more accurate to the source, without the misleading wording of "The Observer reported...". Are there other, similar wordings that all editors could find suitable to be included in the article? ← George [ talk  ] 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think George's proposal is a fair compromise. Thanks George.  --GHcool (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, everyone! I wish all disputes were resolved this quickly and amicably.  :) --Elonka 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Targeting by Israel vs Targeting by Hezbollah
I find the Targeting by Israel section to be relatively POV, when compared to the Targeting by Hezbollah section. The former, as written now, paints a much more graphic picture, and possibly presents certain incidents out of context, in a way that subjectively adds intentionality to events (eg, "On 18 July the IDF attacked a convoy of ambulances and trucks operated by the United Arab Emirates Red Crescent"). This makes it look like the IDF is specifically attacking ambulances, while we don't know this to be the case, and the surrounding context is not provided. You can make the CIA stopping an assassin targeting the US president look like "the CIA murders a man". This happens throughout the section.

Further, The Targeting by Israel section is substantially longer and more detailed, presenting a biased picture. No word, however, on the much-reported "Hizbollywood" fictitious reporting which were the (false) source for many of the reports of the "reliable sources".

The "Allegations of "human shield" tactics" also ends in a hand-picked reference that aims to disprove this notion (psycbologically speaking, the reader will remember this last reference, and not the ones before it).

Additionally, the massive use of metal ball bearings by Hezbollah is barely mentioned, despite being a method which has no other use other than inflicting extensive damage to humans, and thereby should be at the spotlight of an entire article devoted to this subject. Contrarily, the massive of use of sophisticated guided, low-charge missiles by Israel, in order to minimize civilian casualties, is not mentioned. Nor is the door-to-door, costly urban fighting used by Israel for the same purpose. Obviously, Israel could have erased entire villages from the air, yet it chose to specifically target from the ground Hezbollah militants hiding among civilians. I think that this has a place in this article. Rabend (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sections as written now are currently pretty good. The only thing I would change is that I would delete the "Attacks on journalists and media" section.  Its an extremely minor part of the war and Israel was obviously not specifically targeting journalists.  Shall we also include a section titled "Attacks on plumbers" since I'm sure a few Lebanese plumbers were among the 1,000 civilians killed? If there are no objections, I'll remove the section within a few days.  --GHcool (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * I personally still think the sections are not balanced, and some of the things I mentioned should be included due to their relevance, but that's cool. Rabend (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, partially. Israel was, in fact, specifically targeting journalists - or, more correctly, Lebanese news organizations and their infrastructure - during the war. This section shouldn't be a list of people who happened to be journalists and were killed, but it should absolutely include attacks specifically targeted at news organizations, and injuries sustained in such attacks. Of the four incidents listed, at least the first three fall into this category. Israel specifically targeted Hezbollah's al-Manar, as well as the transmitters used by other news organizations, including LBC. The third, an attack against a New TV vehicle demarcated as "press", also falls into this category, based on the cited source, which states "especially troubling to the watchdog group is the appearance that the injured news reporters were deliberately targeted by Israeli forces." The fourth event I'm not familiar with, and should likely be removed if the photographer just happened to be one of those killed in an attack. ←  George [ talk  ] 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that attacking al-Manar is quite the same as reporters of other stations getting hit. Regarding intentionality (besides al-Manar, which probably was intentional), do we know that for sure?. It's a subjective report. Aren't we making assumptions here? Rabend (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to include Israel's view of al-Manar as a propaganda tool of Hezbollah, and their reasoning that it was a valid target as such, I would fully support that. However, it would also have to explain that "media and human rights groups say Israel has no right to target al-Manar because it doesn't like the channel's content." Regarding intentionality, the New TV vehicle was described as having been "deliberately targeted by Israeli forces" (per the statement I quoted earlier). Also, there is no doubt that Israel intentionally targeted relay stations for both LBC and another Lebanese television channel, Al Mustaqbal, the former of which resulted in the death of an LBC technician. This is something Israel has fully admitted to, having stated that they were worried al-Manar was using the other channels relay stations to broadcast... I'm not sure where they came up with that, as it doesn't really make much sense, but that was the reason they gave at least. ← George [ talk  ] 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * George makes a fair point. I suggest we move the "Attacks on journalists" section into the Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Lebanon war article and rename it "Attacks on television facilities." If there are no complaints within the next day or two, I shall take this course of action.  --GHcool (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're moving it to a different article, you might want to use the info here. Rabend (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think most of this section (and the article in general) actually belongs in the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War article. As you may remember, I had proposed merging this article into that one almost year ago, and there was support for such a move by others (including GHcool). Unfortunately I was quite busy at the time, and there was a lot of active editing around this article, so I never got around to it. Granted, this should also be mentioned in the Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Lebanon war article in some way, but in a different manner. The industry article can be a bit more obtuse, talking about what infrastructure was hit, and how it affected the local media (which wasn't that much as far as I can tell - I think none of the channels actually went off the air?). The allegations article can discuss the aspects of this that deal with claims that attacks against these journalists/media outlets constituted violations of international law and/or the Geneva conventions, as well as Israel's statements and views on the matter. Essentially, attacks against journalists are a violation of international law, but Israel says that al-Manar was being used for military purposes. I'm not really sure what their claim was with regard to the other news organizations they hit that weren't affiliated with Hezbollah though. ← George [ talk  ] 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Israelis killed a heck of a lot more civilians than Hezbollah did, of course the section is going to be longer. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the article's title is Targeting of civilian areas, and not Number of casualties, I would think that if anything, the Hezbollah section should be significantly larger, as practically all of its rockets/missiles were aimed at civilians, while it is known that Israel was mostly targeting militants. Rabend (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for either of those two dubious statements? The military/civilian death ratio of Hezbollah's victims speaks for itself, and it has been established that Israel had buildings related to the military in such civilian areas. Furthermore, 12 people from the Israeli military were killed in the rocket attacks, which makes it pretty dubious that only civilians were targeted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Every major town and many villages in Northern Israel were bombarded each day. Claiming that each of these had some military installations that were actually targeted is ridiculous. Contrarily, Hezbollah was hiding and firing from within civilian buildings all throughout the campaign, using Lebanese civilians as human shields. Had Israel really wanted to just kill off innocent Lebanese, they could have easily used their air force to erase entire villages off the earth. Instead, the IDF was risking soldiers in urban fighting and dropping warning leaflets before attacking. Further, the aforementioned 12 soldiers who were killed by a rocket were resting in an Israeli village. I'm not going to be further dragged into this debate, which is obviously not helpful to this article. Rabend (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not get in a debate about the war. George's suggestions on how to proceed with the journalist section have been largely positive. I'm going to get started moving the section as we discussed. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The whole reason we have these long articles on targeting of civilians or civilian areas is because the issue isn't so simple, and lots of different groups have made accusations against both sides. Arguing about who is right or wrong is pretty pointless. Thanks for taking care of the move GHcool; I'll check back a bit later to see how the move is going. ← George [ talk  ]


 * Agreed. Rabend (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png
The image Image:Haret Hreik Before After 22 July 2006.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Collateral Damage
The phrase is a euphemism for killing civilians that connotes legitimacy but really has no basis in law. It is therefore partisan and misleading a should be removed and replaced with more impartial and accurate language such as: the killing of civilians; or war crimes against civilians (where clear crimes can be identified)88.109.226.136 (talk)
 * It also refers to the damage or destruction of property such as buildings. The news uses the word all the time.  There is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't.  --GHcool (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inaccurate & misleading language, POV & 100% avoidable... as I pointed out. 89.168.160.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC).
 * And as I pointed out, "It also refers to the damage or destruction of property such as buildings. The news uses the word all the time.  There is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't." Argumentum ad nauseam doesn't work on Wikipedia.  --GHcool (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out it is a loaded phrase that can be easily avoided by the use of more descriptively accurate and more neutral language. 79.71.178.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC).


 * And, again, as I pointed out, "collateral damage" is a sufficiently accurate and neutral phrase. I'll remind you once again that argumentum ad nauseam doesn't work on Wikipedia.  --GHcool (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again! Collateral damage is POV, and even at your face value you are in error:

Dictionary...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collateral+damage

Deliberate war crimes...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=IDF+admits+targeting+civilians&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

War crimes...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=18W&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=targeting+civilians+war+crimes+geneva+conventions&spell=1

Oh and RE: ad nausem. Stick & stones. Got a counterargument instead?

Otherwise please remove the POV and inaccurate language.

88.110.192.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Firstly, TheFreeDictionary.com is not exactly a reliable source.
 * Secondly, "war crimes" is not a more neutral version of "collateral damage." In fact, it is significantly less neutral and is an obvious point of view statement against the State of Israel. Israel has not been convicted of war crimes by any court.  The search 88.110.192.170 links to brings up some of Israel's critics accusing it of war crimes, but this is far from a formal conviction.
 * Thirdly, "collateral damage" is defined variously as "unintentional harm to persons or property as the result of military action," "any damage incidental to an activity," "Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation," "inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations," etc. etc. (emphasis added).
 * Fourthly, "collateral damage" is a phrased used frequently by the media and by scholars. Wikipedia's rules against original research insist that we use the same language.
 * Lastly, I'd like to thank 88.110.192.170 for at least changing his/her argument and breaking the argument sketch deadlock we were in. Unfortunately for 88.110.192.170, however, his/her new arguments are almost as embarrassing as his/her first one, as I have just demonstrated.  --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A native English speaker would instantly spot that CD implies 'unintentional'; if civilians are targeted intentionally it is thus not CD but becomes most accurately a war crime (Geneva Conventions Protocols 4). War crimes is the most accurate language and thus NPOV since the IDF admitted the crime.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789876.html

The only thing embarrassing is your dogged refusal in the face of the evidence

Or does someone have to read the ICRC and HRW reports to you too?

79.71.220.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Nice try, but the Haaretz link you give states that civilian areas were targeted, not civilians themselves. Hezbollah does (at least) two things to ensure that civilians get killed: (1) they operate out of and fire rockets from civilian areas and (2) Hezbollah terrorists are only "part-time terrorists" ... that is, during the day a guy can work in a civilian job and during the night he can be building and launching rockets at Israeli civilians.  When Israel demolishes a building, a house for example, what they are doing is demolishing a weapons storage building which is also used as a house where innocent women and children live.  Perhaps even a terrorist's neighbors are hurt by the Israeli bombings of the terrorists in their neighborhood, which is almost impossible to control for.  To be sure, Lebanese bystanders were the greatest victims of this war, but the fact that they did not rise up against Hezbollah is not necessarily Israel's fault.  Check out this video and photographic evidence of Hezbollah's exploitation of Lebanese civilians.
 * Also, as I said before, Israel was not charged for any "war crimes" by any court. Collateral damage is the proper word.  It is complies with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR.  Thank you.  --GHcool (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Targeting civilian infrastructure IS a war crime- DUH! Read Geneva Protocols 4!

See here: http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/4_infra.htm

"To be sure, Lebanese bystanders were the greatest victims of this war, but the fact that they did not rise up against Hezbollah is not necessarily Israel's fault." Oh, playing moral equivalence now to detract from the truth; Your POV is well and truly showing now.

So there we have it even you agree Israel committed war crimes 81.170.51.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC).


 * It is also a war crime to use human shields, which is what Hezbollah did. When one party uses human shields, the line between civilian area and military target is heavily blurred.
 * I am not guilty of moral equivalence. Hezbollah's cowardly blending with Lebanese civilians in order to ensure more Lebanese civilian deaths and using their neighborhoods as a military zone is by far more morally outrageous than Israel's reluctant fighting of the war on Hezbollah's terms.  If that is a POV statement, then at least it is a POV statement that is in line with the facts.
 * Whether you or I or any single critic believes that Israel is guilty of war crimes is entirely irrelevant. What matters is that Israel has never been convicted of war crimes by any court.  Again, Israel (and the world) fully recognizes that collateral damage has been done against Lebanese civilians and its infrastructure, but the alleged charge of war crimes has not been officially recognized by anybody.  To call Israel's actions against Hezbollah a "war crime" would be to violate WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR.  Thank you.  --GHcool (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You just did it again. You tried to offset ISrael's crimes against those of Hizbollah! That is moral equivalence, and a non-academic argument. You cannot legally collectively punish anyone under the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yeah, you are right, in a very pedantic sense, that technically we cannot call them 'crimes' until they are prosecuted and found to be crimes by a court of law; but we both know with US hegemony protecting Israel that will never happen. So, saying the crimes never occurred is about as absurd as claiming the slaughter of defenseless civillians in Wounded Knee wasn't a crime, just because the executioners got given medals.

So, you if you want to play it strictly by the laws of libel & defamation you would have very carefully look at each target and see whether it breaches Israel's commitments under Geneva- which the ICRC & HRW reports have done in great detail.

I have no problems in describing Hizbollah firing rockets at civillians as being a war crimes; you evidently have great difficulty extending the rights of Israelis to the Lebanese? Israel doing the same as Hizbollah suddenly becomes okay? Painfully obvious POV.

As for your 'human shield' rhetoric: do you have any credible sources, as I have never heard of any Lebanese crying foul. The IDF & IAF may claim this, but where are the Lebanese testimonies?

But I fear your ignorance of International Law betrays you once again. It is a war crime to target human shields too! Perfidy may be a crime too, but it is NOT a legal pretext to attack civillians. If you knowingly kill civilians you are a criminal, under both International and domestic law (as treaties are enshrined as both)

And I am not calling Israel's actions against Hizbollah into account at all here. I have no problems whatsoever with combatants killing each other under the Rules of Engagement. I am calling to account Israel's targetting of civillians! And your twisted moral equivalence defense of those crimes is indeed POV, and laughably shaky reasoning.

But hey you can run this page as some kind of propaganda operation if you want, you are only discrediting yourself (and whom you seek to rehabilitate) in the process.

212.139.110.30 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind 212.139.110.30 that he/she is not a judge in an international court. Therefore, his/her opinions do not have any weight when it comes to accusing a country of war crimes.  I am equally unwilling to call Hezbollah's use of human shields and targeting of Israeli civilians a "war crime" because they have not been convicted of any such crime.  It is not up to me to say "X is okay, but Y is not okay" or "Both are not okay" or "Both are okay." I am not a judge of an international court.  I have my own personal opinion about this war, but my opinion does not count.  If I added my opinion to Wikipedia articles, I would be guilty of violating No original research.  I do not do that I and I expect that 212.139.110.30 to play by the rules as well.  --GHcool (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger to 'Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War'

 * I propose a merge & redirect from this page to 'Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War'. The areas covered by both articles are extremely similar, making the fork unnecessary. Marokwitz (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambulance Attacks
For one of the ambulance attacks in question, the details of what occurred have been called into question on the internet blog site "zombietime". While there is a mention that an "unverified blog" called into question the events that occurred, I think more needs to be said on this controversy. Even if you 100% agree with the Red Cross and Amnesty International, their official story of what occurred was quite different from the initial reports published in newspapers around the world (e.g originally a helicopter fired a missile; now a drone fired an experimental munition). In short, there is not enough evidence in my mind to blow off this clear controversy as just the suggestion of an "unverified blog" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.79.143 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-Sorry, didn't notice I wasn't signed in Squiems (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)