![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
-- Rm uk
"Despite the fact that Hezbollah was not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this particular bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement."
The definition of Terrorism since 9/11 has changed from "spreading terror," to any military act against civilians by a non governmental organization. If this were the 20's, yes what Israel is doing would be considered a terrorist act, just as the bombing of the King David Hotel by Lechi or Irgun (I can't remember which) was a terrorist act. But in this day and age, Hezbollah is an aggressor and does not wholly repesent a sovereign government. It's attacks are stated as being against civilians, with the stated intent of killing them. Israeli attacks are stated as being against infrastructure to end the killing of civilians, as well as to kill active members of Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah hides among civilians, is what has caused the death of so many Lebanese civilians in this conflict. And by the way, official counts on the Lebanese side show only twice as many killed or injured, not ten times as many.
I also agree, I mean many of the things we consider as terrorist acts, such as bombing civilian infrastructure, spread fear and terror to force people into complying with them; the State of Israel does on a regular basis. Why aren't they called terrorists, when they bomb a flat killing 58 civilian? Oh but when Hezbollah fires a rocket and kills 2 Israelis, oh then the world wakes up and scorns Hezbollah for such "provocative" actions. Until we come to a conclusion about the true stance and nature of Hezbollah, you should really refrain from using the world terrorist, unless it's in relation to certain attacks they carried out and so on. I mean Israel are no big humanitarians themselves, they've killed more civilians than Hezbollah could hope to murder in several lifetimes, yet there's probably one mention of the word "terrorist" on their page.
Israel has a apologise profusely for the bombing in Qana. If they were bombing indiscriminately would they not be carpet bombing neighbourhoods like the Russians in Chechnya? Has Hezbollah apologised for the loss of one civilian on either side? It says a lot really as to intention. It is a terrorist act to target civilians and definitely if no remore or apologies are indicated. Qana looks more and more to have been an exaggeration by the day. 58 civilians can no longer be qualified. Please back this up. Kaltik
Please don't suddenly slap labels over this article unless it is really necessary.
The labels need to be there. You amongst others are showing a complete lack of balance and excusing terrorism in the extreme. Kaltik
58.178.120.62 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)ap89
This is a terrible sentence which Isarig insists on it. If there isn't consensus in the social communities and just few countries have recognized it as a terrorist organisation, then how can you say "terrorist acts"? This is your POV. I propose to write "military" instead of "terrorist".-- Sa.vakilian 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts". Is it neutral? It induces a blame as a fact. Do you agree with writing this sentence in the lead of Israel:"Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..."-- Sa.vakilian 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So you agree with adding "Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..." in the lead of Israel because of Sabra and Shatila Massacre, 1996 shelling of Qana and many other genocides which Israel is blamed for them by some countries.-- Sa.vakilian 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No neutral person or historian has ever linked the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla to anything remotely bordering on genocide. It completely defies its meaning and detracts from Hezbollah's targeting of innocent people inside Israel or using their own people as human shields Kaltik
Please read Definition of terrorism. Over a 100 definitions have been used for this word. It makes it very difficult to use, because it means so many different things.
Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts...
What terrorist acts? Could we define this instead of using a sentence that only reveals one 'fact'? Could we then perhaps remove the loaded term 'terrorist act? I think if we do, the POV, seen from either the Hezbollah-is-a-satanic-terrorist-organisation camp or the Hezbollah-loves-Israeli-babies camp, should go away, no?
Perhaps defining it all as it is, with references backing up the statements:
Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.
Heck, even better:
Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.
Mceder 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. To dispute this is to apply moral relativity to an absurd extreme. Whatever applicability you want to apply to the maxim "one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter" does not diminish the fact that the actions of Hezbollah toward Israel (and others) subjects them to feelings of fear and TERROR ...
A new user wishes to add his opinion, namely that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in the intro. May I suggest that we dont for the umpteenth time repeat the debate about whether Wikipedia should approve such accusations. Actually policies have been devoloped for such issues. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I assume we all feel responsible to uphold these policies. Bertilvidet 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the comment about Hezbollah being considered by some as a terrorist group and by others as a resistance movement is repeated too often. I think once should be sufficient. -- Ghormax 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, its pretty simple. If an organization purposefully targets civilians with violence in order to achieve political goals, it is a terrorist organization. I understand that Hezbollah is also a social organization, and I certaintly respect the good it has done in that respect in Lebanon. Further, its activities fighting the IDF within Lebanese territory could be described as that of a morally questionable, but none the less legitamate resistance organization. However, Hezbollah launches missles into major Israeli population centers with the stated goal of killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. As such, Hezbollah's other activies do not change the fact that it is a terrorist organization by the definition of terrorist. Prancing around this point is useless; stating what is by definition true is not POV. -- Almo 8/6/06
Hezbollah sees an illigitimate entity that was fraudulently created by Zionists and therefore terrorist. Israelis consider the deliberate targeting of civilians as terrorism. Hezbollah states that because all Israelis go to the army, they are all targets, despite killing so many Arabs in their wild missile attacks. They also consider Muslims who die due to their actions as martyr soldiers that died for Allah. Israel only considers people not enlisted in an armed group as civilians, but accepts collateral damage to civilians and destruction of infrastructure if it has a dual use in aiding terrorists. Labaneh 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't take a fact, then call it POV, it doesn't follow. We're trying to deal in objective facts. Saying that Hezbolla believes they arn't terrorists is irrelevant to the conversation. Their belief doesn't change the facts of the matter.
Now, if we're going by the english language, then Terrorism is defined as: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
Terror being: "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>"
Violent or Destructive acts: Firing Katyusha Rockets into crowded civilian population centres. Check. Committed by Groups: Hizbolla Check. To intimidate a population or government: Israel. Check. into granting their demands: Prisoner exchange. Check.
Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whther you want to believe it or not, that makes Hizbollah a terrorist organisation.
Also, before anyone makes themselves look stupid by trying to compare this to Israel's activities: Israel is fighting a conventional war against a terrorist organisaton. They are retaliating in a somewhat disproportionate manner. Nobody disputes the destrucion of civilian infrastructure is going too far, however it is done with the stated aim of crippling the organisation they are fighting. While they are lobbying the Lebanese government, and the UN, for a ceasefire agreement, they are not attempting to coerce either into doing so.
The "Revision as of 18:11, 7 August 2006 (edit) Marokwitz" added some discussion of the EU Parliamentary motion to the terrorism table. I don't think it belongs - this is a very general motion and had no practical effect whatsoever. But I've already removed one reference to this motion before and don't want to get into an edit war. What do others think? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to updating the Australian link with the more up to date reference here? - brenneman {L} 01:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So far Yannisc, JiHymas@himivest.com and undersigned argue against the inclusion of details about internal debates within EU in the table. Morakowitz (and CyclingFan???) argue for its inclusion. If no other editors wish to express their view I suggest that we follow the will of the majority. Bertilvidet 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The table says "List of entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist". As a quickly scanning reader (not having time to read everything in detail) one spots the EU flag there and conclude the EU designates Hezbollah as terrorist. This is disinformation. Tables should show exactly what that tables caption indicates. 84.48.108.156 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There are two linked web-pages described as Official Web Sites. I have tagged these as disputed for the following reasons:
If anyone can find a citation on Manar or Nour which reference an official web-page, by all means, please let us know. It may also be worth inclusion in the article to discuss that both Manar and Nour's official web-pages are temporarily down; the most likely cause is the recent chaos in Lebanon. Nimur 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add this to this article. See [Hamas] for a comparison.
Hezbollah/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Leader | Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah |
Founder | Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin |
Founded | 1985 |
Ideology | Islamism, Shi'a Islam |
Website | |
Varies. See List of official sites. |
Let me know what you think, and for what to add under Members, International affiliation and Headquarters(Beirut?) Mceder 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
nationality = Lebanese | religion = Shi'a Islam |
There is Christians and Sunni and Deruz too but Hezbollah members are Shiite.-- Sa.vakilian 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have twice added to the lead that a vast majority of the Lebanese, alon with some Muslim states, regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organization, but have immediately been reverted. This information is elaborated and well sourced (87%) in the article. I believe it is a crucial point in order to understand the organization and its role in Lebanon. Please raise objection here. Bertilvidet 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This article becomes too long(more than 80 kb). So I propose to move "Foreign and domestic relations" to a new article.-- Sa.vakilian 13:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The "other links" section starts with a video-link portraying a military operation: "Video of Hezbollah Military Operation". This should certainly not be the first link. It carries mostly emotional or propaganda value.
I suggest putting the short BBC article "Who are Hezbollah" as first external link.
I also do not see why the "United States Department of State" should have it's own separate heading in this Wikipedia article. The link within that should belong with the rest of the links.
84.48.108.156 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
At least three different spellings of Shia are used in the opening few sections of this article. Can they be standardised to a single spelling at least within this one article? I don't know enough about the differences relating to context (if any?) to do it myself. — Pengo talk · contribs 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting fact and worth of encyclopedic mentioning...
Hezbollah members show a salute that strikingly resembles the nazi salute, with the right hand raised in the air. (see in video).
-- TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For more NPOV, edit it.-- TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. see Islamofascism. Hezbollah is mentioned-- TheFEARgod 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's find an expert on Hezbollah and may he confirm something.-- TheFEARgod 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about the segment of video at around 01:35? It is not even clear to me this is a salute. For there to be a salute, there has to be a superior to receive the salute and this does not appear to be the case. Also, the unsourced interpretation that this is a Nazi salute constitutes "original research" which is strictly forbidden. If there is a credible source which claims that this video contains evidence of a Nazi salute, then by all means, quote that source.
Jonexsyd 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nazi, eh? And all this time I thought they looked like Americans taking the pledge of allegiance. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a Nazi salute its called a Roman salute ( 69.69.161.45 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC))
Interesting historical tidbit. The ref, however, confirms what I said above and supports the association of the salute in question with the Nazi salute: "The initial military salute was soon replaced with a hand-on-heart gesture, followed by the extension of the arm as described by Bellamy. Because of the similarity of this part of the salute to the Hitler salute, the Bellamy salute was replaced in 1942 with the modern gesture of placing the hand over the heart without raising the arm" Elizmr 20:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Nazi style salute was, and is in some places, common in most Arab armies and paramilitary forces, I don't know why. Arguably it's because postwar Nazi refugees, most of them from the military or police force, where sought experts creating or restructuring Arab forces in that era. Even nationalists like Nasser, who considered himself socialist, were eager to get these experts. Some of them, in a strange twist, converted to Islam later. Besides, Nazi Germany was a cherished supporter against British rule and Jewish immigration. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni recruited Muslims for the Waffen-SS, Qtub was influenced by French fashist Carrel and had Muslim Brotherhood members parade with Nazi salute through the streets of the 30ies' Cairo.
As long as the direct connection is not verifiably established, it can't be mentioned in the article, but it should not come as a surprise. Ahmadinedschad didn't invite prominent European neo-Nazis like Horst Mahler to the Holocaust conference for disliking them and their stances. -- tickle me 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The opening sentence in this section now reads:
This is a change from what I have reverted it to several times, a direct quote from the cited document (68) which said:
I prefer the direct quote, but it appears there are some editors allergic to the word "terrorist", who have changed it to other wordings (sometimes while maintaining the quotes). I want the sentence to be a direct quote from the cited document - I consider such citations better than paraphrases. Obviously, there are some who disagree, but can we form a consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The israel section has statements that aren't well supported by the cites supplied. The 2003 CNN interview, see above, doesn't identify the disputed territory and doesn't say anything about prisoners being the only problem. The other quotes are about Israel-Palestine relations and Hez involvement. They do not support the statement that Hez does not want to destroy Israel and doe snot have capibility. Please supply some that do and please don't remove the tag until you do. Elizmr 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Generally a good background to Hezbollah. However, it vastly underplays the extent to which they've become an Iranian pawn in Iran's quest to further it's own aims in the region (even though there are few innocent parties in the existing conflict).
"it originally sought also to bring Islamic Revolution to Lebanon,[4] but soon abandoned this goal for a more moderate, inclusive platform of democratic change".
I think even hardened Hezbollah supporters have might have trouble supporting this one.
The citations for the statement, "...which extended to a desire for the elimination of “the Zionist entity.." from the first para. on "POSITION ON ISRAEL" are quite dubious in terms of neutrality. establishing an account of these positions should be done through citation of hezbollah sources, not terrorist organization listings from western countries.--jc: unregistrered user. 17 August 2006.
There is disagreement about what the references site says [1]: "Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament. [2]"
I think this text doesn't support Elizmer claim.-- Sa.vakilian 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at [9]-- Sa.vakilian 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The US Department of State is also an authoritative source, so at this point I'll have to say "unclear". How about:
JiHymas@himivest.com 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
We should distinct between Islamic revolution idealogy and Islamic Republic government, as we distinct between Liberal Democracy and the political system in U.K. . I think Hezbollah doesn't abandoned the Idealogy of Islamic revolution but it abandoned establishment a goverment like Islamic Republic of Iran. So I substituted your edition with BBC's quotation . I believe it's clearer than what was there before and justifies this idea.-- Sa.vakilian 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The discussion at the talk page for Image:Lebanese Hezbollah recruts being sworn in.jpg seems to indicate that this image may not actually be of Hezbollah recuits, but rather of the Iranian Basij. The photo shown at this page Is nearly identical (that is, it quite obviously depicts the exact same people), but it appears to have been taken a moment before or after the image used here. — ptk✰ fgs 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
2 Cents: Everyone needs to chill on this article. I am taking a 48 hour break from it myself, because I find myself frustrated with these arguments. Look, someone brought up a valid point about an image's origin.. no one deleted it, no one replaced it with one that shows Hezbollah murdering jews. It was something that User Ptk brought up here, for us to discuss! So it really does not warrant us all freaking out over it. This article went from a really crappy one to what we have now, and I think it can be on it's way to a Great Article one of these days.. but only if the POV blaming stops, and we actually build consensus instead of yelling. Mceder 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I found another image of Hezbollah members saluting at http://kontrateksty.pl/files/news/heil%20hezbollah%20008.jpg In this one they're carrying Hezbollah flags, so at least we've got (one of?) their salutes properly down (or it's very thorough disinformation!). I looked around for images of Basij saluting ... found a few copies (or very similar versions) of the image under discussion, but nothing that had the same salute in a completely different context. On another note, we can now hypothesize that the Hezbollah salute is derived from the Basij salute but, alas, this will have to remain speculation for now, at least as far as I'm concerned. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is totally non-npov. A tag should immediately be placed on it. -- 71.197.196.45 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The flag image is gone. What do you guys think of this one? It appears to be under a CC license. — ptk✰ fgs 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'
Hezbollah was formed primarily to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[18],[19] Hezbollah initially aimed to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic, though it has since abandoned this goal in favor of a more inclusive platform.[6] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto.
- The civilian activities introduction could be merged with the social services sub-section, since they largely say the same thing. Coolintro 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'
This should be removed; If you put Israel on the list you need to also put all the opinions of the Muslim countries too. Or again it becomes a POV. -- SkyEarth 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if somebody could add some explanation of the symbols on the Hezbollah flag. There certainly seems to be quite a few symbols packed onto the flag, but preliminary googling hasn't turned up any elaborating information. -- NeuronExMachina 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If you click on the flag, I believe you will find the information you are looking for. Coolintro 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering how to spell the name of this organization. I've seen it some places as Hizbullah,(like Newsweek) or as Hezbollah. (on the news) Any help would be kndly accepted. Thank you. 65.43.225.138 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank You very much. 65.43.225.138 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should add an IPA pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article (right after the Arabic transliteration), especially because every newscaster has his own opinion on the matter. -- Leapfrog314 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This article failed to show Hizbullah in its real image. Hizbullah is a 100% Lebanese party that works on defending against Israeli invasion. Its a Lebanese party working for Lebanon benefit.
Ahmad Damen
I created 2 sections Social Activites and Political Activities to match Military Activities and moved subtopics from idealogy to the appropriate one. Carbonate 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
For ther person asking what the symbols on the flag means from top to bottom:
1. At the top there is a verse from the Holly Quran saying: "It is only the party of god who wins"
2. A symbol of a gun
3. A symbol of the globe
4.The name "Hezbollah" which means the "party of god"
5.A sentence in Arabic saying "The islamic defenders of Lebanon"
I fixed a few footnotes that were before punctuation; ref tags should be after periods and commas. I also noticed a few places where a bunch of footnotes are together. This looks bad and can lead to strange line breaking. Just a suggestion, but it might be better to combine them into one note as a bulleted list, even if that means the reference "name" won't be used in that one instance. Also, a number of the templated citations appear to be broken, mostly due to a missing title. Thought someone should know. Gimmetrow 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The section on the flag is in the center of the article and seems choppy there. Let's put it at the top after the introduction since it is emblematic of the org, or at the very bottom rather than in the center or sections which are more related to each other. Elizmr 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are too many endless debates in this page. -- Sa.vakilian 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If either of you guys paid the slightest attention to the results of the debates, you might find them more interesting. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Flag section? This was reverted. Elizmr 23:48, 20 August 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
-- Rm uk
"Despite the fact that Hezbollah was not officially an organization until February 1985, many (notably the U.S. government) believe that the Hezbollah, a Lebanese based militant group backed by Iran and Syria, was responsible for this particular bombing as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement."
The definition of Terrorism since 9/11 has changed from "spreading terror," to any military act against civilians by a non governmental organization. If this were the 20's, yes what Israel is doing would be considered a terrorist act, just as the bombing of the King David Hotel by Lechi or Irgun (I can't remember which) was a terrorist act. But in this day and age, Hezbollah is an aggressor and does not wholly repesent a sovereign government. It's attacks are stated as being against civilians, with the stated intent of killing them. Israeli attacks are stated as being against infrastructure to end the killing of civilians, as well as to kill active members of Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah hides among civilians, is what has caused the death of so many Lebanese civilians in this conflict. And by the way, official counts on the Lebanese side show only twice as many killed or injured, not ten times as many.
I also agree, I mean many of the things we consider as terrorist acts, such as bombing civilian infrastructure, spread fear and terror to force people into complying with them; the State of Israel does on a regular basis. Why aren't they called terrorists, when they bomb a flat killing 58 civilian? Oh but when Hezbollah fires a rocket and kills 2 Israelis, oh then the world wakes up and scorns Hezbollah for such "provocative" actions. Until we come to a conclusion about the true stance and nature of Hezbollah, you should really refrain from using the world terrorist, unless it's in relation to certain attacks they carried out and so on. I mean Israel are no big humanitarians themselves, they've killed more civilians than Hezbollah could hope to murder in several lifetimes, yet there's probably one mention of the word "terrorist" on their page.
Israel has a apologise profusely for the bombing in Qana. If they were bombing indiscriminately would they not be carpet bombing neighbourhoods like the Russians in Chechnya? Has Hezbollah apologised for the loss of one civilian on either side? It says a lot really as to intention. It is a terrorist act to target civilians and definitely if no remore or apologies are indicated. Qana looks more and more to have been an exaggeration by the day. 58 civilians can no longer be qualified. Please back this up. Kaltik
Please don't suddenly slap labels over this article unless it is really necessary.
The labels need to be there. You amongst others are showing a complete lack of balance and excusing terrorism in the extreme. Kaltik
58.178.120.62 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)ap89
This is a terrible sentence which Isarig insists on it. If there isn't consensus in the social communities and just few countries have recognized it as a terrorist organisation, then how can you say "terrorist acts"? This is your POV. I propose to write "military" instead of "terrorist".-- Sa.vakilian 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at "Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts". Is it neutral? It induces a blame as a fact. Do you agree with writing this sentence in the lead of Israel:"Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..."-- Sa.vakilian 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So you agree with adding "Althogh Israel has been linked to a number of genocide acts but ..." in the lead of Israel because of Sabra and Shatila Massacre, 1996 shelling of Qana and many other genocides which Israel is blamed for them by some countries.-- Sa.vakilian 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No neutral person or historian has ever linked the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla to anything remotely bordering on genocide. It completely defies its meaning and detracts from Hezbollah's targeting of innocent people inside Israel or using their own people as human shields Kaltik
Please read Definition of terrorism. Over a 100 definitions have been used for this word. It makes it very difficult to use, because it means so many different things.
Although Hezbollah has been linked to a number of terrorist acts...
What terrorist acts? Could we define this instead of using a sentence that only reveals one 'fact'? Could we then perhaps remove the loaded term 'terrorist act? I think if we do, the POV, seen from either the Hezbollah-is-a-satanic-terrorist-organisation camp or the Hezbollah-loves-Israeli-babies camp, should go away, no?
Perhaps defining it all as it is, with references backing up the statements:
Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.
Heck, even better:
Hezbollah has been linked to several attacks involving suicide bombers and 17.32 attacks against Israeli civilian daycare centers.
Mceder 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. To dispute this is to apply moral relativity to an absurd extreme. Whatever applicability you want to apply to the maxim "one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter" does not diminish the fact that the actions of Hezbollah toward Israel (and others) subjects them to feelings of fear and TERROR ...
A new user wishes to add his opinion, namely that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, in the intro. May I suggest that we dont for the umpteenth time repeat the debate about whether Wikipedia should approve such accusations. Actually policies have been devoloped for such issues. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. I assume we all feel responsible to uphold these policies. Bertilvidet 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the comment about Hezbollah being considered by some as a terrorist group and by others as a resistance movement is repeated too often. I think once should be sufficient. -- Ghormax 10:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, its pretty simple. If an organization purposefully targets civilians with violence in order to achieve political goals, it is a terrorist organization. I understand that Hezbollah is also a social organization, and I certaintly respect the good it has done in that respect in Lebanon. Further, its activities fighting the IDF within Lebanese territory could be described as that of a morally questionable, but none the less legitamate resistance organization. However, Hezbollah launches missles into major Israeli population centers with the stated goal of killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. As such, Hezbollah's other activies do not change the fact that it is a terrorist organization by the definition of terrorist. Prancing around this point is useless; stating what is by definition true is not POV. -- Almo 8/6/06
Hezbollah sees an illigitimate entity that was fraudulently created by Zionists and therefore terrorist. Israelis consider the deliberate targeting of civilians as terrorism. Hezbollah states that because all Israelis go to the army, they are all targets, despite killing so many Arabs in their wild missile attacks. They also consider Muslims who die due to their actions as martyr soldiers that died for Allah. Israel only considers people not enlisted in an armed group as civilians, but accepts collateral damage to civilians and destruction of infrastructure if it has a dual use in aiding terrorists. Labaneh 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't take a fact, then call it POV, it doesn't follow. We're trying to deal in objective facts. Saying that Hezbolla believes they arn't terrorists is irrelevant to the conversation. Their belief doesn't change the facts of the matter.
Now, if we're going by the english language, then Terrorism is defined as: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
Terror being: "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>"
Violent or Destructive acts: Firing Katyusha Rockets into crowded civilian population centres. Check. Committed by Groups: Hizbolla Check. To intimidate a population or government: Israel. Check. into granting their demands: Prisoner exchange. Check.
Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whther you want to believe it or not, that makes Hizbollah a terrorist organisation.
Also, before anyone makes themselves look stupid by trying to compare this to Israel's activities: Israel is fighting a conventional war against a terrorist organisaton. They are retaliating in a somewhat disproportionate manner. Nobody disputes the destrucion of civilian infrastructure is going too far, however it is done with the stated aim of crippling the organisation they are fighting. While they are lobbying the Lebanese government, and the UN, for a ceasefire agreement, they are not attempting to coerce either into doing so.
The "Revision as of 18:11, 7 August 2006 (edit) Marokwitz" added some discussion of the EU Parliamentary motion to the terrorism table. I don't think it belongs - this is a very general motion and had no practical effect whatsoever. But I've already removed one reference to this motion before and don't want to get into an edit war. What do others think? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to updating the Australian link with the more up to date reference here? - brenneman {L} 01:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So far Yannisc, JiHymas@himivest.com and undersigned argue against the inclusion of details about internal debates within EU in the table. Morakowitz (and CyclingFan???) argue for its inclusion. If no other editors wish to express their view I suggest that we follow the will of the majority. Bertilvidet 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The table says "List of entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist". As a quickly scanning reader (not having time to read everything in detail) one spots the EU flag there and conclude the EU designates Hezbollah as terrorist. This is disinformation. Tables should show exactly what that tables caption indicates. 84.48.108.156 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There are two linked web-pages described as Official Web Sites. I have tagged these as disputed for the following reasons:
If anyone can find a citation on Manar or Nour which reference an official web-page, by all means, please let us know. It may also be worth inclusion in the article to discuss that both Manar and Nour's official web-pages are temporarily down; the most likely cause is the recent chaos in Lebanon. Nimur 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add this to this article. See [Hamas] for a comparison.
Hezbollah/Archive 5 | |
---|---|
Leader | Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah |
Founder | Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin |
Founded | 1985 |
Ideology | Islamism, Shi'a Islam |
Website | |
Varies. See List of official sites. |
Let me know what you think, and for what to add under Members, International affiliation and Headquarters(Beirut?) Mceder 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
nationality = Lebanese | religion = Shi'a Islam |
There is Christians and Sunni and Deruz too but Hezbollah members are Shiite.-- Sa.vakilian 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have twice added to the lead that a vast majority of the Lebanese, alon with some Muslim states, regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organization, but have immediately been reverted. This information is elaborated and well sourced (87%) in the article. I believe it is a crucial point in order to understand the organization and its role in Lebanon. Please raise objection here. Bertilvidet 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This article becomes too long(more than 80 kb). So I propose to move "Foreign and domestic relations" to a new article.-- Sa.vakilian 13:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The "other links" section starts with a video-link portraying a military operation: "Video of Hezbollah Military Operation". This should certainly not be the first link. It carries mostly emotional or propaganda value.
I suggest putting the short BBC article "Who are Hezbollah" as first external link.
I also do not see why the "United States Department of State" should have it's own separate heading in this Wikipedia article. The link within that should belong with the rest of the links.
84.48.108.156 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
At least three different spellings of Shia are used in the opening few sections of this article. Can they be standardised to a single spelling at least within this one article? I don't know enough about the differences relating to context (if any?) to do it myself. — Pengo talk · contribs 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting fact and worth of encyclopedic mentioning...
Hezbollah members show a salute that strikingly resembles the nazi salute, with the right hand raised in the air. (see in video).
-- TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For more NPOV, edit it.-- TheFEARgod 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. see Islamofascism. Hezbollah is mentioned-- TheFEARgod 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's find an expert on Hezbollah and may he confirm something.-- TheFEARgod 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about the segment of video at around 01:35? It is not even clear to me this is a salute. For there to be a salute, there has to be a superior to receive the salute and this does not appear to be the case. Also, the unsourced interpretation that this is a Nazi salute constitutes "original research" which is strictly forbidden. If there is a credible source which claims that this video contains evidence of a Nazi salute, then by all means, quote that source.
Jonexsyd 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nazi, eh? And all this time I thought they looked like Americans taking the pledge of allegiance. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a Nazi salute its called a Roman salute ( 69.69.161.45 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC))
Interesting historical tidbit. The ref, however, confirms what I said above and supports the association of the salute in question with the Nazi salute: "The initial military salute was soon replaced with a hand-on-heart gesture, followed by the extension of the arm as described by Bellamy. Because of the similarity of this part of the salute to the Hitler salute, the Bellamy salute was replaced in 1942 with the modern gesture of placing the hand over the heart without raising the arm" Elizmr 20:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Nazi style salute was, and is in some places, common in most Arab armies and paramilitary forces, I don't know why. Arguably it's because postwar Nazi refugees, most of them from the military or police force, where sought experts creating or restructuring Arab forces in that era. Even nationalists like Nasser, who considered himself socialist, were eager to get these experts. Some of them, in a strange twist, converted to Islam later. Besides, Nazi Germany was a cherished supporter against British rule and Jewish immigration. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni recruited Muslims for the Waffen-SS, Qtub was influenced by French fashist Carrel and had Muslim Brotherhood members parade with Nazi salute through the streets of the 30ies' Cairo.
As long as the direct connection is not verifiably established, it can't be mentioned in the article, but it should not come as a surprise. Ahmadinedschad didn't invite prominent European neo-Nazis like Horst Mahler to the Holocaust conference for disliking them and their stances. -- tickle me 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The opening sentence in this section now reads:
This is a change from what I have reverted it to several times, a direct quote from the cited document (68) which said:
I prefer the direct quote, but it appears there are some editors allergic to the word "terrorist", who have changed it to other wordings (sometimes while maintaining the quotes). I want the sentence to be a direct quote from the cited document - I consider such citations better than paraphrases. Obviously, there are some who disagree, but can we form a consensus on this? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The israel section has statements that aren't well supported by the cites supplied. The 2003 CNN interview, see above, doesn't identify the disputed territory and doesn't say anything about prisoners being the only problem. The other quotes are about Israel-Palestine relations and Hez involvement. They do not support the statement that Hez does not want to destroy Israel and doe snot have capibility. Please supply some that do and please don't remove the tag until you do. Elizmr 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Generally a good background to Hezbollah. However, it vastly underplays the extent to which they've become an Iranian pawn in Iran's quest to further it's own aims in the region (even though there are few innocent parties in the existing conflict).
"it originally sought also to bring Islamic Revolution to Lebanon,[4] but soon abandoned this goal for a more moderate, inclusive platform of democratic change".
I think even hardened Hezbollah supporters have might have trouble supporting this one.
The citations for the statement, "...which extended to a desire for the elimination of “the Zionist entity.." from the first para. on "POSITION ON ISRAEL" are quite dubious in terms of neutrality. establishing an account of these positions should be done through citation of hezbollah sources, not terrorist organization listings from western countries.--jc: unregistrered user. 17 August 2006.
There is disagreement about what the references site says [1]: "Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament. [2]"
I think this text doesn't support Elizmer claim.-- Sa.vakilian 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at [9]-- Sa.vakilian 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The US Department of State is also an authoritative source, so at this point I'll have to say "unclear". How about:
JiHymas@himivest.com 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
We should distinct between Islamic revolution idealogy and Islamic Republic government, as we distinct between Liberal Democracy and the political system in U.K. . I think Hezbollah doesn't abandoned the Idealogy of Islamic revolution but it abandoned establishment a goverment like Islamic Republic of Iran. So I substituted your edition with BBC's quotation . I believe it's clearer than what was there before and justifies this idea.-- Sa.vakilian 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The discussion at the talk page for Image:Lebanese Hezbollah recruts being sworn in.jpg seems to indicate that this image may not actually be of Hezbollah recuits, but rather of the Iranian Basij. The photo shown at this page Is nearly identical (that is, it quite obviously depicts the exact same people), but it appears to have been taken a moment before or after the image used here. — ptk✰ fgs 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
2 Cents: Everyone needs to chill on this article. I am taking a 48 hour break from it myself, because I find myself frustrated with these arguments. Look, someone brought up a valid point about an image's origin.. no one deleted it, no one replaced it with one that shows Hezbollah murdering jews. It was something that User Ptk brought up here, for us to discuss! So it really does not warrant us all freaking out over it. This article went from a really crappy one to what we have now, and I think it can be on it's way to a Great Article one of these days.. but only if the POV blaming stops, and we actually build consensus instead of yelling. Mceder 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I found another image of Hezbollah members saluting at http://kontrateksty.pl/files/news/heil%20hezbollah%20008.jpg In this one they're carrying Hezbollah flags, so at least we've got (one of?) their salutes properly down (or it's very thorough disinformation!). I looked around for images of Basij saluting ... found a few copies (or very similar versions) of the image under discussion, but nothing that had the same salute in a completely different context. On another note, we can now hypothesize that the Hezbollah salute is derived from the Basij salute but, alas, this will have to remain speculation for now, at least as far as I'm concerned. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is totally non-npov. A tag should immediately be placed on it. -- 71.197.196.45 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The flag image is gone. What do you guys think of this one? It appears to be under a CC license. — ptk✰ fgs 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'
Hezbollah was formed primarily to combat the Israeli occupation following the 1982 invasion of Lebanon[18],[19] Hezbollah initially aimed to transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic, though it has since abandoned this goal in favor of a more inclusive platform.[6] It was officially founded on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group's manifesto.
- The civilian activities introduction could be merged with the social services sub-section, since they largely say the same thing. Coolintro 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, some Arab stats (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah for harming Arab interests.[citation needed] In the Western world; Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel list Hezbollah (in full or part) as a terrorist organization. Russia[16] , the European Union[17], Further information: Hezbollah#Designation as a 'terrorist organization'
This should be removed; If you put Israel on the list you need to also put all the opinions of the Muslim countries too. Or again it becomes a POV. -- SkyEarth 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if somebody could add some explanation of the symbols on the Hezbollah flag. There certainly seems to be quite a few symbols packed onto the flag, but preliminary googling hasn't turned up any elaborating information. -- NeuronExMachina 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If you click on the flag, I believe you will find the information you are looking for. Coolintro 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering how to spell the name of this organization. I've seen it some places as Hizbullah,(like Newsweek) or as Hezbollah. (on the news) Any help would be kndly accepted. Thank you. 65.43.225.138 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank You very much. 65.43.225.138 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should add an IPA pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article (right after the Arabic transliteration), especially because every newscaster has his own opinion on the matter. -- Leapfrog314 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This article failed to show Hizbullah in its real image. Hizbullah is a 100% Lebanese party that works on defending against Israeli invasion. Its a Lebanese party working for Lebanon benefit.
Ahmad Damen
I created 2 sections Social Activites and Political Activities to match Military Activities and moved subtopics from idealogy to the appropriate one. Carbonate 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
For ther person asking what the symbols on the flag means from top to bottom:
1. At the top there is a verse from the Holly Quran saying: "It is only the party of god who wins"
2. A symbol of a gun
3. A symbol of the globe
4.The name "Hezbollah" which means the "party of god"
5.A sentence in Arabic saying "The islamic defenders of Lebanon"
I fixed a few footnotes that were before punctuation; ref tags should be after periods and commas. I also noticed a few places where a bunch of footnotes are together. This looks bad and can lead to strange line breaking. Just a suggestion, but it might be better to combine them into one note as a bulleted list, even if that means the reference "name" won't be used in that one instance. Also, a number of the templated citations appear to be broken, mostly due to a missing title. Thought someone should know. Gimmetrow 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The section on the flag is in the center of the article and seems choppy there. Let's put it at the top after the introduction since it is emblematic of the org, or at the very bottom rather than in the center or sections which are more related to each other. Elizmr 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are too many endless debates in this page. -- Sa.vakilian 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If either of you guys paid the slightest attention to the results of the debates, you might find them more interesting. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Flag section? This was reverted. Elizmr 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)