Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Which side of border original Hezbollah raid happened on?

Yeah, yeah, I know there's an extensive archived discussion of this somewhere: 1) I'm too damn lazy to find it, and 2) I want to add my own little bundle of sticks to the bonfire.

I guess I'm ready to go along with the mainstream media's version of this, that the raid occurred in Israel. (I'm talking about the "capturing the 2 soldiers" part, not the "chasing the captors back into Lebanon" part, so puleeze, let's not confuse ourselves any more than absolutely necessary, OK?) That's after reading this account on my favorite website, Antiwar.com. In it, the Israeli dissident and peace activist Ran HaCohen debunks the "captured within Lebanon" version of events. It's well documented, with links supplied to the relevant articles. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions

There are reports that the "bunker buster" munitions that IDF/IAF took receipt of are tipped with depleted uranium [2]. This should probably be flagged up in the article somewhere due to the problems some experts have cited with contamination from these weapons particularly with reference to Gulf War syndrome.

Here is the original article with the report and I realise the source is suspect (prisonplanet) www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/290706deadlydu.htm], but I recognise the video clip- it is from a documentary called Beyond Treason [[3]] and it is credible testimony from the expert Dr. Doug Rokke. Anyone have time to write a paragraph on this in the casualties section with appropriate links to the longterm health effects of these IDF/IAF weapons? 82.29.227.171 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote something on this- where in the article is it meant to go? There is no weapons section. The concern with the weapons is 1) their longterm health effects 2) indiscriminate nature (when expended they pulverise and contaminate a wide area). With those specific concerns in mind it would probably belong in the civilian casualties section until any decomination effort begins (assuming there will be a pause in activity for it to take place). 82.29.227.171 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Added details to child article Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and 1 line into main article under Environment damage area. 82.29.227.171 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How many bunkers do people put in civilian areas? Dudtz 6/31/06 9:32 PM EST

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Begining of conflict

I have added following edit to the "Begining of conflict" section: "Following the Isreali air-attacks on Lebanon in which some 60 civilians were killed [22] intended to pressure Hesbollah to release captured Isreali soldiers,..." With supporting source [4]

Tewfik has in two instances removed the edit justifying it as being discussed before here [5] and here [6]. Both of those discussions talk about the where were soldiers captured. Obviously I am not disputing nor discussing that issue in my edit but I am pointing out the order of events, in summary that Isreal began air assult following the capture of soldiers. Why is this being removed? Am I missing something here?--Dado 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he removed it because every single major news organization agrees that the conflict didn't actually start like that. Should we claim that WWII started because a bunch of polish soldiers crossed into Germany and destroyed a radio station?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the difs. There was an IP intermingled with your edits that added the Ayta al-Shab stuff, however you added reports of Israeli bombing as taking place before any Hezbollah attack, which is equally incorrect (and isn't what the cited source says either, as far as I could tell). I imagine that you didn't mean to change the chronology, but you did. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask myself or this Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a timeline section maybe beneficial here as there seams to be misunderstanding between what I am pointing out to and what you are responding. From the source that I provided following is a timeline

• 24 June - Israeli military captures two civilians from Gaza
• next - Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldier (whether in Israel or Lebanon is irrelevant at this point). Their official position is that the captures are conducted in response to capture of 3 Lebanese citizens by Israeli forces before that. Analyst position (and Chomsky is quoting Financial times here) is that the capture of Israeli soldiers was intended as a sign of solidarity with Palestinians and a tactic to force Israel to fight on two fronts.
• next - Israel launches air-attack campaign against Lebanon killing 60 civilians.
• next - Hezbollah retaliates with Katchusha rocket attacks on Israeli positions and Haifa injuring at least 13.

What sources show the order of events differently? I hope you see why I find the current version of the article a bit misleading and simplistic while other sources show that the situation deserves to be viewed from a bit bigger time perspective.--Dado 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything I will say has already been discussed in the archive, but for convenience's sake:

• We know that the events in Gaza happened, however it is original research to make a connection between them and this conflict.
• The side of the border is very important, and I've already cited the UN, EU, G8, and Al Jazeera support of the Israeli version.
• The Lebanese prisoners are included later in the article, but they are not part of the casus belli, else each side could cite 50 years of causes. Rather, the convention is to state clearly the event that started things, and discuss context later.

I hope that I've clarified the issues, though if you have any further questions, I'll be happy to discuss. Before you continue though, I highly encourage you to read through the archives that I cited above, as this has all been explained in detail previously. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Article is too long

We really need to work on shortening the article. Everyone wants to add, which is great, but not many seem keen on keeping the length in check. We have separate articles for some sections, but for some reason the summaries keep growing. The page is currently 98kb long, which is too long. I'd like to think between 50-75kb would be long enough to keep everything needed in, without going overboard. I think the references section would be taking up a lot of this; over 200 references is far too many!--Iorek85 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose making a second article dedicated to the "targeting of civilians". It's an incredibly large topic, absolutely filled with references. Canadian-Bacon 05:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. We could just leave behind that summary sentence at the top. The only problem I can see is that it is a vital part of the conflict, and taking it out would almost gut the article of it's point. Still, I think it would work. --Iorek85 06:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we would need to leave a basic summary of it in the article, but it doesn't need that much bulk on the main page. Just gut each mini-section in it to one or two sentences then move the bulk of it. Canadian-Bacon 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1-2 sentences from each section seems ample.--Paraphelion 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone can suggest the naming convention for this new article I'll get working on it ASAP Canadian-Bacon 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it.. it could just be part of a civilian casualties page... "Civilian Casualties of the 2006 ILC". The unfortunate thing is that this section is better referenced and less redundant than a lot of the rest of the article.--Paraphelion 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The sheer volume of references were one of the reasons I think it should be moved. Look at the list at the bottom, it's massive. Moving this would significantly help make that more...comprehensible. Canadian-Bacon 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also yes, that's an excellent idea Canadian-Bacon 06:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas:

1. International Reaction - reduce to one 4 sentence maximum paragraph, move whatever we want to keep to the internatonal reaction page.
2. Casualty Section - the infobox already gives a summary

Find a way to move the following to other pages :

1. "Foreign Nationals" - this might somehow be moved to the international page, or reworking the internatonal page to be something which could include both.
2. "Negotiations for ceasefire" - perhaps can be moved to something like the above.
3. "Historical Background" to a "Historical Background of the Israel-Lebanon Conflict" page or something

Do away with or move or to a new page :

1. "previous prisoner exchanges"
2. "Hezbollah" - Hezbollah is linked in the very first sentence, we don't really need a summary of what they are.

a good 2-3 screens worth is from the huge arab-israeli conflict box, see also and links.

I think the most difficult to do anything with is the Targetting of Civilians section Postion of Lebanon. Both seem longer than they should be but when I read through it, it's hard to pick out things to take out.--Paraphelion 06:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think these are suggestions in the right direction, but disagree with them for one simple reaosn across the board: they divide up information that should be together.

Also I oppose removal of Hezbollah paragraph becaus eit was put there, nearly two weeks ago, because someone asked here for it. And it is so short it makes no impact either way.

Now, I think we should basically create introductory paragraphs for all sections who dont have subpages, and move ALL the information from here to there:

---

1 Background (keep all of subsections) 1.1 Hezbollah attack 1.2 Israeli response 1.3 Hezbollah rocket campaign

2 Targeting of civilian areas (put new NPOV introductory paragraph, and move entire section to new page) 2.1 By Israel 2.1.1 Claims of phosphorus incendiary bomb use by Israeli forces 2.1.2 Attacks on ambulances 2.2 Attacks on United Nations personnel 2.3 By Hezbollah 2.4 Opinions on civilian attacks 2.5 Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons

3 Historical background (put new NPOV introductory paragraph, and move entire section to new page) 3.1 Israeli-Lebanon conflict 3.2 Hezbollah 3.3 Previous prisoner exchanges

4 Casualties (keep, limit explanations of events to "Miliatry operations" page) 4.1 Lebanese 4.2 Israeli 4.3 Foreign nationals 4.4 United Nations

5 Position of Lebanon (keep) 6 Negotiations for ceasefire (keep) 7 International reaction (I don't understand why this section is so huge, as this is the oldest subpage... rewrite introductory paragraph, mention sub-subpages, and link, eliminate sub-sections and put on corresponding subpage) 7.1 Diplomatic reaction 7.2 Demonstrations 7.3 Evacuation of foreign nationals

I would add an section here, with its own short intro for "The Role of non-combatant State and non-State actors"

---

This is how I think it must be done, but anything similar am game for. The important thing is that no information be lost, and that the introductory paragraphs clearly state they are ,ere pointers to the main subpages and prominently link to them. I think even If not, we will continue having the monster we have now.--Cerejota 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the hezbollah section before reading Cerejota's comment, sorry, but I still think it should go. We don't have one on Israel. There is still info contained in the historical background which should help queries. I don't particularily mind how we shrink the page, but it definitely needs doing. --Iorek85 08:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, its nice we've shortened it, but we've really gutted it of it's point. My main concern is the 'Isreali response' section - we've only something about the immediate attack, and nothing about the bombing and invasion of Lebanon. Isn't this really what the article is about? That, and it has a big section on Hezbollah rocket attacks, and nothing on Israel. I'm having a go at fixing it up. --Iorek85 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Iorek85 here. The article should be "as simple [short] as possible, but not simpler [shorter]." I've added the main points on the attacks on civilian targets from the now sub-article. AdamKesher 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strike on UN chapter removed

May I ask for the reason why it was removed? It had an image of the destroyed UN outpost and description. Was this Isreaeli whitewashing or a mistake? --Pudeo 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been moved to the sub-article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Check there. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's been moved to the sub article because of size constraints. --Iorek85 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I just rechecked the article - it's been completely removed! I don't support that at all. We shrank the section to a summary, and it needs to be in. --Iorek85 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

POLL

Reinstatement of full UN section as there was no reason to remove it.

1. Support. Reaper7 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. - Change my vote - I thought it had just been summarised, not completely removed.--Iorek85 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Object. It was not removed, it was put in a relevant subpage for article size reasons.--Cerejota 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4. comment The sub pages are used as an excuse by pro Israeli editors to remove sub articles they don't like to pointless exclusive pages no one will ever look up individually. The UN attacks should remain imo. Reaper7 23:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. The fatalies should definately be in there and probably an image as it was extremely damaging incident for the UNOrganisation. 82.29.227.171 19:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen cerejota (pro-islamist) do the same with the article summmary. Where it once mentioned that "samir kuntar" was in prison for killing a 4-yo child after killing her father, cerejota removed it and relegated it to some dark corner of wikipedia to prevent that little known fact from seeing the light of day Shakespeare Monkey 08:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to please apologize for describing me as "pro-islamist".

I am not such a thing.

Since this bears clarification, I will soapboax: I am agnostic, from a catholic background, and view all religion with interested detachment. Furthermore, I have an utter contempt for all attempts to join politics with religion, but also a keen understanding that when religion is part of a national or ethnic identity, this contempt must be tempered.

In my personal opinion, Israel as it exists today is the same as Iran as it exists today: Parlamentary theocracy, based upon the imposition of a State Religion, and with clear violation of the human rights of all of those who don't follow the State religion. The council of mullahs vs the council of rabbis.

I view Islamism and Zionism as exactly the same thing, and a salient fact of this conflict is the utter contempt that both Zionists and Islamists have for civilian lives, including that of their co-religionists. The facts support this assertion.

That is not to say I belive in a plague to both houses: Israel has demonstrated since the day it was founded to be a militaristic society based around a constant need to make war with its neighbors, and in fact has batustanized the native arab and palestinian population (and to a lesser and more complex extent the Druze). The treatment of the Palestinians stands as clear, unavoidable example, however the facts of the matter are tried to be twisted.

I dream of a day when the State of Israel is susbtitued with a Palestine with jews, christians, muslism and druze living in peace, in a secular, democratic state, with separation of religion and state. I dream of a day when the same exists whenever theocracy rears it ugly head, like in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent, the USA. My political beliefs, hence stand in complete opposition of both Hezbollah and the Israeli state, and closer to that of the Israeli refuseniks and the Arab secularists.

So no, I am not a pro-islamist, and I feel offended for your decription of me as one, and ask you to apologize. In any case, I am pro-humanity.

Of course, I have many times been attacked as pro-Israeli, and I take the same offense.--Cerejota 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me comparasion with URL for history comparsion, and i might support. Hello32020 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I've changed my vote. I thought we were just discussing shrinking it to the summary. But completely removed? No, I don't support that. I think it should be left as it was, a summary paragraph with its own section. --Iorek85 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What part shoul be moved

I propose to discuss about moving some part of article to a new article.--Sa.vakilian 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be possible to remove the "Previous prisoner exchanges" section into the child article for that- it details them all. 82.29.227.171 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also think the International Reaction section could be slimmed down- the image is also non neutral- creates an impression that the protests were some religious issue and/or specifically that Muslims have a problem with the bombings. 82.29.227.171 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Position of Lebanon

I think this part is very important and it should be remained completely.--Sa.vakilian 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Negotiations for ceasefire

I think this part is very important and it should be remained completely.--Sa.vakilian 13:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the article with them in is far too long. Roughly 50k is the upper limit for article size - it was over 100kb before people made an effort and shrank it. --Iorek85 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this is important so much, various players are ignoring the UN. 82.29.227.171 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

who changed the external links section and replaced good links and great sources by blocks? Could someone change it back to the "pro-lebanese, pro-israeli" one? CG 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aims section

At the moment this section consists of text copied from elsewhere in the article, and some newspaper observations. It seems the important stuff is already covered in the "Negotiations for ceasefire" section as well as the general Hezbollah and Israeli responses. Tewfik^Talk 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I think we should allow for some duplication in the article. If you feel there's too much we could add a "See also" or something. My creed is too much info is better than too little. FightCancer 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've shrunk them down a little, but they still take up a lot of the page. I don't have any skills in andvanced wiki editing - I was wonrdering if someone could put them in two columns, so it would have one column for Israel and one for Lebanon under each heading - ie Blogs Lebanese|Israeli, or just put the lot of them in two columns. Thanks. --Iorek85 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

International reaction

I removed it for two reasons;

1. Israel is not part of the International reaction. Internation reaction refers to other nations reactions to the conflict. I can see some sort of argument for the inclusion of the propaganda as Israel is trying to influence the international reaction, but even then, it could go in the main article.
2. We're trying to keep this article as short as possible. It's still over 60kb despite our best efforts - every little bit counts.

I'd ask, then, that if you really think it belongs, could you just summarise it into a short sentence with a reference, instead of a small paragraph with a heading. Thanks. --Iorek85 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Done, and placed in the more appropriate "Israeli response" section, as this is the response of the Israeli government pertaining to its military actions in Lebanon. AdamKesher 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's much better there. Nice work. :) --Iorek85 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the talk page

Whew. After a lot of work, I've refactored the page, archived about 200kb of it, and split out the discussion on the two largest sections into separate pages. And the talk page is STILL too big! (though 50kb isn't nearly as bad as 300kb). Is this format O.K with everybody? --Iorek85 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's a total mess. Just archive the conversations from here on out. (Bjorn Tipling 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

The discussion refractoring on this page is a total mess

Whoever did the work: good effort, bad judgement. Just about killed the conversation about images by moving the page to some obscure location. Just archive the discussion like you would on any other page. Thanks. (Bjorn Tipling 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

I did. And the page was still well over 150kb. The section on photos alone (after archiving round one!) was 70kb. I didn't want to archive current discussions. I thought by separating it out, we could keep discussions going longer without archiving. The photos section on its own is now over 30kb, and this page is already over 100kb. --Iorek85 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to move back POV and pictures to this page? There is hardly any discussion at all going on in the refactoring pages (not even 10 edits a day.) --Battra 11:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you exclude my refactoring edits, theres not a huge amount more going on here. 10 a day just on photos isn't small (and I don't see the problem - if people couldn't find the pictures section, they'd just put the talk here). And yes, you could move them back, I wouldn't object, but this page is currently over 120kb already. Moving them back, even archived, will still make this page even bigger. I tend to prefer moving out text instead of archiving it - the U.N section, for example, has been repeated many times, same as discussion on where soldiers were captured, because people don't read the archives. --Iorek85 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

Bad footnote

It seems that footnote 8 is messed up, it should be about evacuation of Isreali cities, but is instead about the Lebaneese evacuation, can anyone find a proper source for this? This footnote is from the infobox. FireCrack 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy

Where incidents of this nature belong in the article isnt clear as alleged attacks on food convoys/the fleeing havent been addressed so far. [Syrian] Red Cross drivers won't take aid to Lebanon [7] Aid convoy hit in Lebanon as UN accuses Hezbollah

"A soldier in the UN force in south Lebanon (Unfil) which reached Rmeish yesterday told Reuters that carrying aid into the south was highly dangerous as Israeli strikes often landed very close to the UN vehicles."[8]

82.29.227.171 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleged convoy attack 'Marwahin' 15th [9]82.29.227.171 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Video of actual convoy attack outside Qana 30th [10] 82.29.227.171 23:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now appearing in Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

BBC analysis of the effect of the war

I went over the link below and BBC seem to have done a good job on analysing the problems Israel is bound to face in executing this mission. Of cause, some will say its biased, but then time always have a way of validiting/anulling?? analysis of events that have future signficancy. [11] [12]

Nassarallah image gone means petetz image gone.

Aunty knows best!Hypnosadist 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Two more Un observers die

In Metula (sp?), two Indian UN observers died due to Israeli airstrikes. CNN said it on TV, but their website doesn't have anything on it yet. Also, the syrian-lebanon boarder just closed. Look for some citations, I can't find anything--Rayc 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Drat, I hate it when CNN does this. It took what, three days to find a source for the Lebanon Anti-aircraft quote.--Rayc 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[13] says 2 indian UN wounded when IAF bombed their post, perhaps they died of their injuries? 82.29.227.171 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And they blew up a road to Syria [14] "Late Saturday evening, a road leading from Damascus to Lebanon, reportedly close to the Syrian-Lebanese border, was targeted" 82.29.227.171 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On ABC an UNIFIL spokesperson is reported of saying, that two UN soldiers were injured during an Israeli air strike. If you cross check with e.g. Google News you receive more than 1000 likewise hits. Therefore this information should be included in the article. --Attraho 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But has anyone found if they died? CNN now saying they were only injured. --Rayc 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

UN press release today says that they are "moderately wounded" [15]. The press releases from UNIFIL Lebanon appear to have stopped for the minute but you can press releases through un.org 82.29.227.171 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, trying to fix intro

I saw that the intro got mixed up and it read that the initial Hezbollah attack killed 8 soldiers? It should have read 3 killed. Also the shelling into Israel came later? Anyways, sorry if I messed this up. --Tom 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I am reading different number of initial Israli soldiers killed and there was shelling? My fault for trying to edit this article, I am out of here!! --Tom 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced info box

How come members of Hesbollah are called militants. I don't think they consider themselves militants and certainly large part of population of Lebanon does not consider them either. Also entry stating "875 treated for shock" is a subjective and irrelevant in context to casulties of Lebanon column especially since none are listed under Lebanon column. There is quite certainly far more shock cases than in Lebanon. These items need to be corrected --Dado 04:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Militant" is generally considered a neutral descriptor for groups like Hezbollah, because it describes them without engaging in moral judgement. They are considered terrorists by several Western governments. Tewfik^Talk 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If noone else objects I'll take your answer but what is the deal with the number of shocked Israelis. Also why did you remove a well sourced edit in the second paragraph talking about the order of events. Your 0 summary revert was a bit arogant.--Dado 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The militant is a good NPOV comprimise. As for the shock, I don't think it should be there. Wounded, certainly, but shocked? Who wouldn't be shocked after having half your house collapse, or your family killed? --Iorek85 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah has a militant wing but is not militant as a whole. There is the political entity called Hezbollah and the citizen political constituents of Hezbollah. Most of them are not militant. One could think of Hezbollah as a political party including its constituents, much the same as "Republicans" or "Likud". A portion of that political group is in fact militant and engaged in guerilla war against Israel. Even the Wikipedia article on Hezbollah states this. Here in the United States we call them all "Terrorists" but of course that is POV. --JBull 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Shock" there refers to something along the lines of Post-traumatic stress disorder, and is a documented medical condition. The reason it is included, per Talk somewhere above (I'll check if you need confirmation), is that the Lebanese numbers do not differentiate between regular and "shock" injuries (or between much else - the situation has not allowed for clear Lebanese numbers on much). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

PTSD is something that happens mach after the initial shock usually as a subconcious response to past events. This event is still ongoing and it hard to quantify who has suffered a shock. I am also certain that most Lebanese will not flock to psychiatrist after their experiences which they are still going through. In either case it is very premature to discuss these yet and I support the removal.--Dado 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to shock on the info bar as it listed a number. The article it cited [[16]] did not and says "The vast majority of casualties were treated for shock, while 19 people are still hospitalized across the country in serious condition." It does not mention a specific number as the info bar did. Where that number came from is a mystery to me. Feel free to add it back if you have a citation on that.--Oiboy77 07:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also mentioned the shock stat on the Discussion on POV problems page --0g 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?

The Israelis have made this page as they see the war, Lebanon casualties and destruction not relevant despite it being one of the most important facets of the war. Reaper7  ]]

I don't see any pictures of the destruction of civilian targets deliberately aimed at by the Hizbullah. If you want pictures of destruction, then fairness requires pictures from both sides of the border Cymruisrael 14:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

more fairness requires more pictures from the side it had 34 children dead today --200.88.223.98 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been atleast 100 times more destruction in Lebanon than Israel. That is obvious. Fairness would atleast have a lebanon picture and then maybe an Israeli picture if they are so desperate to attempt to show or compete with the huge destruction they caused in Lebanon. The damage like the death toll is disproportionate and should be shown. Unless you believe close to 600 Lebanese lives = under 20 Irsaeli and the destruction of Beriut and Tyre = some holes in some buildings in Israel. Reaper7 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I believe in differentiating between an army that does it utmost to avoid civilian injuries and a cowardly, terrorist organisation that hides behind women and children and deliberately targets civilians. Also, if you want to talk about unequal equations, why not discuss the fact that the Hizbollah captured/abducted/kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and then asked for the release of hundreds of prisoners. Cymruisrael 10:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some at Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 10:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation

Why is this article included in the War Crimes category? Until a court has decided that a specific action is a war crime, any such categorisation is POV and should be avoided. Cymruisrael 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the category has been removed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral

3 arguments against its inclusion off the top of my head:

1) Hezbollah have also been sendings warnings to Israeli residents to leave areas that are going to be bombed by them. Unless an image of the warnings can be used then the IDF leaflet is probably going to appear non neutral to a lot of people. I havent been able to find such an image, if you got one then it should be included.

2) The common argument ive heard when these leaflet drops are brought up is that if Lebanese get on the convoys to flee they get shot at, so people dont leave. Again leaflet doesnt put that POV. Article has no section on reported attacks on convoys either.

3) It is IDF produced and therefore non neutral by definition. The leaflets, and the refusal of residents to heed them is being presented as a justification for bombing/reason why civilians are being killed, while I understand its not that simple, thats the POV the leaflet is supporting. 82.29.227.171 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The leaflets have nothing to do with what happens to the civilians if they try to leave. They are warnings from the IDF. If you have a citable source for Hezbollah's leaflets, list it. If Lebanese get shot at because of the leaflet, that doesn't change the fact that such a leaflet exists. Furthermore, the leaflet is not supposed to be NPOV. Is there a rule that says it should be? Di4gram 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Source [17]

The aspiration is for a neutral article through neutral POV and where that isnt possible- balance of POV. Having IDF material of that nature in the article when (for reasons of space etc) no balance is going to be made for the surrounding issues then its just non neutral.

As the user who removed the image indicated- consider putting it into another article where there is space to balance it. Most likely it will fit into the article about the incident well. A good starting point for figuring that out might lie here Qana Massacre. 82.29.227.171 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, a picture does not take a significant amount of (kb) space on the page, as it is only linked to, and thus should not be consideration. Tewfik^Talk 19:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Have we got a picture to balance the IDF? There is one in the source article but its copyrighted. I mentioned space as the editor who removed the photo commented "too many images, move to appropriate sub-article" [18] - I thought the policy now was to slim down the article to its constituent parts like the UN section got 'slimmed'. 82.29.227.171 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral

Off the top of my head here are some reasons why not to use it in a neutral article ie. why the image currently used is POV and distortionary and how it creates a number of misleading impressions namely:

• That protests against the conflict are muslim or orientated around religious issues.
• That protests against the conflict are disorganised/small in nature/isolated groups of individuals.
• That protests against the conflict are "anti-israel", "anti-jewish", "antisemitic" etc.

I suggest a more suitable image be used which isnt POV, and preferably one that isnt of Americans or nations uninvolved in the fighting. Plenty of Lebanese were protesting along with some Israeli. 82.29.227.171 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the image is a bad choice for representing the worldwide protest. Furthermore it doesn't even have a free license. I took away the image. (Image:Muslimprotests.jpg) --Battra 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, but maybe more discussion is needed? I will look for another in the meantime. 82.29.227.171 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the person who uploaded the image "Muslimprotests.jpg", Bingman06, just had removed the previous image "Sydprot.JPG", so I put back the earlier image, though it might be possible to find even better pictures. --Battra 20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and work. 82.29.227.171 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately

IDF going to suspend airoperations for 48 hours, effective immediately, to coordinate humanitarian efforts and investigate Qana incident Just reported on CNN at 508pm EDT 30-July-2006. Going to add it to the page. Bsheppard 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (This is Bsheppard 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) and I don't know who put this opinion below but it wasn't me. Just FYI.)

These guys are guilty and now need time to probably come up with some storyline, an edited video may be, to clear their name....barbarians...

Hay barbarians have effics, man. Enlil Ninlil 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Added suspension of air operations to main page

I went ahead and added the latest on the 48 hour cease of air operations. Available at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#IDF_agrees_to_cease_air_operations_for_48_hours ... citations following. This hit the wires at just after 5. NYT has it as a news alert at 517. CNN has a news alert at 508. But no link. So just waiting for that.

Added citation from cnn.com and nytimes.com Bsheppard 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed it to past tense, and the part about Northern Command needs cited- not in article. 82.29.227.171 10:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible War Crimes

Please add your comments to my proposal for some paragraphs about possible war crimes (translated from the German Wikipedia). I will have to further check the sources on my own before publishing. Correction of language mistakes is appreciated, too. RolloM 0:31, 31 July 2006 (CEST)

Without explicitly suspecting one side, the United Nations analize the events in the conflict for war crimes. The U.N. see responsability of Israel and Hezbollah for many avoidable victims, mainly in the civil population of Lebanon. Primarily, the number of Lebanese civil victims, which amounts to about ten times the number of victims of Hisbollah, is critizised. The involved combatants are bound by international law to protect the civil population. On July 20, U.N. High Commissionor for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, condamned the killig of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories. On July 21, The International Commission of Jourists (ICJ) has accused Israel and Hezbollah of having committed war crimes. On the occasion of a visit of destroyed Beirut quarters U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland called the attacs of resident areas by Israeli air forces violations of international humanitarian law. He also blamed Hezbollah for "mingeling with women and children" and thereby for being jointly responsible for the civilian victims of Israeli military strikes.

Israel seems to bomb civilian Lebanese buildings withouth necessity. This reveals from a instruction to Israeli air forces reported by a high-ranking Israeli army officer in Israeli military radio: "Dan Halutz, Chief of Staff of the Israeli air forces issued the command, to destroy ten multistory buildings in the southern suburbs as answer to every rocket attack to Haifa."

Regarding the attack to an unarmed and marked observation post of UNIFIL local U.N. officers declared "The attack started in the early morning. We called the Israelis at least six times. They continued artillery bombing and in the end they sent an aircraft that bombed the post from the air. In that moment, towards 7:30, the contact broke off. A Chinese, a Finn, a Canadian and an Austrian were dead." U.N. Secretary-General Annan described the incident using almost the same words.

On July 24, Lebanese President Émile Lahoud blamed Israel for using phosphorus bombs. Israel contradicted, the arms used in Lebanon would not violate international laws.Jawad Najem, surgeon in a Tyrus hospital claims to have treated woundeds with phosphorus burnings. Following a BBC report also other physicians in south Lebanon suspect burnings they treated were caused by phosphorus.

Human rights organisation Human Rights Watch blames Israel for using cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians. Israeli forces admitted the employment of cluster bombs, but declared to use such ammonition in accordances with "international standards." During such an attack on July 19 to the village Blida a 60 yeards old was killed, a 45 years old lost both legs and further eleven people, among them seven children were wounded.

In the meantime indices increase that Israeli air forces attack ambulance vehicles on purpose. At least ten Lebanese vehicles carrying the red cross symbol were attached, causing death of more than twelve injured and rescuers. A survivor of such an attack reported an Israeli helicopter had followed the vehicle for a certain time and fired later.

On July 24, Hezbollah attacked and destroyed two Israeli Merkava 4 ambulance tanks bringing injured soldiers to shelter. Two Israeli soldiers were killed and four more injured.

Information about numbers of victims in agency notifications partially depend on official sources of combatants. Israeli Vice President Shimon Peres doubted the Lebanese government notifications of high numbers of civilian victims.

What exactly is a war crime? Israel says that Hizbollah positions its weapons in civilian areas. Is that a war crime. There is no guidence system in most of Hizbollah missles so it has virtually no way to prevent them from hitting civilians, hospitals, schools, etc. Is that a war crime? Israel hits a UN position. Is that a war crime? Civilians are killed in a building targeted by Israel planes. Is that a war crime? What if the civilians were there, not because they were prevented by leaving for force. Is that a war crime?

Of course, the answer to all these questions requires the questions to be valid and the facts to be known. Until this war, and it is a war, not a conflict, is over and the truth is learned, it is all speculation at best, and propaganda at worse. I thought that Wikipedia was about facts, not speculation. Let's leave the question of war crimes until this war is over and independent parties can sort facts from fiction. --user:mnw2000 05:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of this may belong in Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? 82.29.227.171 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

SOME ISRAELI KEEPS..

Changing the death toll figures to 523 at the same time as still using the BBC quote that claims the death toll of the Lebanese civilians is in the 750's. It is really pathetic, and can we block the member's IP? He is really trying to hard to be pro israeli. Reaper7 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe they will not ban you for saying this!Racist!

The Lebanese Health Minister's statement defined the upper limit at 750. Above on Talk, there is a detailed calculation of how the 523 number was achieved. Tewfik^Talk 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You've mentioned this "calculation" a couple of times, but I can't find anything like that here. Where is it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here --Iorek85 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what a joke. I give up. Reaper7 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC's exact words were: "After nearly three weeks of fighting, about 750 people - mainly civilians - have been killed by Israeli action, according to Lebanon's health minister." I imagine it would be hard to get an exact number as Hezbollah militants will be amongst the innocent.

Anti Israel people/sites

I got a SPAM email with a link to this page:

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html

It's on Hal Turner's website, and some images have his name on them. Is he really claiming that the Israelites did these things? Did they? Are these photos legit? Did he even put up this page? Why the spam on it? Is Lebanon or their allies using spam like this to try to sway people's opinion on who is in the wrong? If someone could look into it more, that would be great. Rob 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Hal Turner is a neo-nazi/fascist of some kind. I dont believe those pictures are from current events in this article but by looking at them some clearly show IDF/scenes from the region. There are actually more/just as graphic images from the present conflict available [19] for example and they have been appearing on various anti-war protest sites. 82.29.227.171 07:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are clearly editors here trying to hide the fact that Israel is employing chemical weapons, illegal weapons, massacring innocent civilians, and guilty of war crimes. You should see the REAL PICTURES, they are worse. Israel must be sanctioned for the rogue and militant racist state that it is.

Please help edit related articles

This article itself looks relatively good, but a lot of its sub-articles aren't in such good shape. Check out {{Israel-Lebanon conflict}} for the rest of the sub-articles (in the current conflict). I did some cursory examination and they weren't so good. At the minimum they all need to have the nav template and some decent introductory text that links back to this, the main article. One of them I could tell was just a straight move from a previous section on this main page, and as such, it lacked context entirely. --Cyde↔Weys 06:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox UN dead

There were 4 UN soldiers killed by airstrike, PLUS one UNIFIL international staff member was killed on the 17th in a previous IDF airstrike on Tyre. The text and casualty figures that were originally in the article did made that clear before they got shunted off

"UNIFIL international staff member and his wife were killed after an IAF airstrike on the Hosh area of Tyre where they lived on 17 July. Their bodies were recovered from the rubble on 26 July"

Cites: [20] [21] 82.29.227.171 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove "AA [antiaircraft]-only" tag for Lebanon?

Check out this article, reporting on the Lebanese Army firing on IDF helicopters trying to land in Lebanon. Seems inevitable ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove it. Ranieldule 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

=== Will Israel attack Syria? Syrian troops on high alert, pres releases statement===

On CNN it states "Reuters: Syrian Pres. Tells Army to "Raise Readiness." Someone please find link. Hello32020 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not covering now though... Hello32020 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I put it here for now. Found ynet has source. International reactions to the 2006_Israel-Lebanon conflict#July_31.2C_2006 Presidential Statement Hello32020 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese time, dont know if its connected

23.39: محاولة إنزال على السلسلة الغربية لجبال لبنان، وأربع غارات على طريق فاريا - عيون السيمان

23:39: Israeli forces attempt ground invasion on the Western Mountain Chains of Lebanon and bombardements on the Faraya Youn el Siman road.

There was some kind of border incident 2 hours ago- some explosion [22]

"Precision-guided"

I qualified because there is no clear source that there were indeed precision-guided weapons, only diplomatic testimony in the case of the Khiam/UNTSO post, and although the Guardian says matter-of-factly that Qana was hit by these missiles, the statement seems to rest on the recovery of fragments, something I couldn't find on CNN or other sites. If many sites do report this, that would change matters. Tewfik^Talk 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to youtube and search for Kafr Qana there is video of the bomb fragments, also described on the page about the attack. The exact munition is unclear at this stage. 82.29.227.171 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

An Analysis on the way middle east "works" that is "jews vs muslims"-free.

here [23] and a copy of it here [24]

Oil Spill?

Should this [25] be mentioned? Seems quite notable, but I'm not sure where to put it, if at all. There's this too. [26] Any suggestions?--Planetary 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody beat you to it. :) Environmental Consequences. --Iorek85 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see that. Thanks.--Planetary 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)