This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What should be the correct term for the captured soldiers? I don't think POW is correct, as Hizbulla does not adhere to the Geneva conventions with regards to taking prisoners of war, nor are they an army, nor was the capture during a war. So would the right wording be captured? kidnapped? taken hostage?-- darkskyz 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually POW status is not who was captured, it is the group that did the capturing. This is because only parties that are signatories to the Geneva Convention are obligated to follow it. So for example, if Party 1 is a signatory to the Geneva convention and Party 2 is not, then if Party 2 captures a Party 1 combatant, then it is not obligated under the treaty to treat the combatant as a POW. This is exactly what happened in WWII when the Germans put British and US soldiers in POW camps and were (relatively) well treated, while Russian soldiers were basically put into concentration camps since the UK/US/Germany were part of the Geneva convention and Russia was not.
Kidnap: To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (dictionary.com)
"Capture" is an intentionally vague term used by the media. You can capture anything: a flag, a hill, your breath... but you can only "kidnap" people. And since this is done outside of war by an illegitimate Lebanese militia, it's not a case of "capturing" PoWs. -- Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
Smalllwhitelight - according to you then there is no such thing as kidnapping and anybody anywhere is subject to "capture". However those of us in the civilized world can ascertain the distinction. Capture implies a combatant within an existing conflict or in a disputed area. At the time of the kidnappings there was no state of conflict, as this was the event which triggered it. And unless you want to go out on a limb, where it took place is also not disputed territory. Should every border patrol in the world be subject to "capture" by your definition, every country would be in a state of war. And I think you should leave your personal insecurities out of this discussion too. -- Craven Maven 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
At this moment, the article again calls it a kidnapping, despite the above discussion that capture is the neutral term to describe what happened. There were suggestions that "capture" makes it sound somehow heroic. I said above:
Since we now know that the word "capture" does not have a heroic conotation when used in this sense (it may be different for capturing hearts and minds, but that's not what we're talking about), and that captures can be both lawful and unlawful, I think this matter should be settled. I'll go change the wording in the article, and would expect anyone who disagrees to bring strong arguments to the talk page before reverting back. Zocky | picture popups 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Again people are changing capture to kidnap and taking hostages, even though we have discussed this above, and it seems clear that "capture" is neutral while "kidnap" isn't. Everybody seems to be calling it a capture now, including the US president at today's news conference. Further changes of this kind should be reverted on sight, otherwise this will just go on and on. Zocky | picture popups 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
With the US President's intellectual weight weighing in for the use of the word "capture", I am willing to cede the point to all his intellectual peers and congratulate them on their precience. -- Craven Maven 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know where the kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers initially took place? Jakro64 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. So what's not resolved? Can we maintain a list so we don't keepthat ugly and redundant POV tag up forever? -- Elliskev 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no citation to support that other countries or "leaders" blame Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. Israel is the only country to make this claim.
"The international reaction to the crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel. At the same time, many leaders have stated that Hezbollah initiated the crisis and Lebanon shares responsibility for letting Hezbollah operate within her jurisdiction. Many nations have also expressed concern of a possible escalation of the conflict. [76]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.112.57 ( talk • contribs).
Where are the citations? Clicking the little numbers does nothing. Where can I find the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??
From International reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis:
The Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller said that the Lebanese government has to take responsibility to prevent further terror attacks from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Bill Frist said that the Lebanese government should uphold its responsibility under a U.N. resolution to make sure its territory isn’t being used for Hezbollah or other groups.
--
JWSchmidt 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The Lebanese government was supposed to disband the Hezbollah militia. They didn't, instead, they let them run amok in their country. So what are people to think? That the government should not be responsibile for organization they sheltered despite attempts by those other world "leaders" to stop them? Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
Most people know that the Lebanese Government was not and is not equipped to deal with Hezbollah. Any attempt to disarm them would have created civil war. Moreover, Hezbollah has a better funded and better equipped military than Lebanon. Many people in Lebanon see the Hezbollah militia as the only armed forces that can defend them from Israeli incursions.
Do we really need this gory description:
in an encyclopedia article? Equally gory statements can be made to describe deaths on the other side, but they have no place in an encyc. article. 89.138.118.113 07:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I gotta say, I really think kudos are in order for you guys. To have such a complete, accurate, and balanced article on such a controversial and constantly-changing topic in so short a time... I gotta say I'm impressed. I know there are probably eight hundred big and little debates debates going on over numbers, wording, and probably everything else in this article, but overall it looks amazing. A nice slice of pie for all who've helped out! -- Gpollock 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert the sentence about violation of international law. This is not my personal POV it is a fact. I have a law degree with a specialisation in international law and I believe I am qualified to make such a statement. I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with other similarly qualified individuals. Israel does not have any special rights that allow it to freely violate the Geneva Convention without those violations being noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntonioBu ( talk • contribs).
So then you know that waging aggressive war and committing war crimes is a clear violation of jus cogens. AntonioBu 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
And BTW if you wish to follow this policy then please go through the article and remove all the uncited sections. They are numerous. Perhaps you could also remove the large chunks of uncited research appearing in articles you have written too. AntonioBu 07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Delirium, I did not make that judgment based on professional experience but on the continued opinions of a wide range of international bodies based on the typical operating procedure of the IDF. The amount of uncited, unresearched writing on wikipedia puts paid to your argument. My comment was not unresearched. So no, sorry to you actually. It is an important issue that must be addressed. And Jadelith, it is not an argument that until a court 'convicts' Israel there is no breach as there is no international judicial body currently capable of prosecuting Israel as a state party due to the continued interference in such processes by the US. Breaches of international law can and do occur without direct judicial sanction for this very good reason. International law is not a law of courts and juries to the same extent individual state law is. I believe thats where your confusion may have arisen. To further extend my analogy, if you stab someone, you breach the criminal code of your nation. You may never be convicted but you still committed a breach. This case is a clear breach. AntonioBu 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, its true that a US backed israel may never be convicted of anything, and yes it is unfair. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it cannot allow the analyses of individual persons. While I understand that the unnecessary bombings of civilian buildings are a clear cut case of a breach, us (you, me, delirium, and everyone else here) as individuals are not officially recognized bodies of such jurisprudence: what we have to say cannot be recognized as facts. If I stabbed someone, and even if everyone in the world just knew I did it, they can't punish me if they cannot prove that I did it. and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot add a comment like that until either: a) another government official or b) UN accused Israelis as breaching the conventions. We can only report stuff, and your personal opinions are only analysis. -- Jadelith 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was unfair. You have perhaps missed my point. A breach of international law can occur without there being a judicial conviction. That is a part the very nature of international law. I have added a third citation, please note in the sixth paragraph the quote by Kofi Annan.
My edit is cited. The article is full of totally uncited sections as is this entire project. You have no right to accuse me of vandalism. You're splitting hairs.
Read the international response. It is already criticising Israel as violating international law and the calls will only grow as the Israeli incursion continues. So this commentary will end up in this article. Thank you. AntonioBu 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing I have said is biased. It is the truth. I cited the convention because I mentioned it in the sentence. That is standard academic procedure. I see at least two 'citation needed' tags plus other non-referenced comments. Just what is your agenda here? AntonioBu 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? And the Israelis must have a justifiable point of view. The last point of view to be believed in this situation is of the combatants, who have vested interest in claiming legitimacy for their actions and that means both Israeli and Hezbollah. My god, an encyclopaedia is not a place for academic procedures?! I cited my contribution and the material I mentioned. An encyclopaedia demands academic procedure by its very nature. I keep saying it is not my personal POV it is fact and Israel's POV in this is hardly relevant. If they are the violating party do you think they would say they are committing those violations. I apologise for questioning someone's agenda but don't threaten me with being blocked. Thats not exactly civil behaviou either. AntonioBu 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added this information back into the article using the "apparent contravention" formulation, since that appears to be an acceptable NPOV formulation, judging from its use in relation to resolution 1559 in a less contested area of the article Jacob 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - The source was actually the Amnesty link provided, but I've clarified the text to make that explicit. Jacob 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A UN official has stated that Israel's actions are in breach of international law. Please see the final paragraph of the link I have now added. There is now no reason to remove the assertion that Israel is in breach of international law and any attempt to do so is nothing more than vandalism. AntonioBu 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well then add a section about Hezbollah's violations, I won't complain. Violations of international law are a fact but obviously you can't grasp that. I understand that as an Israeli this personally effects you and your loved ones but try and remove yourself from the scene for a minute and understand that these incursions, yes by both sides, have violated international law and that is a FACT. I have now clearly cited my edit, it is not my POV it is now a fact. AntonioBu 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the discussion about reported events/supposed events and source searches.
Can we get a source for this one? Yossiea 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably needs a better source. This seems to suggest that Syria may go to war, and if that happens then the shit will really hit the fan. I'll look around for additional sources.
Found one - Reuters. [3]
Not good. I'll try to edit it into the article. Mysticflame 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The Christian Science Monitor is quoting several people as stating that this is now a war, not just a "border skirmish." [4]. Under what criterion does this conflict become an official war? -- MZMcBride 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest people to regester in the army or any branch of the military.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.131 ( talk • contribs).
The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the above linked CSM article: "With Israel's declaration of war not just on Hizbullah but on the entire Lebanese government..." ~~Flora "Call it what it is, a War"
[5] [6] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one. Hello32020 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Robin Hood 1212 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Source? I have scanned Ynet, and the closest I find is opinion articles, not hard news.
-- Cerejota 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah has declared war. But I don't think they have national authority. -- Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
So the chief of Hezbollah calls it open war. That's fine and dandy, but does he have the authority to declare war? And what about Israel? How are they responding? Are they calling it war or another rescue operation? -- Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
[7] [8] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one.
Yes, This should now be called a war, but let's wait and see. If nothing else, I'll see what they call it on the 6:30 news. Back in 10 minutes -- Crucible Guardian 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How can you call this a war? Israel versus Hezbollah? Hezbollah is not a country. The country of Lebanon never declared war on Israel, yet Israel is attacking targets that can hardly be considered "Hezbollah Targets". The main road from Lebanon to Damascus cant be a hezbollah target. Bombing the Rafik Hariri Airport cant be a against Hezbollah. Israel will just keep bombing and bullying LEBANON for something a separate entity within Lebanon did. Capturing two soldiers did not cause this conflict. Israel's apartheid caused this conflict. -- Erpals 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since 1942 was the last us declaration of war, this is obviously not a war (..);) military agressions against neighbouring economys are acts of war. Have always been incite for wars. would lebanon war against the intrusion of their air space, territory, and the lives of their civilians , it at least to me seems they have a viable excuse to deploy weaponry on lebanese territory.
That they don't is both pragmatic and peacefull. btw... i think despite of the obvious and historic analogys, the security counsel would negatively judge any arab(lebanese) militant response, and so would western opinion. (the guys making wikipedia, amongst others) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 ( talk • contribs).
I think it is completely wrong to call this an Israeli Lebanon War. Ehud Olmert said he was at war with Hezbollah. He holds Lebanon accountable but has not declared war on Lebanon. Further Lebanon is not fighting with Israel. It takes two for a war. This is a "war on terrorism" if anything.
Conflict sounds appropriate (imagine two countries in Europe launching this level of violence on each other... the naming wouldn't be crisis I'm sure.)
Tell me to get back to work! 05:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
With the Hezbollah attack on an Israeli ship, I think the title should now read "2006 Israeli-Lebanonese War", or something like that. Beckstcw 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Beckstcw
If you want to call it the Israeli-Hezbollah War fine but I think it is completely wrong and pretty biased to call it an Isreali Lebanese War.
Its taking place in Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Much like the Iraq War is so named due to it being in Iraq, although the government of Iraq is infact on the coalitions side at this point. I am not sure that this can classify as a "Crisis" considering the scale for which it has reached. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a wager of 1 brownie point that if this turns into a full-scale war, it will be called the Lebanon war or some such thing, but let's leave the article where it is until sources come up with a permanent name for it. Zocky | picture popups 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean that we can't decide what this war is called. We have to wait until politicians, media, etc. decide what to call it and then move the article to that name. Until that happens, this name is as good as any. Zocky | picture popups 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there could be something about why everyone is so reluctant to call it a war. I have seen numerous sources using and citing phrases such as "amount to war" or "amount to war crimes"; it seems there is no real distinction between what is going on and a war - other than an actual declaration of war?-- Paraphelion 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The title is definitely biased. This is an agression agaist a sovereign country. The title of the article should reflect that.-- tequendamia 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are so many Wikipedia editors so eager to call this a war? The very first day Israel started its operation a group of people created a page called 2006 Arab-Israeli War which speculated that the operations in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as Israel's fly-by into Syria, were all part of a new major war in the Middle East. Not until I put the page up for deletion, and after a lot of debate, did they eventually agree to change the title to 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict. I now see the same editors screaming that we must right now change the title of this article "2006 Lebanon War". Why this urgency? Please hold on. War normally means massive amounts of people and material thrown into a conflict, and in all previously Israeli conflicts which today are called wars rather than operations, Israel has at least done a general mobilisation and put a 100,000 people or more into uniform. So far they have only called in some reservists; a routine measure they have done whenever they have launched any kind of operation in the past. The situation is serious, but so far it's not very different from numerous operations into Lebanon that Israel has done in the past, like Operation Litani. There has until now been only one "proper" war between Israel and Lebanon during the past 58 years, the one in 1982, when Israel moved in with some 80,000 soldiers and at least 10,000 people died. Let's hope that will be the only war between these two countries instead of eagerly anticipating another one. Time will tell, but until it's official, let's keep the current title. Thomas Blomberg 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with ~ Rangeley ( talk). This is clearly a conflict between the country of Israel and the Hezbollah. Since both sides have declared war, this is now a war between these two, and i agree with the person who created this discussion. dposse 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion it is (just) a war, in the sense that the Lebanese Government (however tenuous that might be) didn't exactly give Israel permission for the attacks. If any othe rnation (Syria, Iran, Egypt, US, UK, etc) gets involved then it is definatley a war. Cryomaniac 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Should be updatded to show at least 35 civilians in Lebanon killed. The article on Wikipedia is actually biased toward Israel which is similar to the mainstream media. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060715/wl_nm/mideast_dc_358;_ylt=AlNNEi8KvDyXzXdzBjN_NfsUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVPUCUl
but both sides have called it a war. It's in the introduction! dposse 17:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good compromise to me. It's bigger than a crisis, but it isn't officially a war. It's an armed conflict involving Israel and Lebanon. 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, then, seems reasonable to me. It's clearly an armed conflict, and it clearly involves Israel and Lebanon. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is this not called a "war"?- DePiep 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: we cannot engage in original research and must back all claims with reliable sources. Until such time that "war" becomes widely accepted as a description of this specific event, we cannot call it that. Happy editing, Tewfik Talk 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name and/or class of the vessel? Sijo Ripa 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the news into the article regarding the missile hit on a civilian merchant ship, according to Israeli sources. [ [12]] Any further information regarding this..... ? Ryanuk 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't which type the boat is, but Ynet has its name [13] (look at the bold gray heading) - heb: אח"י חנית. Should be INS Hanit or Khanit. According to the article INS Dakar (heb:אח"י דקר), the אח"י should be translated in this ship to INS too. Máfiàg 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the casus beli in the infobox to a less awkward one, does "Border attack by Hezbollah's military wing killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers, in attempt to release Palestinian POWs held by Israe" seem NPOV enough to everyone? -- darkskyz 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It does, however someone added a "followed by an Israeli retaliation", which is NOT a Casus Beli (I think :) ) Shahar
I think it is worth noting in the article that Hebzbollah's motive is actually complete distruction of Israel. [14] As it is read, it makes it seem like Hezbollah's entire purpose is to regain a 20 sq km parcel of land from Israel. Masterhomer 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article needs more explanation of the right of a country (in this case Israel) responding militarily in a general fashion against another government's (Lebanon's) assets after an attack by a specific non-governmental organization within the other country. It is an unfamiliar concept in international relations to many people, I think.
I know the U.S. action against Afghanistan in 2001 is somewhat analogous, but in that case the U.S. seemed to be trying to overthrow Afghanistan's government, whereas in this case it is more a matter of reprisal (or is it? this is where explanation is needed).
The lack of an explanation of this concept may affect the NPOV of the article, since if people do not understand what principles are involved they may think that Israel is acting irrationally or unjustifiably rather than by established principles of international/military practice. It might clear up some of the arguments I'm seeing in the Talk page. -- Cam 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The concept of raids against 'a specific non-governmental organization within the other country' is actually all but uncommon, ethiopia-somalia and sudan-uganda (i think) have loads of these incidents. It's a side effect of the (also israelian) ethnic cleansing policys, when you push a certain people(ethnics) into another territory they will naturally agitate from there ( compare the dutch queen in brittain (ww2)). any resistance movement supported by the west is called a "shadow government" in this context actually;)
Now about established principles: It's an established principle that governments and military authorities understand the results of their cause of actions, and actually its common sense these institutions are there to anticipate them. So regarded israel will have anticipated hezbollah reactions. Quitte possibly to a wider extend then any member of hezbollah herself. Thus reasoned israel has no excuse at all. therefore established principle is: the status quo decides what history will tell us. onix 80.57.243.72 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: Is this local time? - Litefantastic 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Though as this is a continuation of Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, is it really fair to claim that "It all began when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers"? Israel is just using that to justify further actions in Southern Lebanon just as they did in 1982 and 1967. I think to start out the article in such a fashion displays a bias towards Israel in the opening paragraph! 209.101.103.133 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Flora.
The Hezbollah and the other arab terrorism organizations have been hostile towards Israel for years. Two israeli soldiers were kidnapped in the Gaza Strip (among the two Gilad Shalit) and two in Lebanon. Throughout the last decade Israel has suffered many terrorist attacks, and it is time to take action and to make the terrorism units such as the Hezbollah and the Hamas to disarm. Israel, as a country, has a total right to defend itself in a matter of attacks, and may I mention that it was Lebanon who had started this combat. Israel's requests (a disarming of the Lebanese terrorism unit Hezbollah and the return of the two kidnapped soldiers) seem very relevant, and show that Israel wants to stop the terrorism. But, the core of the terrorism is not laying in Lebanon. Actually, Iran is the one responsible (and is very well know for it) for supporting terrorism. Almost all the weapons that Hezbollah and other terrorists own are continuously coming from Iran. And still, western "peace supporting" contries such as France and so, believe that the UN chairmen should keep talking and talking (instead of DOING, and to finish the terrorism organizations off), and thus blaming Israel for Lebanon's situation, we've all been in this scene before... I believe that the US should take action if they really want to put an end to terrorism (in which the UN has proved itself for doing nothing and only incouraging terrorism with their rediculous meetings) by attacking its main source, Iran.
This article is getting quite large, so perhaps it would be a good idea to split it into a list of the Israeli attacks, and a list of the Hezbollah attacks? Damburger 11:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just get rid of all of it? It's relevant at Hezbollah, but not so much here. -- Elliskev 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This article needs an overhaul in it's structure. People are adding comments in a hurry leading statements to be repeated FOUR different times in random places leading NO sense of structure or timeline.
This article really needs to be locked for unregistered users and new users as it is quite a heated topic and could easily get out of control.-- Ddahlberg 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A minor point in all this, but could we put double square brackets around dates in order for them to show up correctly for readers? This is a non-US topic, so it is inappropriate for dates to be listed in US format (eg. "July 14th" rather than "14 July") Putting dates into correct wikidate format such as 14 July 2006 ensure that they show up in a reader's preferred format. -- Jumbo 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
While introductory comments might be in order, we must keep in mind this page is about the crisis, not about the actors in the crisis. Hizbollah, Lebanon, and Israel all have very long and informative pages, and these pages are linked form here. So all this talk about describing any actor, beyonf introductory purposes, diminishes the qualy of this entry.
This is not a POV issue, but one of quality of the entry. -- Cerejota 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
For example one user just changed captured to kidnap in like 5 seconds. While that one is arguable there are a lot of other vandalism in the article that is not. Times Square lebanon thing for example. 74.137.230.39 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If you believe it is absolutely necessary, I guess we should. But it should only be temporary and be as short as possible. Lets get concensus though. Hello32020 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Although if its only small things that can be quickly reverted or changed then I don't agree Hello32020 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I would go for semi-protection. I had to do a massive revert because of people vandalising links. Damburger 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay I agree with semi-protection (sad my accounts only 2-3 days old) Hello32020 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just take a look at edits history, I just came here and all I've been doing is reverting. 74.137.230.39 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope older users take my suggestions on the talk page. Is there a tag that says "This article may need semi-protection...visit talk page" Hello32020 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This is now linked from the front page, so it is unlikely that semi-protection will stick. I also find it ironic that an anonymous user is asking for semi-protection ... you do know that would you prevent you from editing too, right? My recommendation is to register an account immediately. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: Page has recently been semi-protected Hello32020 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Under the historical section there needs to be some explanation of the fact that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah, nor had the ability to disarm them. When reading the article it appears bias without that mention. I am not a strong writer, so if some one could take a crack at it, I think it would be a valuable contribution towards balance.
Is the text (and "citation needed" tag) before the citation in footnote 7 a bug or not? -- zenohockey 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't used revert before, someone says 6 million Israel civillians dead, don't know if they removed source, someone revert. Hello32020 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The map currently being used, Image:2006 Israel Hezbullah Conflict Map.png, currently has no source information and can be deleted. As it was posted by a new user, it is extremely likely that it was merely taken off a news site of some sort. I've created a crude map in MS Paint until a more professional, licenced version is acquired ( Image:2006-Lebanon-Israel-crisis strikes-and-rockets.PNG). Please leave feedback as to whether it is appropriate and should replace the current map. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Put it up if we get some more supporters. Hello32020 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you also include a sampling of the Katyusha strikes? Many have penetrated significantly farther than the red "conflict" band, specifically at Safed where 2 people have been killed. Otherwise, it looks great. ( check this Jerusalem Post map out for more info - I have others that I can supply) Tewfik Talk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Map looks good. Good work, Rangeley. Sijo Ripa 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Only if it works out visually; I wouldn't want to disrupt the image. I suppose you're correct vis-a-vis above, though I still think showing Safed would be significant. And by the way, how exactly did you get the basic map - did you get the background from somewhere or draw it yourself, or some combination? Tewfik Talk 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is moot. all maps are biased. none of them connotates beirut but teh talk is about the 60 miles zone. One clear thing on *all* these maps is it poses teh conflict as if taking place in palestine territory,for the *most* part, where its obviously not. you bunch of zionists:)onix 80.57.243.72 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a more 'Encyclopedic' map of the conflict region(in SVG), based off of the CIA's maps, and those published above. I'll leave it up to someone more involved to put it up it will do the job.
I put up the original picture, of the black and white aerial strike. It is better than nothing, but I still really dislike it. I am having trouble finding adequately sized photos that qualify for fair use, so if anyone can find a better picture show it here so we can try and find the best. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Somehow the IDF picture of the three soldiers with binoculars keeps being placed as the main picture for this article. Why? I'd argue it is POV picture from Israel's side, especially since it is an Irsael government photo by fair use. Why not go with the more neutral map of the middle east conflict area which provides more info and is more NPOV. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the only violation of NPOV is the constant removal of this image. Its completely illogical, I find the Israeli blockade highly notable and also find it to be anything but constructive to continually remove it. It is not in violation of NPOV to show an image of one side, it tends to be what happens. I think the most pertinent image would be of either Hezbollah Katyusha rockets or Israeli artillery being fired as this is where the war is at now. Unfortunately for us, no free images, or images qualifying for fair use are available depicting this. An image of the blockade, while not the top thing I would go for, is certainly pertinent and notable. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the image is trying to avoid POV taken too far, IMO. Since when did pictures of Israeli naval officers mean we were supporting them? How on earth is it POV? Until we get a better picture, (and by better, I mean by conveying the character of the conflict), why can't that stay?-- Iorek85 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is hard to capture in a single image an strict NPOV. Not impossible mind you, but hard.
Good examples have been given of other articles about conflict in which only one side is portrayed. So this is not a tautological nor a weasel words prima facie, but simply a difference between the spoken word and the picture.
For me what is wrong with the picture is that it is a sanitized, propaganda picture, of one side. I actually prefer the explosion photo over that. The 3 binocular photo doesn't convey conflict, war, mayhem, or is particulary newsworthy even. Its just three heroically looking guys looking via binoculars at space. It is so *yawn* boring and bland it says nothing. For all I care it could have been taken years ago. Only a public relations officer of the IDF can find it newsworthy!!!
So I think we must find a better picture, even if all we can find is IDF soldiers in combat operations. Please, an exciting, newsworthy, real (not setup) picture that says something about conflict an war... In that sense, I don't understand why someone removed the map, which was actually quite good as an image, and ultra NPOV. As such, I am putting the map up, hopefully it will become permanent, or something better than 3 guys posing with binoculars far from any real combat or action pops up. I care more, when it comes to this one picture about its POV than it being a picture of actual combat or war, rather than a boring posed propaganda photo. -- Cerejota 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, but could we all just describe this as a misunderstanding? So far all of the concerned parties have acted in good faith... Tewfik Talk 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the picture of the 3 men is so controversial, but I agree that it shouldn't be used. Not because its POV, but because its a crappy picture. Its 3 soldiers on a boat. It could have been taken anywhere, at any time. Pictures of other war articles have some relevence. The people or places involved, or the weapons used or the men and materiel gathered to fight. 3 men standing around is meaningless.
I would suggest something having to do more with the conflict. When this conflict is discussed, certain images enter ones mind more than others. One of these images should be used. An Israeli tank, or a Hezbollah rocket. A convoy of troops or militants. Or (my personal opinion) something relating to bombardments. Both sides have been lobbing explosives into populated areas of is enemy. So far anyway, this is how the war is being fought. I think a picture of a rocket in mid air, a crater in a street, or something of that nature would be most appropriate for the time being. Harley peters 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we don't see the faces because they are obscured by VLBs (Very Large Binoculars). One should not assume they are all Israeli Naval Officers - one might be, and the other might be Hizbollah, and the third could be a UN watchdog. They might not be aware of each other because of how engrossed they are with their binoculars, which by the way, if the three of them are there together, they are probably looking at some hot girl rather than something involved with the conflict. Alternatively, should the 3 binocularites in the picture be proven to be Israeli Naval personnel, it would be a simple exercise in photoshop to replace one of them with a Hezbollah fighter and the third with.. perhaps a UN-type watchdog person, or perhaps in celebration of the recent World Cup, that violent MVP from France. Is there a policy about photoshopping images to make them NPOV?-- Paraphelion 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Tensions between India and Pakistan are growing. There might even be a war! North Korea in the far east seems to be a threat that Japan and South Korea would want to take care. Let's not forget about the situation with Persia (Iran) and the United States. There is still an insurgency problem in Iraq. Oh and I almost forgot, THERE IS ALREADY WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON! Terrorist groups like Hezballah seem to make things even worse.
Are we headed toward WW3? Zachorious 04:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Cows of unknown origin and allegiance have invaded Lebanon, impeding Israeli mobile artillery units in doing so. [16]-- Paraphelion 08:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
....no matter how completely out of the blue that is, I can't help but laugh at it. :P Peptuck 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of Lebaneese held by Syria. Hezbulla never chalnged that, called for their release or kidnapped any syrian soldiers (who until recently were occuying Lebanon) or Syrian intelegence people (still in Lebanon).
Lots of Christians have been saying that when the whole world is at war, the end times will come, or something like that. But a little bit before the End, Jesus will appear and Rapture everyone. I don't quite remember what its about, but I think it should be added by someone with good knowledge of this subject. - supmyman7 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What should be the correct term for the captured soldiers? I don't think POW is correct, as Hizbulla does not adhere to the Geneva conventions with regards to taking prisoners of war, nor are they an army, nor was the capture during a war. So would the right wording be captured? kidnapped? taken hostage?-- darkskyz 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually POW status is not who was captured, it is the group that did the capturing. This is because only parties that are signatories to the Geneva Convention are obligated to follow it. So for example, if Party 1 is a signatory to the Geneva convention and Party 2 is not, then if Party 2 captures a Party 1 combatant, then it is not obligated under the treaty to treat the combatant as a POW. This is exactly what happened in WWII when the Germans put British and US soldiers in POW camps and were (relatively) well treated, while Russian soldiers were basically put into concentration camps since the UK/US/Germany were part of the Geneva convention and Russia was not.
Kidnap: To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (dictionary.com)
"Capture" is an intentionally vague term used by the media. You can capture anything: a flag, a hill, your breath... but you can only "kidnap" people. And since this is done outside of war by an illegitimate Lebanese militia, it's not a case of "capturing" PoWs. -- Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
Smalllwhitelight - according to you then there is no such thing as kidnapping and anybody anywhere is subject to "capture". However those of us in the civilized world can ascertain the distinction. Capture implies a combatant within an existing conflict or in a disputed area. At the time of the kidnappings there was no state of conflict, as this was the event which triggered it. And unless you want to go out on a limb, where it took place is also not disputed territory. Should every border patrol in the world be subject to "capture" by your definition, every country would be in a state of war. And I think you should leave your personal insecurities out of this discussion too. -- Craven Maven 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
At this moment, the article again calls it a kidnapping, despite the above discussion that capture is the neutral term to describe what happened. There were suggestions that "capture" makes it sound somehow heroic. I said above:
Since we now know that the word "capture" does not have a heroic conotation when used in this sense (it may be different for capturing hearts and minds, but that's not what we're talking about), and that captures can be both lawful and unlawful, I think this matter should be settled. I'll go change the wording in the article, and would expect anyone who disagrees to bring strong arguments to the talk page before reverting back. Zocky | picture popups 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Again people are changing capture to kidnap and taking hostages, even though we have discussed this above, and it seems clear that "capture" is neutral while "kidnap" isn't. Everybody seems to be calling it a capture now, including the US president at today's news conference. Further changes of this kind should be reverted on sight, otherwise this will just go on and on. Zocky | picture popups 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
With the US President's intellectual weight weighing in for the use of the word "capture", I am willing to cede the point to all his intellectual peers and congratulate them on their precience. -- Craven Maven 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know where the kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers initially took place? Jakro64 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. So what's not resolved? Can we maintain a list so we don't keepthat ugly and redundant POV tag up forever? -- Elliskev 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no citation to support that other countries or "leaders" blame Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. Israel is the only country to make this claim.
"The international reaction to the crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel. At the same time, many leaders have stated that Hezbollah initiated the crisis and Lebanon shares responsibility for letting Hezbollah operate within her jurisdiction. Many nations have also expressed concern of a possible escalation of the conflict. [76]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.112.57 ( talk • contribs).
Where are the citations? Clicking the little numbers does nothing. Where can I find the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??
From International reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis:
The Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller said that the Lebanese government has to take responsibility to prevent further terror attacks from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Bill Frist said that the Lebanese government should uphold its responsibility under a U.N. resolution to make sure its territory isn’t being used for Hezbollah or other groups.
--
JWSchmidt 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The Lebanese government was supposed to disband the Hezbollah militia. They didn't, instead, they let them run amok in their country. So what are people to think? That the government should not be responsibile for organization they sheltered despite attempts by those other world "leaders" to stop them? Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
Most people know that the Lebanese Government was not and is not equipped to deal with Hezbollah. Any attempt to disarm them would have created civil war. Moreover, Hezbollah has a better funded and better equipped military than Lebanon. Many people in Lebanon see the Hezbollah militia as the only armed forces that can defend them from Israeli incursions.
Do we really need this gory description:
in an encyclopedia article? Equally gory statements can be made to describe deaths on the other side, but they have no place in an encyc. article. 89.138.118.113 07:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I gotta say, I really think kudos are in order for you guys. To have such a complete, accurate, and balanced article on such a controversial and constantly-changing topic in so short a time... I gotta say I'm impressed. I know there are probably eight hundred big and little debates debates going on over numbers, wording, and probably everything else in this article, but overall it looks amazing. A nice slice of pie for all who've helped out! -- Gpollock 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert the sentence about violation of international law. This is not my personal POV it is a fact. I have a law degree with a specialisation in international law and I believe I am qualified to make such a statement. I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with other similarly qualified individuals. Israel does not have any special rights that allow it to freely violate the Geneva Convention without those violations being noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntonioBu ( talk • contribs).
So then you know that waging aggressive war and committing war crimes is a clear violation of jus cogens. AntonioBu 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
And BTW if you wish to follow this policy then please go through the article and remove all the uncited sections. They are numerous. Perhaps you could also remove the large chunks of uncited research appearing in articles you have written too. AntonioBu 07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Delirium, I did not make that judgment based on professional experience but on the continued opinions of a wide range of international bodies based on the typical operating procedure of the IDF. The amount of uncited, unresearched writing on wikipedia puts paid to your argument. My comment was not unresearched. So no, sorry to you actually. It is an important issue that must be addressed. And Jadelith, it is not an argument that until a court 'convicts' Israel there is no breach as there is no international judicial body currently capable of prosecuting Israel as a state party due to the continued interference in such processes by the US. Breaches of international law can and do occur without direct judicial sanction for this very good reason. International law is not a law of courts and juries to the same extent individual state law is. I believe thats where your confusion may have arisen. To further extend my analogy, if you stab someone, you breach the criminal code of your nation. You may never be convicted but you still committed a breach. This case is a clear breach. AntonioBu 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, its true that a US backed israel may never be convicted of anything, and yes it is unfair. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it cannot allow the analyses of individual persons. While I understand that the unnecessary bombings of civilian buildings are a clear cut case of a breach, us (you, me, delirium, and everyone else here) as individuals are not officially recognized bodies of such jurisprudence: what we have to say cannot be recognized as facts. If I stabbed someone, and even if everyone in the world just knew I did it, they can't punish me if they cannot prove that I did it. and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot add a comment like that until either: a) another government official or b) UN accused Israelis as breaching the conventions. We can only report stuff, and your personal opinions are only analysis. -- Jadelith 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was unfair. You have perhaps missed my point. A breach of international law can occur without there being a judicial conviction. That is a part the very nature of international law. I have added a third citation, please note in the sixth paragraph the quote by Kofi Annan.
My edit is cited. The article is full of totally uncited sections as is this entire project. You have no right to accuse me of vandalism. You're splitting hairs.
Read the international response. It is already criticising Israel as violating international law and the calls will only grow as the Israeli incursion continues. So this commentary will end up in this article. Thank you. AntonioBu 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing I have said is biased. It is the truth. I cited the convention because I mentioned it in the sentence. That is standard academic procedure. I see at least two 'citation needed' tags plus other non-referenced comments. Just what is your agenda here? AntonioBu 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? And the Israelis must have a justifiable point of view. The last point of view to be believed in this situation is of the combatants, who have vested interest in claiming legitimacy for their actions and that means both Israeli and Hezbollah. My god, an encyclopaedia is not a place for academic procedures?! I cited my contribution and the material I mentioned. An encyclopaedia demands academic procedure by its very nature. I keep saying it is not my personal POV it is fact and Israel's POV in this is hardly relevant. If they are the violating party do you think they would say they are committing those violations. I apologise for questioning someone's agenda but don't threaten me with being blocked. Thats not exactly civil behaviou either. AntonioBu 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added this information back into the article using the "apparent contravention" formulation, since that appears to be an acceptable NPOV formulation, judging from its use in relation to resolution 1559 in a less contested area of the article Jacob 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - The source was actually the Amnesty link provided, but I've clarified the text to make that explicit. Jacob 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A UN official has stated that Israel's actions are in breach of international law. Please see the final paragraph of the link I have now added. There is now no reason to remove the assertion that Israel is in breach of international law and any attempt to do so is nothing more than vandalism. AntonioBu 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well then add a section about Hezbollah's violations, I won't complain. Violations of international law are a fact but obviously you can't grasp that. I understand that as an Israeli this personally effects you and your loved ones but try and remove yourself from the scene for a minute and understand that these incursions, yes by both sides, have violated international law and that is a FACT. I have now clearly cited my edit, it is not my POV it is now a fact. AntonioBu 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the discussion about reported events/supposed events and source searches.
Can we get a source for this one? Yossiea 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably needs a better source. This seems to suggest that Syria may go to war, and if that happens then the shit will really hit the fan. I'll look around for additional sources.
Found one - Reuters. [3]
Not good. I'll try to edit it into the article. Mysticflame 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The Christian Science Monitor is quoting several people as stating that this is now a war, not just a "border skirmish." [4]. Under what criterion does this conflict become an official war? -- MZMcBride 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest people to regester in the army or any branch of the military.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.131 ( talk • contribs).
The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the above linked CSM article: "With Israel's declaration of war not just on Hizbullah but on the entire Lebanese government..." ~~Flora "Call it what it is, a War"
[5] [6] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one. Hello32020 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Robin Hood 1212 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Source? I have scanned Ynet, and the closest I find is opinion articles, not hard news.
-- Cerejota 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah has declared war. But I don't think they have national authority. -- Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
So the chief of Hezbollah calls it open war. That's fine and dandy, but does he have the authority to declare war? And what about Israel? How are they responding? Are they calling it war or another rescue operation? -- Taishaku 04:29, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)
[7] [8] Hezbollah Chief now calls it open war, so it should be called one.
Yes, This should now be called a war, but let's wait and see. If nothing else, I'll see what they call it on the 6:30 news. Back in 10 minutes -- Crucible Guardian 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How can you call this a war? Israel versus Hezbollah? Hezbollah is not a country. The country of Lebanon never declared war on Israel, yet Israel is attacking targets that can hardly be considered "Hezbollah Targets". The main road from Lebanon to Damascus cant be a hezbollah target. Bombing the Rafik Hariri Airport cant be a against Hezbollah. Israel will just keep bombing and bullying LEBANON for something a separate entity within Lebanon did. Capturing two soldiers did not cause this conflict. Israel's apartheid caused this conflict. -- Erpals 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since 1942 was the last us declaration of war, this is obviously not a war (..);) military agressions against neighbouring economys are acts of war. Have always been incite for wars. would lebanon war against the intrusion of their air space, territory, and the lives of their civilians , it at least to me seems they have a viable excuse to deploy weaponry on lebanese territory.
That they don't is both pragmatic and peacefull. btw... i think despite of the obvious and historic analogys, the security counsel would negatively judge any arab(lebanese) militant response, and so would western opinion. (the guys making wikipedia, amongst others) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 ( talk • contribs).
I think it is completely wrong to call this an Israeli Lebanon War. Ehud Olmert said he was at war with Hezbollah. He holds Lebanon accountable but has not declared war on Lebanon. Further Lebanon is not fighting with Israel. It takes two for a war. This is a "war on terrorism" if anything.
Conflict sounds appropriate (imagine two countries in Europe launching this level of violence on each other... the naming wouldn't be crisis I'm sure.)
Tell me to get back to work! 05:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
With the Hezbollah attack on an Israeli ship, I think the title should now read "2006 Israeli-Lebanonese War", or something like that. Beckstcw 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Beckstcw
If you want to call it the Israeli-Hezbollah War fine but I think it is completely wrong and pretty biased to call it an Isreali Lebanese War.
Its taking place in Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Much like the Iraq War is so named due to it being in Iraq, although the government of Iraq is infact on the coalitions side at this point. I am not sure that this can classify as a "Crisis" considering the scale for which it has reached. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a wager of 1 brownie point that if this turns into a full-scale war, it will be called the Lebanon war or some such thing, but let's leave the article where it is until sources come up with a permanent name for it. Zocky | picture popups 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean that we can't decide what this war is called. We have to wait until politicians, media, etc. decide what to call it and then move the article to that name. Until that happens, this name is as good as any. Zocky | picture popups 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there could be something about why everyone is so reluctant to call it a war. I have seen numerous sources using and citing phrases such as "amount to war" or "amount to war crimes"; it seems there is no real distinction between what is going on and a war - other than an actual declaration of war?-- Paraphelion 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The title is definitely biased. This is an agression agaist a sovereign country. The title of the article should reflect that.-- tequendamia 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are so many Wikipedia editors so eager to call this a war? The very first day Israel started its operation a group of people created a page called 2006 Arab-Israeli War which speculated that the operations in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as Israel's fly-by into Syria, were all part of a new major war in the Middle East. Not until I put the page up for deletion, and after a lot of debate, did they eventually agree to change the title to 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict. I now see the same editors screaming that we must right now change the title of this article "2006 Lebanon War". Why this urgency? Please hold on. War normally means massive amounts of people and material thrown into a conflict, and in all previously Israeli conflicts which today are called wars rather than operations, Israel has at least done a general mobilisation and put a 100,000 people or more into uniform. So far they have only called in some reservists; a routine measure they have done whenever they have launched any kind of operation in the past. The situation is serious, but so far it's not very different from numerous operations into Lebanon that Israel has done in the past, like Operation Litani. There has until now been only one "proper" war between Israel and Lebanon during the past 58 years, the one in 1982, when Israel moved in with some 80,000 soldiers and at least 10,000 people died. Let's hope that will be the only war between these two countries instead of eagerly anticipating another one. Time will tell, but until it's official, let's keep the current title. Thomas Blomberg 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with ~ Rangeley ( talk). This is clearly a conflict between the country of Israel and the Hezbollah. Since both sides have declared war, this is now a war between these two, and i agree with the person who created this discussion. dposse 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion it is (just) a war, in the sense that the Lebanese Government (however tenuous that might be) didn't exactly give Israel permission for the attacks. If any othe rnation (Syria, Iran, Egypt, US, UK, etc) gets involved then it is definatley a war. Cryomaniac 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Should be updatded to show at least 35 civilians in Lebanon killed. The article on Wikipedia is actually biased toward Israel which is similar to the mainstream media. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060715/wl_nm/mideast_dc_358;_ylt=AlNNEi8KvDyXzXdzBjN_NfsUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVPUCUl
but both sides have called it a war. It's in the introduction! dposse 17:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good compromise to me. It's bigger than a crisis, but it isn't officially a war. It's an armed conflict involving Israel and Lebanon. 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, then, seems reasonable to me. It's clearly an armed conflict, and it clearly involves Israel and Lebanon. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is this not called a "war"?- DePiep 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: we cannot engage in original research and must back all claims with reliable sources. Until such time that "war" becomes widely accepted as a description of this specific event, we cannot call it that. Happy editing, Tewfik Talk 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name and/or class of the vessel? Sijo Ripa 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the news into the article regarding the missile hit on a civilian merchant ship, according to Israeli sources. [ [12]] Any further information regarding this..... ? Ryanuk 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't which type the boat is, but Ynet has its name [13] (look at the bold gray heading) - heb: אח"י חנית. Should be INS Hanit or Khanit. According to the article INS Dakar (heb:אח"י דקר), the אח"י should be translated in this ship to INS too. Máfiàg 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the casus beli in the infobox to a less awkward one, does "Border attack by Hezbollah's military wing killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers, in attempt to release Palestinian POWs held by Israe" seem NPOV enough to everyone? -- darkskyz 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It does, however someone added a "followed by an Israeli retaliation", which is NOT a Casus Beli (I think :) ) Shahar
I think it is worth noting in the article that Hebzbollah's motive is actually complete distruction of Israel. [14] As it is read, it makes it seem like Hezbollah's entire purpose is to regain a 20 sq km parcel of land from Israel. Masterhomer 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article needs more explanation of the right of a country (in this case Israel) responding militarily in a general fashion against another government's (Lebanon's) assets after an attack by a specific non-governmental organization within the other country. It is an unfamiliar concept in international relations to many people, I think.
I know the U.S. action against Afghanistan in 2001 is somewhat analogous, but in that case the U.S. seemed to be trying to overthrow Afghanistan's government, whereas in this case it is more a matter of reprisal (or is it? this is where explanation is needed).
The lack of an explanation of this concept may affect the NPOV of the article, since if people do not understand what principles are involved they may think that Israel is acting irrationally or unjustifiably rather than by established principles of international/military practice. It might clear up some of the arguments I'm seeing in the Talk page. -- Cam 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The concept of raids against 'a specific non-governmental organization within the other country' is actually all but uncommon, ethiopia-somalia and sudan-uganda (i think) have loads of these incidents. It's a side effect of the (also israelian) ethnic cleansing policys, when you push a certain people(ethnics) into another territory they will naturally agitate from there ( compare the dutch queen in brittain (ww2)). any resistance movement supported by the west is called a "shadow government" in this context actually;)
Now about established principles: It's an established principle that governments and military authorities understand the results of their cause of actions, and actually its common sense these institutions are there to anticipate them. So regarded israel will have anticipated hezbollah reactions. Quitte possibly to a wider extend then any member of hezbollah herself. Thus reasoned israel has no excuse at all. therefore established principle is: the status quo decides what history will tell us. onix 80.57.243.72 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: Is this local time? - Litefantastic 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Though as this is a continuation of Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, is it really fair to claim that "It all began when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers"? Israel is just using that to justify further actions in Southern Lebanon just as they did in 1982 and 1967. I think to start out the article in such a fashion displays a bias towards Israel in the opening paragraph! 209.101.103.133 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Flora.
The Hezbollah and the other arab terrorism organizations have been hostile towards Israel for years. Two israeli soldiers were kidnapped in the Gaza Strip (among the two Gilad Shalit) and two in Lebanon. Throughout the last decade Israel has suffered many terrorist attacks, and it is time to take action and to make the terrorism units such as the Hezbollah and the Hamas to disarm. Israel, as a country, has a total right to defend itself in a matter of attacks, and may I mention that it was Lebanon who had started this combat. Israel's requests (a disarming of the Lebanese terrorism unit Hezbollah and the return of the two kidnapped soldiers) seem very relevant, and show that Israel wants to stop the terrorism. But, the core of the terrorism is not laying in Lebanon. Actually, Iran is the one responsible (and is very well know for it) for supporting terrorism. Almost all the weapons that Hezbollah and other terrorists own are continuously coming from Iran. And still, western "peace supporting" contries such as France and so, believe that the UN chairmen should keep talking and talking (instead of DOING, and to finish the terrorism organizations off), and thus blaming Israel for Lebanon's situation, we've all been in this scene before... I believe that the US should take action if they really want to put an end to terrorism (in which the UN has proved itself for doing nothing and only incouraging terrorism with their rediculous meetings) by attacking its main source, Iran.
This article is getting quite large, so perhaps it would be a good idea to split it into a list of the Israeli attacks, and a list of the Hezbollah attacks? Damburger 11:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just get rid of all of it? It's relevant at Hezbollah, but not so much here. -- Elliskev 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This article needs an overhaul in it's structure. People are adding comments in a hurry leading statements to be repeated FOUR different times in random places leading NO sense of structure or timeline.
This article really needs to be locked for unregistered users and new users as it is quite a heated topic and could easily get out of control.-- Ddahlberg 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A minor point in all this, but could we put double square brackets around dates in order for them to show up correctly for readers? This is a non-US topic, so it is inappropriate for dates to be listed in US format (eg. "July 14th" rather than "14 July") Putting dates into correct wikidate format such as 14 July 2006 ensure that they show up in a reader's preferred format. -- Jumbo 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
While introductory comments might be in order, we must keep in mind this page is about the crisis, not about the actors in the crisis. Hizbollah, Lebanon, and Israel all have very long and informative pages, and these pages are linked form here. So all this talk about describing any actor, beyonf introductory purposes, diminishes the qualy of this entry.
This is not a POV issue, but one of quality of the entry. -- Cerejota 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
For example one user just changed captured to kidnap in like 5 seconds. While that one is arguable there are a lot of other vandalism in the article that is not. Times Square lebanon thing for example. 74.137.230.39 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If you believe it is absolutely necessary, I guess we should. But it should only be temporary and be as short as possible. Lets get concensus though. Hello32020 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Although if its only small things that can be quickly reverted or changed then I don't agree Hello32020 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I would go for semi-protection. I had to do a massive revert because of people vandalising links. Damburger 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay I agree with semi-protection (sad my accounts only 2-3 days old) Hello32020 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just take a look at edits history, I just came here and all I've been doing is reverting. 74.137.230.39 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope older users take my suggestions on the talk page. Is there a tag that says "This article may need semi-protection...visit talk page" Hello32020 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This is now linked from the front page, so it is unlikely that semi-protection will stick. I also find it ironic that an anonymous user is asking for semi-protection ... you do know that would you prevent you from editing too, right? My recommendation is to register an account immediately. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: Page has recently been semi-protected Hello32020 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Under the historical section there needs to be some explanation of the fact that the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah, nor had the ability to disarm them. When reading the article it appears bias without that mention. I am not a strong writer, so if some one could take a crack at it, I think it would be a valuable contribution towards balance.
Is the text (and "citation needed" tag) before the citation in footnote 7 a bug or not? -- zenohockey 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't used revert before, someone says 6 million Israel civillians dead, don't know if they removed source, someone revert. Hello32020 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The map currently being used, Image:2006 Israel Hezbullah Conflict Map.png, currently has no source information and can be deleted. As it was posted by a new user, it is extremely likely that it was merely taken off a news site of some sort. I've created a crude map in MS Paint until a more professional, licenced version is acquired ( Image:2006-Lebanon-Israel-crisis strikes-and-rockets.PNG). Please leave feedback as to whether it is appropriate and should replace the current map. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Put it up if we get some more supporters. Hello32020 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you also include a sampling of the Katyusha strikes? Many have penetrated significantly farther than the red "conflict" band, specifically at Safed where 2 people have been killed. Otherwise, it looks great. ( check this Jerusalem Post map out for more info - I have others that I can supply) Tewfik Talk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Map looks good. Good work, Rangeley. Sijo Ripa 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Only if it works out visually; I wouldn't want to disrupt the image. I suppose you're correct vis-a-vis above, though I still think showing Safed would be significant. And by the way, how exactly did you get the basic map - did you get the background from somewhere or draw it yourself, or some combination? Tewfik Talk 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is moot. all maps are biased. none of them connotates beirut but teh talk is about the 60 miles zone. One clear thing on *all* these maps is it poses teh conflict as if taking place in palestine territory,for the *most* part, where its obviously not. you bunch of zionists:)onix 80.57.243.72 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a more 'Encyclopedic' map of the conflict region(in SVG), based off of the CIA's maps, and those published above. I'll leave it up to someone more involved to put it up it will do the job.
I put up the original picture, of the black and white aerial strike. It is better than nothing, but I still really dislike it. I am having trouble finding adequately sized photos that qualify for fair use, so if anyone can find a better picture show it here so we can try and find the best. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Somehow the IDF picture of the three soldiers with binoculars keeps being placed as the main picture for this article. Why? I'd argue it is POV picture from Israel's side, especially since it is an Irsael government photo by fair use. Why not go with the more neutral map of the middle east conflict area which provides more info and is more NPOV. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the only violation of NPOV is the constant removal of this image. Its completely illogical, I find the Israeli blockade highly notable and also find it to be anything but constructive to continually remove it. It is not in violation of NPOV to show an image of one side, it tends to be what happens. I think the most pertinent image would be of either Hezbollah Katyusha rockets or Israeli artillery being fired as this is where the war is at now. Unfortunately for us, no free images, or images qualifying for fair use are available depicting this. An image of the blockade, while not the top thing I would go for, is certainly pertinent and notable. ~ Rangeley ( talk) 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the image is trying to avoid POV taken too far, IMO. Since when did pictures of Israeli naval officers mean we were supporting them? How on earth is it POV? Until we get a better picture, (and by better, I mean by conveying the character of the conflict), why can't that stay?-- Iorek85 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is hard to capture in a single image an strict NPOV. Not impossible mind you, but hard.
Good examples have been given of other articles about conflict in which only one side is portrayed. So this is not a tautological nor a weasel words prima facie, but simply a difference between the spoken word and the picture.
For me what is wrong with the picture is that it is a sanitized, propaganda picture, of one side. I actually prefer the explosion photo over that. The 3 binocular photo doesn't convey conflict, war, mayhem, or is particulary newsworthy even. Its just three heroically looking guys looking via binoculars at space. It is so *yawn* boring and bland it says nothing. For all I care it could have been taken years ago. Only a public relations officer of the IDF can find it newsworthy!!!
So I think we must find a better picture, even if all we can find is IDF soldiers in combat operations. Please, an exciting, newsworthy, real (not setup) picture that says something about conflict an war... In that sense, I don't understand why someone removed the map, which was actually quite good as an image, and ultra NPOV. As such, I am putting the map up, hopefully it will become permanent, or something better than 3 guys posing with binoculars far from any real combat or action pops up. I care more, when it comes to this one picture about its POV than it being a picture of actual combat or war, rather than a boring posed propaganda photo. -- Cerejota 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, but could we all just describe this as a misunderstanding? So far all of the concerned parties have acted in good faith... Tewfik Talk 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the picture of the 3 men is so controversial, but I agree that it shouldn't be used. Not because its POV, but because its a crappy picture. Its 3 soldiers on a boat. It could have been taken anywhere, at any time. Pictures of other war articles have some relevence. The people or places involved, or the weapons used or the men and materiel gathered to fight. 3 men standing around is meaningless.
I would suggest something having to do more with the conflict. When this conflict is discussed, certain images enter ones mind more than others. One of these images should be used. An Israeli tank, or a Hezbollah rocket. A convoy of troops or militants. Or (my personal opinion) something relating to bombardments. Both sides have been lobbing explosives into populated areas of is enemy. So far anyway, this is how the war is being fought. I think a picture of a rocket in mid air, a crater in a street, or something of that nature would be most appropriate for the time being. Harley peters 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we don't see the faces because they are obscured by VLBs (Very Large Binoculars). One should not assume they are all Israeli Naval Officers - one might be, and the other might be Hizbollah, and the third could be a UN watchdog. They might not be aware of each other because of how engrossed they are with their binoculars, which by the way, if the three of them are there together, they are probably looking at some hot girl rather than something involved with the conflict. Alternatively, should the 3 binocularites in the picture be proven to be Israeli Naval personnel, it would be a simple exercise in photoshop to replace one of them with a Hezbollah fighter and the third with.. perhaps a UN-type watchdog person, or perhaps in celebration of the recent World Cup, that violent MVP from France. Is there a policy about photoshopping images to make them NPOV?-- Paraphelion 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Tensions between India and Pakistan are growing. There might even be a war! North Korea in the far east seems to be a threat that Japan and South Korea would want to take care. Let's not forget about the situation with Persia (Iran) and the United States. There is still an insurgency problem in Iraq. Oh and I almost forgot, THERE IS ALREADY WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON! Terrorist groups like Hezballah seem to make things even worse.
Are we headed toward WW3? Zachorious 04:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Cows of unknown origin and allegiance have invaded Lebanon, impeding Israeli mobile artillery units in doing so. [16]-- Paraphelion 08:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
....no matter how completely out of the blue that is, I can't help but laugh at it. :P Peptuck 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of Lebaneese held by Syria. Hezbulla never chalnged that, called for their release or kidnapped any syrian soldiers (who until recently were occuying Lebanon) or Syrian intelegence people (still in Lebanon).
Lots of Christians have been saying that when the whole world is at war, the end times will come, or something like that. But a little bit before the End, Jesus will appear and Rapture everyone. I don't quite remember what its about, but I think it should be added by someone with good knowledge of this subject. - supmyman7 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)