Talk:1982 Lebanon War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shebaa Farms

Style you keep reverting the change from Sheeba Farms to Shebaa Farms, which is the name of the Wikipedia article. Why? Jayjg 21:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Background

Jayjg, I have added completely new information to this page, there is no duplication, and the background is necessary to explain the context of the 1982 war. It's curious, the previous version's background went back to 1976 but you didn't delete that, Jayjg. And you still haven't explained your previous reverts. --style 18:34, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Discussion

The (current) edit war seems to be over how much background to include. Instead of reverting, how about discussing these issues:

• How much background should be included or excluded?
• Why?

—No-One Jones ^(m) 19:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The background should deal with events immediately leading up to the conflict, and immediately relevant to it. A POV re-write of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict is not appropriate, particularly as it creates two contradictory version of that history; a see also is quite enough. And if it is appropriate to go back to 1948, why stop there? Why not go back to the 1929 Hebron riots, or the 1917 Balfour declaration, or Saladin, or the Muslim conquest, or the Roman conquest, or the Maccabean victories, or... Jayjg 21:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this, both of you. All the information in this page is accurate and relevant to the 1982 war, and consistent with historical facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only question is if it would be better on other pages. As a gesture of good faith, I have moved the 1948 background to History of Lebanon and the civil war background to Lebanese Civil War. The other pre-1982 information is important, and should remain on this page to show the history of PLO-Israeli conflict, unless someone has a better page for it. I am also considering creating a more general page, such as Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

--style 01:37, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

I think Style's suggestion of moving much of the detail to more appropriate articles has merit. If the text dealing with Operation Litani were moved into that article and the remainder cut down to some two- or three-sentence summaries, then we might end up with a level of background acceptable to all. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I didn't want to create a new article, as it's difficult enough to contribute to existing articles, but as you think it's a good idea, I've made Operation Litani and put all the pre-1982 information there. I've left one paragraph summarizing the situation in Lebanon in, because I think one parapaph of background is acceptable as it's less than what was there before. (Remarks removed too, per request.)

IZAK: Nice work with the map, thanks, but I don't see the relevance of the 2000 events regarding resolution 425 to the 1982 war. I've moved your info (slightly edited) to Operation Litani, in accordance with WP norms. --style 08:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the info about the UN Sec Gen's certfication in 2000 that Israel has complied with UN Res 425, an important "official" ending for the 1982 invasion. IZAK 10:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Phosphorus

The paragraph contains important information about Israel's conduct in the war. It does not contain any extraneous details about phosphorus. Why is important information being deleted? And why are citations being deleted? --style 12:05, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

What do you imagine the important information that is "about Israel's conduct", not phosphorus shells, that is being deleted? Please be specific. Jayjg 19:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firing cluster bombs into civilian areas, where children might play with them. And what do you imagine the important information that is "about phosphorus" that you are repeatedly deleting? Please be specific. --style 23:37, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Um, the version you keep reverting to says nothing about "firing cluster bombs into civilian areas". Try again. Jayjg 00:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what is implied if children are playing with them. Why are you deleting the cite, regardless? That is against WP policy. --style 09:11, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

So you're saying I'm deleting something that's not actually in the text, but is implied by it? The sentence already uses the word "civilian" twice, I don't think that implies military. Jayjg 16:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert Fisk Reference

Is this reference to Robert Fisk really necessary in this article? The paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading. What is the purpose of mentioning this? Why are there no factual statistics accompanying this point? Simply saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a quesitonable account of the events that transpired in this war. Moreover, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US. Is the intention of the author of this article to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee? If not, then perhaps the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.

-ecl26

Responding to your points in order:

1. No, the reference to Robert Fisk is not really necessary to this article.
2. Yes, the paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading.
3. The purpose of mentioning it is to demonize Israel.
4. There are no factual statistics accompanying it because Fisk didn't provide any; he was more interested in criticizing Israel than providing factual accounts.
5. Yes, saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a questionable account of the events that transpired in this war.
6. Yes, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US.
7. Yes, the intention of the author of that particular part of the article was to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee?
8. Yes, the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.

Hope that was helpful. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Katyusha Rockets

I too would like to see source for the Katyusha rocket range. It should also be pointed out that the Katyusha article itself is incomplete, as many Katyusha variants (such as the Iranian Fahr-3) sport longer range or increased payloads. It's entirely possible the 40 km range listed here is because Hezbollah used one of those variants.

I do not beleive that any accurate description can be given on the range of the Katyusha rockets as they are nototiously unreliable... --jonasaurus 21:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda sources? NPOV?

Ian, do you really imagine that Sayigh's PLO-based view is more "neutral" than the "propaganda sources" you have removed? We've already discussed this problem of introducing a particular narrative POV, and insisting it is fact. You can do better than this, and, in fact the NPOV policy demands you do better than this. Please quote the positions of both sides; otherwise, I might be forced to restore the previous, well-sourced version. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Jayjg. Clearly, you have much to contribute from the works you cited, and you have made important additions in good faith. But it is just as important to do so in the right way, to assume good faith from others, and to realize that this is a topic where one should tread carefully, and make possibly controversial edits slowly. What is more important than introducing a particular narrative POV and insisting it is fact, even if it is, is to add things that are missing that no one has ever disagreed with - like the mine killing the soldier being in Lebanon (which is pretty obvious if you think about it - is the IDF so lax as to let other people lay mines in their territory?), or putting in enough such detail to avoid disputes. E.g. here putting in the one-line complete text of the Habib ceasefire and the US, Israeli and PLO interpretations would clarify things a lot. Removing sources is often not a good idea, especially when they are supporting statements which don't really conflict with what you want to say. Everyone here has shown good faith and made important additions to the article. Guy should not have reverted at least some of your additions - at the very least your additions to the references section should be preserved - (in one case it was cleaning up a mess I personally had left - incomplete references to Cobban), but for instance, his change of the article's name was absolutely right, and I was an idiot to even weakly oppose it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and it really does benefit from it, and the amount of good faith and honesty here is far in excess of what you see in debates on these matters anywhere else, where assuming bad faith on the part of a source until proved different is a pretty good rule. --John Z 1 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)

John, thanks for your comment. Would you be willing to take a crack at synthesizing a compromise between the two versions? Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Colleagues, I've checked sources on forces deployed again. I think the dispute surrounds the total forces deployed over the conflict versus the total forces in southern Lebanon at the outset of the conflict. There is also a minor dispute over the condition of those forces, but I don't this is worth covering. I've now included both. Please let me know if these are still disputed and I'll supply additional references. Obviously, the article shouldn't include anything known to be inaccurate and if there are important disputes over the facts we should just explain these as fairly as we can. --Ian Pitchford 3 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

The excised information includes the following: "by 1982 the PLO had at least 15,000 organized forces and about 18,000 militia, as well as large amounts of rockets, artillery, and hundreds of T-34 tanks.[1] [2] In April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer, Israeli air strikes and Palestinian rocket attacks recommenced.[3][4]" Please restore the information, particularly about the tanks and militia. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

I've no objection to your restoring this information if you think it can be verified, but to the best of my knowledge the claim of 15,000 full-time soldiers + 18,000 militia is wrong and in fact even the Jewish Virtual Library source you cite above [5] says 15-18,000. I don't know of any other source saying that there were hundreds of PLO tanks in the area. Some sources refer only to "dozens", but I've included the figure in the table of total forces deployed over the conflict, even though it's misleading because of the poor condition of the tanks. Palestinian rocket attacks didn't recommence after the Damour air strikes because the Americans told the PLO that the Israelis had told them that the strike was not in preparation for a ground invasion. --Ian Pitchford 3 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

TITLE IS RIDICULOUS

In order to be politically correct this article has become ridiculous. Nobody in the world refers to these events as the 1982 Lebanon war. Just do a google search. The article name should reflect the REAL name of the war, or else readers won't be able to access the article properly from the search box. We should name the articles the way the outside world call these events. Hence, the title of the article should be: Operation Peace in Galille or the Israeli Invasion of 1982. Or maybe both sentences if it's the only way people will agree.

WWII is named world war II not the great patriotic war (russian propaganda name).--equitor 07:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Great Patriotic War refers solely to the Eastern Front in Russian terminology. Why? Because the Russians did most of the fighting and the Eastern Front was mostly on Russian soil. It is their own little war in the context of WW2. The Lebanon war did not start with Operation Peace for the Galillee, and WW2 was not about the Great Patriotic War. Neutral historians refer to the entire scope of events as the 1982 Lebanon War. There is not reason to insert pov names when we have already a neutral one.

Guy Montag 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Operation Peace in Galilee is very rarely used (a google search yields fewer than 200 results). Furthermore, it would proably be seem as POV in favor of Israel (comperable to calling the Iraq War Operation Iraq Freedom). I think the current title should be kept. This issue has already been dealt with, and it seems consensus has been reached. Unless there are others who dispute the title, it should stay. Theshibboleth 12:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep; Title is fine - using either side's description is POV. Current title is as neutral as it can be. Celcius 23:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually a search on google of Operation Peace for Galilee yields 330 000 results.

The Israeli withdrawal

The Israeli withdrawal to the security zone was over in June 1985, but this withdrawal started already in January 1985, after the government's decision to withdraw from Lebanon! Toya 14:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Title is POV

We have Operation Litani, why do we not have Operation Peace for the Galilee? What makes this war different than any other war Israel fought? It should be merged with Lebanon Civil War or the title moved to Operation Peace for the Galilee. If thats not good enough, than it should be called the "1982 Lebanon War" .]

I've done a Google Search. These are the results.

1982 Lebanon War has if done by the strictest search "4,950" hits. "[6] 1982 Invasion of Lebanon has doing the strictest possible search has 10,700[7]. The problem is that some encyclopedias duplicate wikipedia articles one to one after the articles are made, increasing the number of hits on goolge. Finally, we have to consider the name intself. In the search it is used pejoratively. We could call WW2 the War of Nazi Aggression, but instead we call it WW2, we use the same standard for 1948 Arab Israeli War vs Israeli War of Independence or Nakba, and we use 1973 War vs Yom Kippur War. I think to continue by this standard, we need to call it by a neutral name and list what both sides call it as wikipedia always does. I am going to move it, and see the response.

Guy Montag 23:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 02:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think it is really POV; "Invasion" is not necessarily pejorative - as in the D-day Invasion of Normandy, or the Allied invasion of Sicily.

Sure, but these are battles within a war, a war entitled WW2, not something like Nazi War of Aggresssion.

It is the most usual name in English for the war in my experience, from writers on all sides. Also Wiki does prefer Yom Kippur war to 1973 war. I don't think it is too important either way, just that good faith should be assumed about such IMHO minor points, and that if it is felt necessary to neutralize the name of one war, one should do it for all. Concerning Operation Litani, it, like the War of Attrition, is somewhat forgotten, so I think the argument that the most usual name (with words) should be used is even stronger there. Peace for Galilee would probably not be what most searchers would start with, and it is too distinct an event from the civil war to be merged. --John Z 01:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think 1982 Lebanon War is a neutral term, its also shorter.

Guy Montag 08:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The term seems NPOV to me. --equitor 04:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

No need for euphemisms here..."Operation for the Peace..." Invasion or war are clear, everyday terms for this action. In my view, war to stop the larger peace process (eg, withdrawal from West Bank, etc) is the most accurate description I've come across.

Jim Bodefeld 11 Oct 2005

3 revert rule

Style, I have not violated the 3 revert rule. I NPOVd your many POV edits, restoring some deleted information, but certainly not reverting or changing all, or even the majority of your work. You then reverted my own edits 4 times, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please voluntarily revert to the previous version to undo this breach, and please bring your proposed edits to Talk: . Jayjg 18:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A revert is a revert is a revert. You reverted my edits first. And look closely, I didn't revert to the same version 4 times. --style 05:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

People, I checked the history page, there are not many point of disagreement, please talk it out in here. For the meanwhile, either leave the orginal page until NPOV is resolved or find a temporary comprised version. Put NPOV notoce if you see right. MathKnight 20:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a newcomer with some understanding of the international situation at the time, I'm curious; why is there a delete war going on? Is it impossible to agree on NPOV caveats? For instance, in the first section that keeps getting reverted, you could add the following after "…launched from Southern Lebanon.": "The Lebanese representative to the United Nations stated [8] that these reasons were a pretext, and many still believe this to be the case. Israel and the United States rejected those claims." This does not say either is a correct viewpoint, just that many people legitimately held (and still hold, if Yuber's and Guy's posts are any indication) views that differ significantly on the reasons Israel took military action. To exclude either in "un-Wiki".

The Fisk quote, whether we like it or not, is perfectly in line with the NPOV guidelines; deleting is not. Fisk did say that, and it was in specific reference to the subject of this article. Just because we don't like a quote that is relevant is no excuse for censoring it. Simply add a rebuttal quote and put the statement in context.

The Ben-Gurion mess, on the other hand, has no reasonable foundation. To posit that a 1937 quote (about a nation that did not yet exist) as the basis for an action fifty years later is an unreasonable stretch. There were (and still are) many who believe the leaders of the newly formed Israeli state never accepted the 1947 boarders as reasonable or tolerable, and believed that they would have to fight to gain the land needed to form a viable state amongst hostile neighbours. This is just a lousy (and deliberately inflammatory) quote to use when trying to make that point, and an unfounded tie to the conflict at hand.

IMHO, the current article along with each historical edit I've seen on either "side", is infused with POV, often to the point of open propagandizing. Bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball between "our" POV version and "their" POV version means that we will never see a valid, encyclopaedic article. Just my opinion, of course. Kevin/Last1in 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consequences on Aerial Combat

There should also be a sections for the consequences that this war had on the way aerial battles where wag. This was the most significant change in the evolution of aerial war since wwII. Up to this point each pilot was on his own, the IAF was the first to use a main fluting base point to direct the fight at progress speed, real time. This was the beginning of the use of animation within the pilot’s helmets to increase his reaction time by over 2.5. And many other significant progressions in aerial combat, after which neither the American nor the Russian military could ignore. BTW, this article has a highly anti-Israeli POV.

Language and style

I have started to correct some of the poor poor English and clumsy style in the Political Results section (4.3), and to fix missing links -- without, at this stage, making any of the factual historical/political content changes which should also be made. But there is a great deal of it, and I should be working! I will return to this later; but others are also welcome to assist in turning this into a more readable article -- then we can worry about the content. RolandR 12:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Rafael Eitan, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, responded to the aforementioned information in his famous saying "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to screw PLO!" ("!אבו נידאל, אבו שמידאל. צריך לדפוק את אש"ף")."

"We need to screw PLO!" is hardly NPOV.

"Hezbollah Victory" by 213.114.215.156

I believe that "Hezbollah Victory" isn't quite correct. In fact, the interpretation of who "won" the conflict is so subjective I don't think you can say that either side "won." Thus, I don't know what to put in the "result" section for this entry. I'll put something, but I won't be surprised if it gets reverted back to "Hezbollah Victory" within a short amount of time. Cla68 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it mean that if the US ever leaves Afganistan or Irak they lost those wars? That doesn't make any sense. The israeli goal of the war wasn't to keep the Lebaneese territory, hence you can't measure the israeli succes or failure in those terms. I dont know much about Clausewitz, but didn't the guy wrote about 200 years ago? Wars have changed a bit since then, eh?--Rataube 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

doughtful section removed from consequences section

" While it is unclear if the 1982 Lebanon War truly was the motivation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Osama bin Laden claimed this was his motivation for the attacks in a taped message released to Al-Jazeera on the eve of the 2004 United States Presidential elections. In the tapes, he claimed that he held the U.S. responsible for this war." Doesn't seem to belong to me so I've removed it. Jon 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheik Osama bin Laden said in the 2004 video exactly that he "first thought to fell america's towers when he saw lebanon's towers fell".

Balance in question warning?

I came to this article looking for some details on the specific campaign it is about. The military detail is pretty much non-existant. What is present in a considerable degree is one side's version, without the other side's being presented at all. I checked the references. I only recognize one author, whose POV is well known to be on a specific side. Several titles make clear their bias to the same side while the rest are neutral. Either neutral references only should be used or pro-Israeli references should be added and cited. It was so apparent this article had taken a side I scrolled up looking for one of those "the balance of this article is in question" boxes you see on other articles because I hadn't remembered seeing one. There was not one and there definately should be. I'm not sure what the policy is on adding them (my wikipedia editting experience is limited to just a few error corrections to date).

Some actual information on the campaign might be nice as well. Course of the fighting is the shortest section. That seems very odd for a military article.

Conflict -- who killed Shlomo Argov?

This article says he was killed by Fatah but the article on Shlomo Argov says he was killed by Abu Nidal. So which is it? -- Kendrick7 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I figured it out. -- Kendrick7 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No wait, now I'm confused again. -- Kendrick7 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The artcile says he was killed by "Fatah-The Revolutionary Council" - which is the offical name of Abu Nidal's group. In other words, there's no conlict "Fatah-The Revolutionary Council"=ABu Nidal. Isarig 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I delve into this more below. But when I first read this, I thought it meant PLO's Fatah, then I started reading the article on Adu Nidal, and concluded since he was once a member of Fatah, it made sense (that's when I said above, incorrectly, that I had figured it out). Then, I read a little further to where the Abu Nidal article says Nidal actually left and founded a group in opposition to the PLO, or at least its methods, leaders, whatever. Which is when I came back still confused, because by then I'd forgotten, or even skipped over, the phrase "Fatah Revolutionary Council" sprinkled among the Arabic in that article's opening sentence. If I hadn't had a passing knowledge about the affair from other sources which made it not quite click to begin with, I would have been left in ignorance. I try to edit articles keeping in mind the ignorant reader, and on many topics you'd be surprised how easy that is! -- Kendrick7 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Requesting a move to a non-POV title -- Kendrick7 09:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? How is this non-POV? The war happened in Lebanon and involved Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, and Israelis (plus, eventually, peacekeepers from other countries). Why choose two of the many parties involved to name the war? It makes more sense to name it after where it occurred. Calbaer 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the sovereign nation of Israel invaded the sovereign nation of Lebanon. -- Kendrick7 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...which was being occupied by the PLO (Israel's target) and by Syria (which also invaded the country). Again, to be fair, you would have to call it the 1982 Syrian-Palestianian-Israeli Lebanon War or something similarly ungainly. Leaving out two of the four primary participants is more POV than simply stating where it took place. True, the defined start of the war was Israel's invasion of Lebanon. But we don't call WWI the 1918 Austro-Serbian War or WWII the 1939 German-Polish War. (In this case, the war doesn't have a firmly established name, but Lebanon War is used far, far more than Israel-Lebanon War, for the reasons detailed above.) Anyway, similar moves have already been discussed and dismissed (see above talk page entries), so it would be appropriate to remove the request unless you have anything new to add. Calbaer 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't complicated. A lot of sources would say both Syria and the PLO were invited guests of the Lebanese government (cf. the Cairo Agreement for example); the proposed title still describes what occured accurately -- an act of war (the invasion) by one sovereign against another resulting in a prolonged conflict (and in this case, occupation). I understand they are now calling it the First Lebanon War in Israel, but I can't find a cite for what they call it in Lebanon; having those in the lead would throw me a bone. Does Lebanon call it "our war?" "Our war 1982"?? -- Kendrick7 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Lebanon numbers their wars, but they've had so many conflicts I'm not sure which war this counts as; perhaps it was something like "the second Israeli war of agression against Lebanon." Not exactly POV, that. Israel's official name for the invasion was "Operation Peace for the Galilee," but that's neither POV nor catchy. By the way, the opinion Syria and the PLO were "invited guests" of the government is odd in light of their hostility with each other at the time of their "invitations"; the linked article seems to imply that this is likely a conspiracy theory with little basis in fact. Calbaer 07:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm rescinding the move request. Lebanese sources seem to just call it the Israeli invasion, but I'm not onto anything definitive. -- Kendrick7 16:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the backlog at requested moves, where this is listed. At this point, I don't see anything like a clear consensus for a move, but there is some disagreement with the present title. Please continue to discuss, and if a consensus to move to a better title emerges, please do so. Jonathunder 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally called the 1982 Israeli invasion, at least in Lebanon. 1982 Lebanon War makes no sense, except from a purely Israeli perspective (Wikipedia, I believe, aspires to a global perspective), as the Lebanon war lasted from 1975 to 1990. Palmiro | Talk 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. Googling for 1982 Lebanon war yields about a million and a half hits. Googling "1982 Lebanon war" produces nearly 30,000. Googling for "1982 Israeli invasion" produces a simialr result of around 33,000 hits. What lasted from 1975 to 1990 is the Lebanese civil war, which has its own article. Isarig 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Two Fatah's

I have no idea what exactly Fatah means in Arabic (struggle or something??), but Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini (Fatah (a reverse acronym), the PLO's military wing) is easily confused with Fatah al-Majles al-Thawry (the Fatah Revolutionary Council) which is commonly called the Abu Nidal Organization (note these both go to the same article). This distinction should be made in the lead, and probably throughout the article, to avoid this confusion, though it might go along way to explain if Israeli Intelligence really got them mixed up at some point, as some alledge. -- Kendrick7 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's removal and WP:RS

Here is the texts that isarig removed and their corresponding sources:

• were allied to Israel : The 1982 massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps claimed the lives of at least 800 civilians, murdered by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel during its brief occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. (BBC[9])
• Israel sent the Phalange : On September 16, 1982 the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia entered the Beruit refugee camps called Sabra and Shatila. Their mission was authorized by the Israeli IDF, under the command of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, that held the territory around Beirut (palestinefacts.org isarig: if you don't think it is a RS please explain why)
• The force is to drive out the remaining "2000 PLO terrorist" Mr Sharon declared that "2,000 terrorists" remained in Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. Sabra and Shatila were surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, with checkpoints to monitor the entry or exit of any person. But on the afternoon of 16 September about 150 LF fighters moved into the camps. (BBC)
• Investigation result that Sharon was responsible for the massacre : Mr Sharon resigned his post after an Israeli commission of inquiry established that he bore indirect responsibility for the deaths (BBC), and also In 1983, an Israeli state inquiry found Mr Sharon, then defence minister, indirectly responsible for the killing of hundreds of men, women and children at Sabra and Shatila camps during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. (Reuters reprinted by the Irish Times if you don't think Reuters are not RS please explain why)

Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sources do not say "The Israeli command sent a force of about 150 Phalange fighters into the the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps". They say only the Phalange's request to enter the camps was authorized by the IDF. The two are not the same.

Your sources do not say That the IDF was "claiming it was to drive out a remaining force of "2000 PLO terrorists"- you combined one statement from one source that has Sharon claiming there are 2,000 terrorist in that camp, with WP:OR that has the IDF making that claim.

Your sources do not say "Israeli troops guarded the exits to the camps preventing anyone from leaving", they say only that the IDF had checkpoints around the camp. the two are not the same. This is a pattern of subtle POV changes, that together serve to create a very POV presntationm of events. The previous version is factual and more neutral. Isarig 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The casus belli

Nielswik has been inserting a casus belli that, besides false, does not make sense. Nielswik, if you read over the original casus belli, it says "PLO artillery attacks on northern Israel, and attempted assassination..." would you like me to put it back to that. I edited it to make it more correct. Nielswik, first of all, please learn what a casus belli is. A wish is not an act of war of initiation of hostilities. Israel may have wished to end the PLO presence in Jordan (which is on their border), but they did act on it. After exile from Jordan, the PLO redirected their threat to Israel. THAT is a casus belli, not a "wish". Just like the recent Hezbollah War's casus belli was their murder of eight soldiers and kidnapping of two, not Israel's "wish" to get back their abducted soldiers. If you need more examples, I can give more. --Shamir1 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of PLO Anti-Tank Weapons

Were there between 2 and 300, as the table states, or between 200 and 300 as the table implies? The latter seems much more likely to me as statistics are rarely presented with such high margins. Although usually fine in conversations, such an abbreviation is unsuitable in this case. Would someone who knows the minimum estimate either change it to 200, or tell me that the minimum estimate is in fact 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

International role including the US

I find that this article gives little or no mention of the position of the UN and the US on the conflict. I'm making some changes adding this additional perspective.

Anti-Israel POV

Two statements in this article seem to be anti-Israel propoganda to me: 1)n 10 July 1981, after a period of peace, the Israeli air force bombarded Palestinian targets in south Lebanon and later that day Palestinian elements fired artillery and rockets into northern Israel. After a period of peace??? What, the Israelis were the mean guys here??? And 2) Israeli provocations continued from August 1981 to May 1982 during which there were 2125 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters. Provocations??? Sure, the PLO was shelling Israeli villages from Lebanon, but hey, ISRAEL was the provoker, right? 69.58.249.133 12:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty POV. It's a longstanding problem with this article; see Talk: sections above. However, these specific edits are quite new. I'm not sure the editor realizes why this particular narrative is just one POV that should at least be attributed as such, rather than stated as bald fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of weasel words such as "alleges"? Is this a new standard on Wikipedia, that for each source we have to say the source "alleges"? Also, Jayjg, why do you pick out certain quotes that you feel are anti-Israeli and say they come from "dubious" sources. Yuber^(talk) 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is another source that confirms Ben Gurion's quote:[10].Yuber^(talk) 23:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These quotes have very little to do with the Lebanon War. You are using a quote from 1937 to allege a connection with the Lebanon War, which is false. Secondly, dozens of sources need to be verified. What book did Robert Fisk use? What does a book review have to do with the extent of US involvement in Lebanon? When did this involvement start? Why was there no mention of the Airport bombing of the US marines stationed there?

This article is in need of alot of work.

Guy Montag 21:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You really shouldn't claim links are dead to remove quotes. The link works fine for me. Please cease your censoring of information by your removal of quotes.Yuber^(talk) 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does a quote from 1937 have to do with the Lebanon War? If you can't explain that, it has nothing to do with this article.

Guy Montag 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. It shows that the desire to occupy southern Lebanon was not in response to PLO activity, but rather rooted in early Zionist aspirations. The quote serves to temper the Israeli claim that the invasion of Lebanon was solely to root out PLO militants.Yuber^(talk) 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it shows what you want it to show. It has nothing to do with the invasion of Lebanon, it is not relevant to this article. It is a speech by Ben Gurion in 1937. He wasnt even prime minister at that time. That was still the mandatory period. You are pushing your luck so far down in history to justify a war which happened for different reasons.You have no proof on anything other than your wild imagination.

Guy Montag 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy is absolutely right; bringing in a quote made by Ben Gurion in 1937 and insisting it was a justification for the 1982 Invasion (long after Ben Gurion was leading Israel) is rampant POV pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This artical has a disgusting anti-Israeli tone running throught it, and needs to be monitered closely. I've cleaned what I can, and will return later to make sure that nutral language continues to prevale. Please, everybody, wikipedia is not the place to voice anti-Israelism. Rudy Breteler 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article

Is Invasion of Lebanon POV? Shouldn't it be a subset of the Lebanon civil war?

Guy Montag 02:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am starting an article on a novel, The Stone of Laughter, and i want to link to this page because this war is part of the backdrop for the novel. However, it is hard since the title "Lebanon War" seems to be from an Israeli standpoint and therefore pov. In Lebanon every war in a "Lebanon War" and this would be more likely refered to as the "Israeli War", which is also pov. Perhaps we could change to "1982 Israeli-Lebanesse War". CuttingEdge 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article names need not be NPOV. From the Wikipedia naming conventions for events:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.

I think the current title was chosen under point #2 (or possibly #1). The Israeli government still refers to it as Operation Peace for Galilee I believe, but Lebanon war appears to be more common (variations being 1982 Lebanon war, First Lebanon war, etc.), which is likely the reasoning behind the current title. — George Saliba ^[talk] 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It just seems odd when one is writing an article about a novel which is from a Lebanese point of view to refer to something as "The 1982 Lebanon war". Its not actually a problem as i can name the link whatever i want and direct it here, but i just wanted to make sure the issue had been given adequate thought. CuttingEdge 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Crime and punishment - Osama bin Laden vs BB New jersey

In the late 2004 "golden robe" video Osama bin Laden clearly states that 9/11 was punishment for the USN 6th Fleet battleship New Jersey destroying the lebanese coastal villages with its 16" main guns in 1984. Where such a giant high explosive grenade fell nothing remained in a circle of 250 meters. He wanted american towers to collapse in exchange for the towers of lebanon that fell. This is the most significant consequence of the Lebanon invasion. Hear: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/30/terror/main652425.shtml

Just because Osama Bin Laden makes that claim now doesn't mean it is actually true. Consider the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I inserted this sentence into the article: "Osama Bin Laden said in a videotape released on the eve of the 2004 U.S. presidential elections that he was inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital."

This is very important information and deserves to be in the article under the section "consequences."Walkerson 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

By not seperating military casualties from civillian casualties in the summary it gives a misleading impression to the reader. It makes it seem as if all 17,825 are military casualties (since the Israel casualty figure is all military) and that then makes it seem as if the army under Arafat lost 50% of its combatants, when really the percentage is much lower.

Also, most war articles seperate military from civillian casualties in the summary, so I don't see why this should be any different. There's no reason I can think of for not seperating them, so I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.56 (talk) 13:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

This is the same guy again, I've made an account since my post above. Someone has made a good edit to the summary, I have only one complaint. The civillian casualties are listed over both sides, which again is misleading since they were all in Lebanon and therefore don't effect the Israeli side. It would be useful if someone who knew the figures could seperate the civillian casualty figure into Lebanese and Palestinian. User Libertariansocialistdeist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertariansocialistdeist (talk • contribs) 08:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred during Israel's occupation of West Beirut.

This does not belong in the introduction; it is not a critical piece of information about the war, and is one of many massacres committed in the overall Lebanon war, including in those very camps. Jayjg 21:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It does belong in the intro, because it is a important, historic event of greater fame (infamy?) and notability than the war itself. For example, the article on the massacre is _much_ bigger than this article.

I'll respond to your other edits here. They are all obviously factually incorrect and POV. Palestinians alone did not kill thousands of Lebanese civilians; both sides committed massacres. There was not intense international pressure placed only upon the Palestinians; there was pressure on both sides to achieve peace. And I really don't see how writing "hundreds, possibly thousands" is better than "700-3000" for the massacre casualties. Why are you wasting my time? --style 05:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the introduction. This article is meant to be about a military operation, that had legitimate and long-reaching political causes and effects. Civilians get killed in any war; it's just one of the unfortunate, and all but unavoidable results. This is especially true when the combatants are themselves guerillas, possibly in plain-clothes, hiding amongst civilians, as is nearly always the case with the PLO.

I do not believe that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is "a important, historic event of greater fame (infamy?) and notability than the war itself," as you claim. I had never heard of it before reading this article. LordAmeth 18:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, because it is relevant to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, anti-Israel activists have tried to make it that way. Of course, they ignore the large massacres in this conflict that had nothing to do with Israel, and make absurd claims that a massacre of 800 or so Palestinians by the Phalange is more significant than a war which lasted cost hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced over a million people, etc. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here? This should be an article about the 1982 Libanon war. As far as I can see, the war ended after the first day of the invasion, there's no real information after that. Though, even Israeli friendly sources say 'The War in Lebanon can be divided into two phases. The first was a conventional war, which lasted from June 6 to August 23 1982, when the terrorists were expelled from Beirut. The second phase, which lasted for the next three years, was a counter-insurgency campaign.' Especially the counter-insurgency phase should be of interest today. How did the IDF fight it, are there lessons to be learned regarding the Iraq war? Imho the election and assasiation of Gemayel should be mentioned,too, as well as the 2nd invasion of Beirut and the Sabra and Shatila massacre on the next day. These are main events that were reported aoround the world and did shape public opinion about the war. Has there been serious vandalizing, or is there any serious argument regarding the duration of the war? Imho this article is just a stub. Gray62 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The massacres are important because they resulted in 1/10th of the population of Israel (350,000 people) protesting the government's foreign policy and the resignation of Ariel Sharon. Any event which leads to such a shift in Israeli opinion is significant. User:Libertariansocialistdeist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertariansocialistdeist (talk • contribs) 22:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLA patch.png

Image:SLA patch.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif

Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Casus Belli and the Assassination

I've edited these and will put them together since the assassination was the casus belli. SummerOne (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

assassination attempt....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Woops - that's what I meant as my edit shows! - SummerOne (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Israeli claim of ceasefire being broken

Okay yeah Israel claimed violation of the ceasefire because they were being attacked outside the country, well what about the Palestinians who were being attacked inside the occupied territories? If we are going to add this long paragraph about how Israel thought the ceasefire was broken, if we are at all going to be fair we have to add now the Palestinians who felt that the ceasefire was being broken because their countrymen were being pushed off their land and put into refugee camps.PlasticJesus341 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles already says that they felt they were not violating the ceasefire. The rest is irrelevant. -- Nudve (talk) 19:43, 8 December

2008 (UTC)

I moved it right where it should be, I hope we can all agree on thatPlasticJesus341 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. -- Nudve (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious?

Why is there a dubious tag on PLO violations of the ceasefire? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic strategy

What did the PLO's "diplomatic strategy" consist of? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PLO Research Centre

Why is there no mention of the destruction of the PLO Research Centre by the Israeli army that occurred during this war?DruidODurham (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library.org is not a reliable source

I deleted a sentence that said that the Palestinians were solely responsible for breaking the ceasefire, and killed many Israelis in unprovoked attacks. The sentence was sourced with some website called jewishvirtuallibrary.org, an extremely pro-Israeli website with no credibility. Do not try to re-add this sentence if you are going to use this source again, use a different source please.PlasticJesus341 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the JVL being unreliable. Was there a consensus about this at WP:RS? Yes, it is generally pro-Israeli, but that doesn't necessary mean they're not reliable. This particular article was written by Mitchell Bard, who is a scholar, even if a controversial one. Also, the article didn't say the Palestinians were solely responsible for breaking the ceasefire, and qualifies the charges as Israeli one, not as facts. This article could use better sourcing for sure (I'll do that when I have more time), but I don't think blanket removal of this paragraph is necessary. -- Nudve (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read some of the other things on that site, and most of the information is either entirely misleading or just plain false. The source is entirely unreliable, just take a look at their justification for different examples of Israeli aggresion.PlasticJesus341 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

commenting due to question raised at WP:RSN - the JVL is a reliable tertiary source. Most of its articles are written by noted experts and accademics. This is not to say that every fact in every article within the JVL is uncontested or accurate, but we must remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth. If something stated in an article hosted on the JVL is disputed, we can note this fact. We can (and should) discuss what the articles at the JVL say, and what other reliable sources say. I would agree that the JVL has a distinct pro-israeli bias, but having a bias does not make something unreliable. It simply means that only one viewpoint is represented. We can discuss and cite what other sources say for other, contrasting, viewpoints. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also arriving here as a result of seeing the RSN, where I've commented. The JVL does a good job with some of it's articles - but then so did David Irving do a good job with some of his work. PR^talk 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the JVL is generally a reliable source - as Blueboar notes, if there is a particular fact that is disputed it should be corroborated, but cites to the JVL are not suspect of themselves. To PR - I think its inappropriate, as a matter of polite interaction, to compare the Jewish library project to a Holocaust denier. I'm sure you didn't mean to be insulting, but it comes across that way. More care with that sort of thing makes collaborating smoother for everyone. Avruch ^T 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one has raised any specific issue concerning this particular JVL article, and consensus seems to be that it's not generally unreliable, so I'll reintroduce that info. -- Nudve (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I did come here after you popped in to the Israeli Settlement discussion Nudve (I'll be honest about that as I seem to have become a magnet for slightly odd "stalker" accusations recently - but I am doing it in a collaborative spirit in a bid to clarify an issue of fact. I actually try to avoid becoming entangled with editors I have problems with, which is why I'm always a bit puzzled when they accuse me of it. And not that I count you among those, btw). Anyway I have no particular thoughts on the reliability of this website - I would point out however that, in respect of the ceasefire issue, I've always understood that the PLO did more or less observe it from 1981-1982, so was a little puzzled to see that this source seems so definitive about the fact that they were in regular breach. A quick bit of google searching brought this Ynet article and this CNN.com piece, which appear to back that interpretation. I also dug up this piece on the Rand website, which explicitly claims that Reagan's envoy Philip Habib ruled that (possibly a paraphrase) the "ceasefire held for the next eleven months, despite minor violations", until the invasion. There is also this, which includes the following details:

On 3 June, the Israeli ambassador to Great Britain had been wounded and permanently disabled in an assassination attempt by a splinter group formerly associated with the Palestinian Liberation Organization(PLO). Although the group, known as Abu Nidal, had been expelled from the PLO in 1974,5 Israel responded to this terrorist action with an air attack on Beirut directed against known PLO positions. The PLO countered with an artillery and rocket attack against northern Israel, known as the Galilee, reportedly killing one Israeli.6 Until this action, a cease fire between Israel and the PLO, which had been negotiated by American Ambassador Philip Habib the previous summer following a confrontation over Palestinian and Syrian actions in Lebanon, had held. As Israeli authors Dan Bavly and Eliahu Salpeter noted in their book Fire in Beirut, when Israel attacked "it was after ten months of outward peace and tranquility, in which not a single Israeli in Galilee had been killed or wounded by the PLO."

Anyway I won't get involved any more here, on the main page or on talk, but I did want to comment and to provide material for others to look at. --Nickhh (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There were violations, but it's true that they were few and mostly came after Israeli raids. However, since these claims are attributed to the Israeli government, it's not a real problem, and it seems Sharon did cite them as a casus belli. -- Nudve (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've also noticed that there's actually material further down in that para, sourced to Morris, that talks about calm on the border. The previous sentence to that one (about the Habib-brokered ceasefire) also duplicates material at the top of the paragraph - so perhaps both should be pulled up to the beginning of the para, so that the contrasting interpretations are set directly against each other, and any repetition about the start of the ceasefire removed as well? Just as a tidying-up thing if nothing else, and otherwise the para just reads as if it's contradicting itself at each end, as well as contradicting the information in the "casus belli" section. Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't get involved any more but I did just spot that .... --Nickhh (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: I would add that I do think it is also worth including on top of the Israeli govt claims that (per my links above) the envoy who brokered the ceasefire took the view that it was not breached prior to the invasion.

This is ridiculous, this cannot be added just for the fact that it has been widely recognized that the PLO did not break the ceasefire, and certainly not "repeatedly" and furthermore the source this comes from is very pro-Israeli...I am deleting this, and for good reason. There is actually a sentence further down in the article saying that the PLO had observed the ceasefire for nearly a year, this is a comlete contradicition of this JVL source. PlasticJesus341 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Abu Nidal Group tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador where? Outside of Lebanon in the UK right?

What does that have to do with Lebanon and Beirut, what does that have to do with the Lebanese?????????? The Israelis responded by killing Lebanese. This shows it was the Israelis who broke the ceasefire for Lebanon between the Israelis and PLO. Lebanese bebe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Lebanese bebe

Between 12:35 and 13:22 on August 13, user Lebanese bebe made a slew of unsourced edits, culminating in moving the page to 1982 Israeli Invasion and Occupation of Lebanon. Now I've moved the page back and reverted a lot of what the aforementioned editor added but I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether some of the edits were helpful. Specifically, I've left untouched three edits (1, 2, 3) so maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject could check them over and possibly even find sources for them. Perusing Lebanese bebe's contributions this editor is a very recent startup who possesses what seem to be very pointed opinions on Lebanese topics but I'll let him/her make his/her case before I pass further judgement.--Lairor (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mivtzah Shlom Hagalil" is not "Operation Peace of the Galilee"

Hi!

"Mivtzah Shlom Hagalil" (in Hebrew - מבצע שלום הגליל) means "the operation for/of the Shalom of the Galilee". However, Shalom in Hebrew has several meanings, including "well-being" and "welfare". For explanation see this blog entry on my blog about the S.L.M/Sh.L.M root in Semitic languages. So the operation should more accurately be called "The Operation for/of the welfare of the Galilee" or "The operation for/of the well-being of the Galilee".

I don't know what the official name of operation was in the Israeli English media, but "Operation Peace of the Galilee" is a very poor translation.

Shlomif (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Peace for Galilee is the standard English title. Even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses it. -- Nudve (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This article displays a clear anti-Israel bias.

As an example, the sections on the causes of the war itself are clearly biased in favor of the PLO and against Israel. This article fails to grasp that the 1982 war was clearly a continuation of the 1978 Operation Litani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

which in itself was a clear continuation of the 1975 attempt at Israeli annexation up to the Litani...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pls provide justification(s) that the 1982 war was a continuation of the 1978 and 1975 war/attempts or whatever you call it. Speculative claims like these are unconstructive. Guppywarrior (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if it seems anti-Israel but you may see how it is hard to make the event not look anti-israeli because the attack on Lebanon was unwarranted, and unprovoked. The U.N numerous times would have passed security resolutions ordering Israel to stop their aggression immediately has the U.S not repeatedly vetoed any resolution that was put on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And the U.N. is the absolute moral authority in your world? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't call them the Useless Nations for nothing. And who do you thing built those ghettofied refugee camps?--98.114.134.238 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposing forces

Adde what information I could find, not much on the IDF though.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To 114.150.252.15 (IDF Air Losses)

Ok, so you're insisting that these six sources which I've marked as "failed verification" actually support the claim about 62 Israeli aircraft lost. Also you claim that I'm "simply lying". So let's check these sources.

The claim is: "some sources put that number in 62 Israeli aircraft downed".

• http://army.lv/ru/mig-23/primenenie/502/96 This source takes its information from the "Fighters" book by Vladimir Ilyin (1996). It says: "В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по 11 июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов". So, Syrian air force shot down 23 Israeli aircraft. That's all. Does it say anything about 62 Israeli aircraft downed? No. Failed verification.
• http://combatavia.info/index1mig23.html This source also takes its information from the "Fighters" book by Vladimir Ilyin (1996). It says: "В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по И [sic!] июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов". What, again not a single word about 62 Israeli aircraft downed? Yes. Failed verification.
• http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html Change of tune, it's American source. It says: "By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7". Also it says: "The Soviets went even further in extolling the SAF's combat virtues: the military newspaper Red Star announced triumphantly that "sixty-seven Israeli aircraft, including modern US-made F-15 and F-16 fighters, were downed". Red Star newspaper appears to be less modest than Syrian Air Force in its claims... Still, it says 67, not 62. Failed verification.
• http://www.testpilot.ru/review/war/syria.htm Oh, it's an article by the top Soviet military advisor in Syria! He writes: "Таким образом, за неделю войны сирийцы средствами ЗРК и силами ВВС сбили 58 воздушных целей. Из них: самолетов -50, беспилотных аппаратов - 8". So, the claim is 50 Israeli manned aircraft shot down plus 8 unmanned aerial vehicles shot down, 58 total (yes, he appears to be more modest than Red Star newspaper). What about 62 aircraft? He says nothing about it. Failed verification.
• http://paralay.com/f15.html Again Vladimir Ilyin, but it's not his 1996 book, it's his 2004 article. He writes: "Потери израильской авиации в воздушных боях составили, по сирийским данным, 42 самолета (из них, как минимум, пять F-15)". So, 42 Israeli aircraft downed in air-to-air combat (by the way, it is his mistake, actually he meant 24... more on that later). But 42 isn't 62. Failed verification.
• http://alerozin.narod.ru/Syria81.htm Another Russian source, this time by some Alexander Rozin (I don't know who is he, but it's his personal website). He uses different publications. "Самолёты ВВС Израиля в период 6-12 июня выполнили 3121 боевой вылет, потеряли 1 самолёт ‑ штурмовик А-4 «Скайхок» (6 июня) и 5 вертолётов" - Israeli aircraft lost 1 aircraft during the 6-12 June period. "Сирийцы сообщили, что средствами ПВО Сирии в небе над Ливаном и частично над Сирией было уничтожено 35 воздушных целей, из них 27 самолётов и 8 беспилотных аппаратов" - Syrian ground units shot down 27 Israeli manned aircraft and 8 UAVs. "В сообщении приведены всего две цифры, которые можно проверить. <...> А вторая ‑ явный вымысел: «сбито 67 израильских самолётов, в том числе современные истребители американского производства F-15 и F-16». Она дана, видимо, что бы как-то оправдать непомерно большие потери сирийских ВВС, и обезопасить зарубежные военные контракты". So, Alexander Rozin thinks that the claim of 67 Israeli aircraft downed is a lie. He gives different figures from different sources, but I can't find any mention of 62 (not 27, not 67 - we are talking about 62) aircraft downed. Sorry, again failed verification.

Now I'm returning "failed verification" template because these sources doesn't support "62 downed aircraft" claim.

By the way, if you can read Russian, there's an article about Lebanon war aircraft losses in Russian Wikipedia. You can find out some interesting things there; for example, it shows that Vladimir Ilyin's claim about 42 Israeli aircraft downed in air-to-air combat isn't supported by his own data which lists just 24 aircraft downed, and the top Soviet military advisor in Syria also gives 24, not 42. Creo11 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Принято считать, что “воздушная война” 1982 года завершилась “вничью”. И такое мнение правомерно – соотношение потерь в воздушных боях было почти равным – сирийские ВВС имели совсем небольшой перевес – в воздушных боях Сирия потеряла 56 самолётов, а Израиль 62 + 2 самолёта ВВС США. http://skyfireavia.narod.ru/weap/godsarrow/godsarrow.htm this says 62, very clearly, and * http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html Change of tune, it's American source. It says: "By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7". Also it says: "The Soviets went even further in extolling the SAF's combat virtues: the military newspaper Red Star announced triumphantly that "sixty-seven Israeli aircraft, including modern US-made F-15 and F-16 fighters, were downed". it says 67, not 62 As you can see 62 or 67 was one of the original numbers claimed by the russians here are other numbers Боевое крещение МиГ-23 произошло в небе Ливана. В целом, истребители ВВС Сирии в ходе активных боевых действий с 6 по 12 июня 1982 г уничтожили в воздушных боях 42 израильских самолета (в том числе, как минимум, пять F-15A и шесть F-16A), а также один ДПЛА, потеряв при этом четыре МиГ-23МС, шесть МиГ-23МФ, 26 МиГ-21бис и 11 МиГ-21МФ

42 israeli aircraft shot down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk • contribs)

http://skyfireavia.narod.ru/weap/godsarrow/godsarrow.htm is the only source which gives 62. It isn't a reliable source. It was written by Russian poet (yes, he's not historian, he is a poet) Andrey Shityakov, infamous for his purely fictional publications about Russian military aviation in different military conflicts. He makes a lot of factual mistakes; actually, he invents facts. Typical example: "У сирийцев, на долю МиГ-23 приходилось 35 из 64 сбитых самолётов противника". He credits Syrian MiG-23s with 35 victories, although all other Russian sources say that MiG-23s had just 7 victories (five F-16s and two F-4s downed). "Оценивая итоги использования самолетов МиГ-23 в Сирии, следует признать, что «боевой дебют» сирийской эскадрильи, оснащенной перехватчиками МиГ-23МФ, был довольно успешным: выполнив с 6 по 11 июня 52 боевых вылета и проведя семь воздушных боев, МиГи завершили «матч» в небе Ливана со счетом 5:6 (кроме того, ими был уничтожен один ДПЛА). Значительно хуже проявили себя фронтовые истребители МиГ-23МС: сбив лишь два «Фантома», сирийцы не досчитались четырех самолетов этого типа."

As I've said before, Ilyin's figure of 42 downed airplanes isn't true. Anyway, 42 isn't 62. Now you continue to remove "failed verification" tag from these six sources. First of all, you're provoking an edit war. Second, it's almost a vandalism. So please stop remove the tags and stop pretending like there's universal acclaim of the 62 figure in Russian sources. I repeat, there's a single source (unreliable) which gives this figure. Thank you. Creo11 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ah now i see you say he is a poet not a historian, if you say to me there is no evidence but there is evidence Russian authors claimed a number in the region of 62 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html says very clearly Soviet/syrian sources claimed 67, you have another estimate at 62 and a few more of 42, your not reliable is in your head, airpower maxwell is a western source saying soviet/syrian sources claimed 67 israeli aircraft, the article says Russian historians claimed a similar number of kills to the israeli claims, some put that number in 62 yeah 62 or 67 or 42 your problem is you pretend to be right when is obvious you are not, these have been estimates given by russian historians, here is another estimate with anumber of 58 По израильским данным, соотношение потерь в воздушных боях в Ливане составило не менее 13:1 в пользу самолета F-16, однако, это явно недостоверные цифры. Согласно сведениям, опубликованным в советской печати, в период наиболее активных боев с 6 по 11 июня 1982 г. ВВС Израиля потеряли 58 ЛА всех типов (35 от огня ЗРК и 23 в боях с сирийской авиацией), а сирийская авиация — 67 ЛА (47 в воздушных боях и 20 от огня ЗРК). Таким образом, соотношение потерь в воздушных боях составило около 2:1 в пользу Израиля. Это объясняется не столько превосходством имевшейся у Израиля техники, сколько лучшим планированием боевых операций, более тесным взаимодействием ЛА различного назначения, а также авиации и наземных сил. Причем, большая часть сирийских самолетов была, вероятно, сбита все же не F-16, а истребителями F-15.http://paralay.com/f16.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you're constantly using "Russian historians" definition. It's not always true. Andrei Shityakov is a freelance author and a poet. Vladimir Ilyin is a TsAGI worker; he can be called independent researcher, but not a historian, I guess. This source... Author is some Yevgeny Veselov, who's he? A historian? Nobody knows. Alexander Rozin - another unknown person. This source don't even have an author named.

Also, that's what Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Rozin's personal page is a self-published source so it's not reliable, according to Wikipedia definition. Same with Shityakov's and Veselov's websites. Creo11 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of source is obviously a political one, a historian is simply any one who writes historical accounts or basicly writes about social and cultural events in time, by definition history is not even a science since there is not even predictability, can you say what is going to happen socialy in 3000 years from now with 100% acuracy? answer no, history then falls more in the realm of literature than science; it only narrates what happened according to a view, this is usually a political one. Some historians use economics and social sciences but lack a complete view and lack predictability. since is not really a science but more a branch of politics or literature, the academia is a political view rather than science and only a historical concensus is given by several sources agreeing or a political view supporting them

Mathematics can be used and up to a degree can predict events with a very blur definition few years from now and it falls more in the realm of statistics and probability than the realm of scientific method. History then is closer to religion and philosophy, to religion because it lacks a really accurate method to be a science that is the reason even the history channel relies in prophets rather than historians to guess the future, even it is obviously religion and not science

Now these russian authors are only a reflection of what has been written in Russia, are they historians? yes they are, they do not need to have the academia supporting them to say they are historians, in fact wikipedia is a place for people to write about history.

Since in the case of Lebanon is very hard to really know the loses each side had, including both versions is the best, the main problem with history is it can be part of a political view and then become propaganda, and this is what we can see obviously since the Israelies claim 0 loses in air to air and the Syrians said at least more than 19 israeli aircraft shot down on June 6, 1982. The Israeli version has never produced more pictorial evidence than the Syrians, however they are supported by the self addmision by Syria of at least 16 syrian aircraft lost on June 6 1982.

As such including the pictorial evidence and versions of both sides does at least give a minimun of veracity to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I write about the war of 1982 in Wikipedia, so I'm historian, lol. I should make a website about this war and claim that there were 384 Israeli air victories during the first day (6 June 1982) - including 37 MiG-25s, 18 MiG-29s and 11 Tu-160s, and then post it in Wikipedia... Sorry, not my way. Actually, if you're a journalist, you'll be called a journalist even if you write an article about the fall of Rome.

By the way, about pictorial evidence... There's an article by Andrey Shityakov where you can find a picture of F-14 (U.S. Navy!) shot down by Syrian Mi-24 on 8 June 1982 - or so claims Shityakov! Would you believe him after this? Creo11 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalism and history are the same, writing your article in that way is similar to what Israel has done, 80:0 or 100:0 and a detail all the kills Israel acknoledges of June 1982 are where the pilots were KIA and paraded by the Palestinians or POWs interesting that statistically all the downed Israeli pilots fall in the hands of the enemy. Where is the evidence of the MiG-25 kills by Israeli F-15s? where are the pictures? none up to now, the only evidence you will find are claims and only support is the fact russian historians admitt 2 MiG-25s were lost in 1981 but most reports say Israel shot down 3, i challenge you to give me pictorial evidence of the third MiG-25 allegedly shot down in June 1982 or give me pictorial evidence of 100 aircraft shot by Israel, not 42 as Russian reports claim but at least 80 or 100 as it has been claimed and 80 in air to air combat.

Yes Israel has a very important evidence, Syria acknowledged from the start they lost aircraft, in fact most wars after WWII you have contradictory combat records because as aircraft technology advanced less and less aircraft were involved so a kill was more detailed and more important as propaganda tool in WWII there were thousend of aircraft fighting but in GWI just hundreds, so with the past of the years each side claimed different scores, that is what the reporters claimed the journalists, as such journalists wrote history, read Russian reports of the korean war or vietnam war they are different from those of the west.

Even modern reports are contradictory and the evidence is even the same few pictures lots of claims.

Of course as a propaganda tool as you are you using now you just question one side`s veracity and honesty, the reality any warring side lies and is dishonest, each side hides losses or at least tries to make them appear less embarrasing in the west for example SAMs are most common justification for Western losses, in Russia well inflated scores, i am not saying a side is more honest i am just saying each side uses propaganda and later this becomes the historical evidence. Journalist write the evidence that later is presented like historical facts, that is the reason is so hard to know what is the real score of june 1982.

About the F-14 shot down by a Mi-24, here he presents a photoshop, that is not a F-14 but a MiG-29, however the Mi-24 is said to have shot down a F-14 by many russian sources and also in the Iran-Iraq war it is said a F-4 was shot down by a Mi-24, the Mi-24 can be armed with AA-8 Aphids which are air to air missiles, technically it is possible for a helicopter to shot down an aircraft, in fact many russian sources claim the Mi-24 has shot down AH-1s in Lebanon june 1982 and in the Iran-Iraq war, if you say his article is unique then dismiss it, but the reality many russian sources say the same see http://worldweapon.ru/sam/r60.php http://otvet.mail.ru/question/30610093/, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VTXe0WIiaOMJ:live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php%3Fact%3Dattach%26type%3Dpost%26id%3D13604+%D0%9C%D0%B8-24+.+F-14&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk here we have other examples Как известно, конфликт в Ливане имел продолжение. В середине сентября у побережья этой страны начали сосредотачиваться военные корабли США, Англии, Франции и Италии. Американцы в ультимативной форме предложили сирийцам покинуть Ливан. В ответ на это в январе 1983 г. СССР оказал Дамаску непосредственную военную помощь, направив свои воинские части, главным образом, ПВО. В Сирии разместили ЗРК С-200, имеющие максимальную дальность поражения 200 км. Дальнейшее обострение отношений между участниками конфликта привело к установлению в декабре 1983 г флотами стран NATO морской блокады побережья Ливана. Американские линкоры начали обстрел сирийских позиций, а израильская авиация возобновила бомбардировки в долине Бекаа. В свою очередь, сирийцы нанесли ракетно-бомбовый удар по корабельной группировке NATO в районе Джуния, вынудив английский и итальянский отряды отойти к Кипру. В этот период средства ПВО сирийской армии сбили девять американских самолетов F-14A "Томкэт" и А-6Е "Интрудер", а также два французских "Супер Этандара", а советские расчеты ЗРК С-200 уничтожили на дистанции порядка 170 км самолет ДРЛО Е-2С "Хоукай" и три американских беспилотных разведчика "Файрби". it says that in the late period of 1983 the Syrians shot down several aircraft among them F-14s now see this http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_278.shtml this talk about the A-6 shot down in november 1983 over lebanon and now see this crashed 11.11.1983 into the Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon after crew ejected http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-11.htm now tell me accident or shot down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.150.252.15 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 114.150.252.15 and 118.0.18.192 (who are probably one and the same as they both geo-locate to Japan) had used extremely poor sources that do not qualify as RS. He made extensive use of obscure blogs and online forums some of which didn't even support his edits. I've gotten rid of them for the most part and where possible, replaced them with reliable sources from Rabinovich (Schocken), Herzog (Random House), Time-Life books as well as two online publications including one from Air Force Magazine.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

haha reliable sources you are just empoverishing wikepedia by making it a bunch of propaganda, i presented pictures and videos and an unbiassed view, but of course lies can only win if truth is blocked and that is what you do mister Jiujitsuguy you are just propaganda, www.waronline.com and www.skywar.ru are much reliable than the sources that you are presenting they have pictures of Merkavas destroyed, AH-1s destroyed and the very well known Israeli pilots captured in 1982 that even Israel admits and by the way most of the people working there are russian jews some even from Israel, the SANA claims were even claimed by ABC news and there are pictures of Merkavas and other tanks destroyed and a detail the Merkavas never ever fought the T-72 they never faced each other, the T-72 were destroyed by Helicopters not Merkavas. so far i can say this you can block other views but sources like www.waronline.com of www.skywar.ru are still there the videos of the lebanon war are still there for people to see and the russian historians are still there so if i read your version and the one of www.waronline.com at the end i know your way of convincing others is no more than propaganda freedom means the ability to choose your style is pure propaganda but thankfully the internet has many views and are there you can feel the owner of this article have it it is yours but there are more views on the internet better than your propaganda styled version that does not accept the freedom of questioning a version by the reader and only feeds you a version for political propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.86.5.139 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Casus Belli

Casus Belli section is hopelessly one-sided without giving equal weight to both sides. Some have repeatedly and inappropriately reverted works by Herzog published by Random House. Instead, we get George Ball and others who make little effort to hide their bias. I'm not saying that those views should be excluded. On the contrary, they should be included, but along side positions that posit an alternate view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And incidentally, this opinion piece by a virtually unknown, obscure "Syrian political analyst," can hardly be considered an RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense pro-Israeli claims

This article has quite abit of nonsense. Sorry, T-72 and MErkava never met head to head. T-72 losses were a result of a TOW ambush. Second, the Soviets were not "shaken" by the Syrian losses, they were well aware of previous ARab combat performance. Claiming that these losses led to Glasnost is hilarious and totally unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.125.117 (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the claim is pro-Israel or not, but it's not reflective of academic consensus. Here's a good paper that rebuffs conflating NATO's performance during the 82 conflict and a hypothetical conflict against Warsaw Warsaw didn't disband until about a decade later.

What Schiff and Yaari say about the run-up to invasion of Lebanon

In this edit user Degen Earthfast replaced the first passage below with the second,

• On 10 July 1981, violence erupted in South Lebanon and Northern Israel. Israel renewed its air strikes in an attempt to trigger a war that would allow it to drive out the PLO.
• On 10 July 1981, violence erupted in South Lebanon and Northern Israel after the PLO began shelling northern Israel. Israel then renewed its air strikes in an attempt to trigger a war that would allow it to drive out the PLO.

  ^ Schiff & Yaari (1984), pp. 35–36

Both the "before-his-edit" and the "after-his-edit" passages above are cited to the same source, pages 35-36 of Israel's Lebanon War, by Schiff & Yaari (1984). An excerpt appears below:

Israel's Lebanon War: Schiff & Yaari (1984), excerpt from pp. 35–36

ISRAEL'S LEBANON WAR - Schiff & Yaari (1984), excerpt from pp. 35–36 Four weeks later, on May 28, Menachem Begin and Rafael Eitan took another step that would bring their country appreciably closer to a war in Lebanon with an action that was essentially calculated toward that end... With his election campaign running at a frenzied pitch ... Begin approved the chief of staff's request to renew the bombing of PLO concentrations in South Lebanon. The immediate purpose of the attacks was political; the long-range goal was to effect a controlled escalation of tension and ultimately trigger the war that Eitan believed was destined to be fought within half a year, at most. ... Israel continued its attacks from the air and the sea until June 3; the Palestinians responded gingerly for fear that a vigorous reaction would only provoke a crushing Israeli ground operation. Those fears were well founded, if somewhat premature. After a six-week respite, on July 10, [1981] Israel suddenly renewed its air strikes on PLO strongholds in South Lebanon. This time, however, the action touched off a fierce reaction. After the fifth day of bombings the PLO abandoned its restraint and fought back by shelling the Israeli resort town of Nahariya on the Mediterranean coast. Stung by the potency of the response, Jerusalem weighed various counterstrategies. Yehoshua Saguy suggested hitting a series of military targets, but Rafael Eitan wanted to go for the headquarters of two prominent terrorist factions, Fatah and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both located in the heavily populated area of west Beirut known as the "Palestinian triangle"... The results were predictable: despite the great pains taken to pinpoint the targets and achieve direct hits, over 100 people were killed and some 600 wounded; estimates in Israel were that only thirty of the dead were terrorists. Unequipped to respond in kind, the PLO was nonetheless determined to achieve as close an approximation as it could. Firing off twenty field guns and a number of advanced Katyusha rockets, it placed the settlements of Galilee under intolerable fire. Even though the number of Israeli casualties bore no relation to the toll in West Beirut - six dead and fifty-nine wounded - the steady pounding all but paralyzed the entire sector of northern Israel...

Degen's edit appears to be in direct opposition to the actual statements of the source that it's cited to. This source clearly states that there was a six-week period of quiet beginning on 3 June 1981 when Israel ceased air strikes, and that this interval was ended on 10 July 1981 by Israel's suddenly renewing its air strikes on PLO targets in southern Lebanon. It further states that during the period prior to that six-week interval that the PLO was responding to Israeli air strikes in a "gingerly" way.

Further, if one reads the context around these pages, one sees that the authors present the case that Ariel Sharon, as defense minister, ardently wished to invade Lebanon with the goal of clearing out the PLO, and did everything he could to provoke a war sooner rather than later, for that purpose exactly. The book even presents evidence that Sharon radically circumvented previously-existing internal governmental policies and processes in order to be able to do so.

The book certainly doesn't present the view that the shelling of Galilee was a unilateral act that came out of the blue; rather it states that this shelling began five days after Sharon's unilateral 10 June 1981 escalation. For these reasons it seems appropriate to ask Degen Earthfast to revert this edit so that the text accurately reflects the source it's cited to.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Degen has not responded here, nor reverted, I've just now restored the text that accurately represents the cited source, in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on this. Any other story needs another source. Zero^talk 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Amal Movement.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/687deff0fe05590a85257019006e4036!OpenDocument
  • In 1982 Lebanon War on 2011-05-25 05:02:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 1982 Lebanon War on 2011-06-07 02:44:53, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Non POV-neutral

Most importantly, the title of this page is completely Israelo-centric. It should be reverted to "Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon". From the POV of Lebanon's people or any other people in the world except Israel's tiny population, the agency and participation of Israel in the war are of central, not-to-be-ignored importance. Supercarpenter (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is the worst I've ever read on Wikipedia. Not one mention of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israel. All "facts" are attributed to commentators and opinions. The ostensible "casus belli" was rocket attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.220.67 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I normally dont make too much fuss about POV/NPOV, but this is pushing it. Whoever wrote this obviously has a deepseated hatred of Israel and a desire to believe and cause others to believe that they are simply a bunch of terrorists. I'm slightly surprised the author didn't mention that Jews make bread with the blood of arab children. Jamesg 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Jamesg, this article is way over the line in places. I'm considering reporting it to be put as disputed neutrality. Rudy Breteler 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is far from perfect and could do with significantly more substantiation of the facts and figures it presents, but I don't detect any systematic bias towards either side. Tchicherine 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel attacked Lebanon unprovoked with no explanation given. It is widely recognized among scholars studying the war that Israel's invasion was merely a response to the fact that Lebanon elected Hamas in a democratic election, something that Israel did not want. The U.N repeatedly passed security council resolutions asking Israel to pull its troops out of Lebanon but the U.S vetoed them. The general assembly voted 183-3 telling Israel to get out of Lebanon, Israel did not listen. Making this article not look anti-Israeli would be like making the U.S invasion of Iraq look pro-U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasticJesus341 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

James and RudyB, How is this pushing it? This is the truth and everything has a reference. To top it off Im Lebanese, my parents are Lebanese we grew up in this war. Please dont start with the Anti Israel thing or Anti Jews, this article is not intended to attack Jews or Israelis. If you are used to attacking other ethnic groups or religions we have had enough of being attacked we dont attack others. Deep seated hatred of Israel? Are you serious using that excuse again? This is the truth, why is it you find the truth to be anti Israel? Is it because maybe Israel's actions during these times (1982 war) were less than flattering? People world wide and nations have made mistakes, suck it up and stop it with this sympathy card you like to use. Germany admitted it made a mistake, America admitted it made a mistake in Vietnam, and Israel made a mistake with invasion. Simple, we are not using this article to air out dirty laundry. Everything is factual and referenced. Rudy report it, its all referenced, we all know who really runs wikipedia...so manipulation of the truth will always work for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.27 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

and James you made sure to capitalize the word Jews, why dont you capitalize the word Arabs, since it represents an ethnicity, a people. Or are they not people in your eyes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.27 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it pushing it? Maybe because its "sources" are Bennie Morris and Noam Chomsky, who once said (at Brandeis University of all places) that any action of Hamas against Israel is morally acceptable because anything is permitted in a revolution. And the opinions of these two are written as facts instead of being credited as the opinions of fringe theorists. While the morality of this invasion is questionable, it is not the equivalent of the American invasion of Iraq, PlasticJesus341, because Iraq did not attack Israel (whereas the PLO was launching rockets) or assassinate American officials. Encyclopedia entries really need to be less biased. Present the facts and let the reader come to conclusions or present opinions as just that - opinions. The truth is that there's a lot about the massacres at Sabra and Shatila that's not well understood (despite Arik Sharon's resigning afterward). This entry made it sound like the Israelis facilitated the massacre instead of, the more likely (although also reprehensible) situation that the Israelis didn't do everything they could have to stop the massacres. Blame the Phalangists at least as much as you blame the IDF. 98.207.115.54 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)byronicgyro

Noam Chomsky is not a fringe source. He is the eight most cited scholar in history. A lot of his books are international best sellers. He is the Einstein of Linguistics. This is hardly the resume of a fringe theorist. He does not think Hamas's terrorism is justified because they haven't proven that it is morally or tactically necessary. In any event Hamas's terrorism is not terrorism according to the UN Convention on International Terrorism. Lebanon has NEVER invaded any country. Israel has invaded Lebanon 4 times in the last thirty years alone. The so called rocket attacks are a joke. In this case, they didn't even exist. Israel tried to provoke them by bombing Southern Lebanon and when it didn't happen, invaded anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Chomsky is cited once, Morris twice. It also cites Reagan, Kissinger and Thomas Friedman. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the entry says that Rafael Eitan had a "famous saying 'Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal. I don't know, we need to screw the PLO.'" I find it curious that for such a "famous" saying, the only source is a 2008 Asia Times article. Having searched further, I've found no other evidence that Eitan said anything of the sort. This entry is full of this sort of flimsy evidence and Wikipedia needs to step in and insist on its usually higher standards. 98.207.115.54 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)byronicgyro

The basic premise of this war was-1. A civil war between the majority arab population of lebanon, the PLO, Arab States versus some "Christian" forces. This is so absurd. Christians fighting makes them not Christians.(Sermon on the Mount) The Israelis then attacked Lebanon, outright aggression. They preceded to do so three more times in the next 30 years.

I must say that I too feel this article is very much unbalanced. This is expressed in several manners: - The sources used: The article uses almost exclusively historians with critical views on Israel, such as Morris and Shlaim. This doesn't mean that their views aren't legitimate, but there's room to show other views. - Confusing facts with unbased facts and opinions: For example, stating that the PLO didn't hit Israeli towns because they missed on purpose or that Israel was looking for a casus belli (Based on Ball, also a strong critic of Israel). Infact, the mere fact that the headline says "Israel's Casus Belli" Already shows that the article has chosen a non-neutral POV. - Ragarding Chomsky - while indeed a respected Academic, he's not a Historian and he's clearly not a neutral source. I don't see any reason to base a historical article about a war on the words of a linguistic, just like I wouldn't use a military general as a source for a linguistics article. - I must say I'm also not convinced in the historical knowledge of some of the people who've claimed this article is balanced. It starts with the article itself, which ignores the bombardment of Northern Israel on July 4th, the Syrian attacks on Israeli forces that predated mole-cricket 19 despite Begin's requests for them to avoid fighting, the huge increase in Syrian presence in Lebanon in the year prior to the war (mostly SAM batteries) and many other historical events. And it continues with people in here talking about Hamas (which was never in Lebanon and didn't even exist at the time) or stating that Lebanon never invaded Israel (it did, in May of 1948, not to mention dozens of smaller attacks by Lebanese militias, usually against civilians).

In conclusion, this article is far from being neutral, calling "facts" for what isn't a fact and ignoring real and proven facts in order to show Israel as the aggressor.Gal Kr (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

After going over the article, i noticed some of the references being cited from very questinable sources, including Professor Homsky. As widely known, Homsky is a political activist writing about his opinions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but having no scholar background in history - his views are merely activist opinions and do not have any reliability or special importance for proper referencing. I tagged those for "better source needed".Greyshark09 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your last edit removed some material cited to Avi Shlaim also, I hope you have another reason for this and you do not consider him to be an unreliable source. Regarding Chomsky, he is meticulous in citing his sources, so it could well be possible to check his citations and use them. Dlv999 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he's not a reliable source. He's not a historian and has adopted extremist positions that are not within mainstream discourse.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He was the most cited scholar on the planet for a good number of years. To say he is outside mainstream discourse indicates that you have a strange conception of mainstream discourse, but does not say anything about Chomsky. I agree he should be attributed if he is used on historical issues, but he has been published on middle East History, so it is pretty clear that he can be at the very least used as a significant minority opinion for inclusion in articles that he has published on. Also I did not say he is a reliable source for facts in the Wiki voice, I said he meticulously cites his work so it amy be possible to check his citations and use them if they are appropriate. Dlv999 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think i have removed any relevant material, attributed to Shlaim, can you bring the passage?Greyshark09 (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"With the completion of Israeli withdrawals from Sinai in March 1982, under the terms of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, the Likud-led government of Israel hardened its attitude to the Arab world and became more aggressive." (ref)Shlaim, Avi (2007). Lion of Jordan; The life of King Hussein in War and Peace. Allen Lane. p. 412. ISBN 978-0-7139-9777-4(/ref)[11] Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

you are correct - i apologize and restore this paragraph. It must have been lost during the many cut-n-pastes i did for restructuring of the mess in previous version.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Onwar source

Onwar is an activist website, which is often citating wikipedia, and hence as commonly known is not considered a reliable source, since wikipedia cannot be a reference. I'm removing it completely, since a better source is used to reference the discussed issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This 17,825 figure comes from random newspaper An Nahar from halfway during the war. The Lebanese gov use far lower figures now. I try and find the source but this figure would appear to be unreliable, so it is probably better to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.124.227 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Result

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1982_Lebanon_War&diff=495827853&oldid=495827187 is the subject of discussion. I have restored it, as it appears to be a RS. here is the text from Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism [Paperback] Judith Palmer Harik To the wider Arab world, Hezbollah is a legend: the only Arab fighting force to have defeated Israel, forcing its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000. Since this article refers to events up to 2000, I can see no reason why this RS should not remain. It is irrelevant whether or not Hezbollah existed at the beginning of this war, as the article already refers to events in 2000.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to this article.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

biased article

the article is completely biased. israeli losses r put to 650 dead while the former israeli chief of army staff general gur put the total number of israeli losses to 4000 killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.156.22.237 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

State/cite your source.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An alternative take on the objectives of the war

Provided for anyone who might find it of interest: Gush-Shalom - Uri Avnery - The War of Lies, 09 June 2012.     ←   ZScarpia   02:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Result of the war

I added a source, David Hirst's book "Beware of small states", regarding the outcome of the war -- whether it was Israeli military victory or not. I did not remove any content that existed there before and did not alter its conclusion (that it was an Israeli victory); I only added that according to at least one reliable source -- Hirst's book, which, by all means, is more than adequate for Wikipedia's standards -- the war didn't end in Israeli victory. According to Hirst, Arafat chose to move out from Beirut -- an unpopular decision among many Palestinian militants -- so as to prevent Israeli continued destruction of the city. Hirst's conclusion is very much in line with pre-existent article content, which notices that, in spite of its much criticized, indiscriminate shelling campaign, Israel didn't seem to be getting any closer to taking over West Beirut and overruning the PLO over the course of the war. Nonetheless user:Sonntagsbraten removed the content that I added -- which, for the second time, is well-sourced -- saying that, if only the US didn't intervene, the PLO would have been destroyed: clearly, a brazen statement of personal opinion, and not, by any means, objective, impartial asessment. Sources on the war provide differing assessment on the war's outcome, and there's no reason the entry should discriminate one in favour of the other. BilalSaleh (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's true the battle of Beirut was cut off half-way, but what does it really matter? Israel achieved its goal of ousting the PLO, and the Palestinians lost their last major foothold along Israel's borders. I have never seen or heard anyone claim this to be a Palestinian victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cold War perspective

"According to Abraham Rabinovich, the complete dominance of U.S. and Israeli technology and tactics over those of the Eastern Bloc was to have been a factor that hastened the demise of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union."

Israel was fighting outdated Soviet fighters which were also fighting at a tactical disadvantage since they were being scrambled after being supprised by the attack. MiG-21s - which were introduced in 1959 - were of course outclassed by F 15s (1976) and F 16s (1978). Most Syrian MiG-23s (1967) were not equipped with modern radars, were lacking any ECCM, and were incapable of firing modern soviet missiles due to their basic radar some were lacking radar alltogether. These fighters were inferior to the versions used in Russia. The Eastern Bloc was well aware that Generation 3 fighters were in dire need of replacement. Both MiG-29 (1983) and Sukhoi Su-27 (1984) were about to be introduced and were in development since the 1970ies; the same goes for the R-27 Air to Air missile. The SA-6 system was the only modern system Syria employed. It seems extremely unlikely that the failure of SA-6 caused anything other than showing that it is ineffective against generation 4 fighters using electronic warefare equippment. The claim therefore seems nonsensical and shows both arrogance and ignorance (of soviet technology). It should be deleted. 84.151.27.116 (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Make Yasser Arafat a linktext

I know everyone's busy bickering, but could we still try to maintain the kind of informative content and hyperlinked nature that make Wikipedia worth bothering with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.234.240 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

done

Coastal Road Massacre done by Palestinian militants, Christian done - I know what they mean, but this is ugly and unconventional english in my opinion. It detracts from easy reading (as much as the subject allows) of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsheffield (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arabic name

At the very beginning of the article, it states that the Arabic name for this war is: (Arabic: الاجتياح‎, Al-ijtiyāḥ, "the invasion"). I don't know anything about Arabic, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe in some culture- or country-specific sense, a word that just means "the invasion" could be referring to a specific war. But I have trouble believing that the official name of this war across the Arab-speaking world, in places as far apart as Morocco and Iraq, is "Al-ijtiyah". Haven't there been other invasions in Arab history? In summary, the name sounds too Lebanon-specific. 69.118.3.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1,000 death toll

Hello,

I removed the sentence about the Lebanese government releasing in 1984 a figure of 1,000 deaths for the war. I checked the cited edition of The Washington Post, and it is a reference to a statement made by Lebanese Brigadier General Mohammed Haj during military negotiations. The newspaper article seems to imply that this was a verbal remark. No detail is given or a justification of why the estimate is so low (even compared to Israeli figures). Unless someone can find a source that has more information I don't think it should be included.

Thanks. InverseHypercube (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Outcome

No one is arguing that the 1982 invasion wasn't a military victory. But the war didn't stop there. To sum up the outcome based entirely on events in 1982 is very misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is "summing up" anything. We are including the fact that the result was a military victory together with the long-term strategic failure at the end. I'm not suggesting to remove the "strategic failure" thing, but to include the military victory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirSurfLera (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? Israel scored a military victory in 1982, but as I said, this does not reflect the final outcome of the war. Instead of becoming a client state, Lebanon was regarded as an enemy state when Israel withdrew. The war is not remembered as a victory in Israel, but as a costly failure.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Who mentioned anything about Lebanon "becoming a client state"?? The objective was to drive the PLO out of Lebanon, and it was achieved by military means during this war. While I'm not sure where did you get that the war "is remembered as a costly failure in Israel" (source?), I think you are confusing this war with the later Lebanon conflict (1985-2000), when Israel withdrew and Hezbollah took its place.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Collapse of Maronite-Israeli alliance, failure to achieve Lebanese-Israeli peace (source: Morris, p. 559). So yes, signing a peace treaty with Lebanon was definitely one of the war aims, which ultimately failed mainly due to Syrian pressure on Lebanon and the lack of any Israeli response to this. The war could have been a victory had Israel only aimed to expell the PLO, but the war aims were far more complex and ambitious than just that. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So why do you bother if we also include the Israeli military victory against the PLO and Syria in the infobox, besides of the failure to achieve a peace treaty with Lebanon (not 'instead of')? After all, it was the main objective when the war started.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Including both makes the most sense to me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Because this military victory happened in 1982, while the war continued until 1985. The war was certainly a defeat for the PLO, but Syria and Iran benefitted a lot from it politically and militarily, and Israel in the end only achieved one out of three goals it had set. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think you are confusing this war with the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000). The main objective of Israel was to expel the PLO from Lebanon. It was also a strategic failure because at the end Hezbollah replaced the PLO and Lebanon didn't become a pacific border. But nobody is suggesting to remove the "strategic failure" or the "Syrian political victory" from the infobox, only to clarify that it was also an Israeli tactical military victory against both the PLO and Syria.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You only talk about the invasion phase and ignore the three-year occupation of large portions of Southern Lebanon, where Israel encountered Iranian- and Syrian-backed guerillas that also defeated Israel's allies in the Mountain War. Defeating the PLO in the early phase of the war does not make the war itself a military victory, at least this is not the optimal way of describing the outcome. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know you changed the date of the war for this purpose. But there's no source saying that the Israeli withdrawal to the security zone which ended in June 1985 was a military defeat for Israel. Quite the contrary. The Israeli withdrawal in 2000, on the other hand, is a different story.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned any military defeat so far. But Israel definitely (and unfortunately) didn't achieve its objectives, and the infobox should reflect this. By the way, which date did I change? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a military victory, but a strategic defeat. The infobox reflects this.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How was 1985 a military victory? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"In January 1985, Israel started to withdraw most of its troops, leaving a small residual Israeli force and an Israeli-supported militia, the South Lebanon Army in southern Lebanon in a "security zone", which Israel considered a necessary buffer against attacks on its northern territory."

(so?)

Who says something has to happen in 1985? The Israelis withdrew to the security zone after completing their task in the rest of Lebanon. The war was a military victory itself, for the reasons already known.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Israel withdrew under fire, and fighting continued long after the official end of the war. Syria exercised tighter control over Lebanon than ever before, the PLO returned in great numbers (only to be expelled for a second time by Syria) and Lebanese "resistance" groups paved the way for Iranian influence in Lebanon. Israel won the first and shortest phase of the war, but definitely ended up losing the second and longer phase. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing this war with the south Lebanon conflict that followed. By the way, where did you get that the PLO "returned" to Lebanon? (I'm just curious).--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything - just as in May 2000, in June 1985 the Israelis withdrew under fire, but from much larger areas. I don't see how the 1982-1985 war and the 1985-2000 conflict can have been two separate conflicts, as they were much more like two phases of the same one (preferably we should have an article that would cover the whole 1982-2000 war rather than using the 1985 withdrawal as an artificial division). By the way, if you're interested in the continued role of the PLO beyond 1982 you should look up the War of the Camps, in which Syria interestingly turned against its former Palestinian allies. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm in favor of restoring the old version of this article where the date ends in September 1982, because in the first phase of the war (considered in Israel as the official "First Lebanon War") Israel fought mainly against the PLO and its Syrian allies, and the objective was first to expel the PLO from southern Lebanon and then to expel the organization from the entire country (a secondary objective was to eliminate the threat of the Syrian SAM and air force in the Bekaa Valley). In the second phase Israel fought mainly against Hezbollah and it had nothing to do with the first phase. At the begining it was unexpected by Israel the emergence of the Shiite organization. Nevertheless, I don't think the planned withdrawal of 1985 (which was carried out after the military victory over the PLO and Syria) is the same than the retreat under Hezbollah fire of 2000. In any case, the 1985 tactical withdrawal to the security zone doesn't diminish the Israeli military victory. Israel's objective was never to occupy a large portion of Lebanon, just a small buffer zone to stop attacks on its northern population (after expelling the PLO). It's the same than the battle of Karameh: Israel retreated after destroying the PLO camp. In other words, Israel withdrew after defeating the enemy. A withdrawal doesn't necessarily mean a military defeat. The 2000 retreat is completely different.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get this from? The Israeli ministry of foreign affairs regards Operation Peace for Galilee to have lasted until June 1985, and while it is true Israel did not intend to keep occupying Lebanon, it sure stayed for quite some time after the invasion. It's not the same as Karameh, as Israel's political goals were far more comprehensive, hence the prolonged stay. And the second phase has everything to do with the first one, just as the Iraq War after 2003 is the Iraq War likewise. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits by IP

@88.104.215.206: Please calm down, there is no hurry. Discuss on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Regarding this edit. How did you get the number 57% there? My impression is you got it by 9,797 / 17,285, which is using An-Nahar as source. This particular sentence to which you have attached the edit is using a different source. I do not have access to the full article, so correct me if I am wrong. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No I got it from the article used for the source. Also An-Nahar's 9,797 figure is for combatants killed only outside Beirut so there ratio would be different anyway. 88.104.215.206 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Casualties - 1,000 Lebanese?

I have good faith reverted this edit. Firstly the figure of roughly 20,000 figure refers to both Lebanese and Palestinians, while this is talking about only Lebanese. Secondly, the citation is to a single Washington Post 1984 article. I do not know exactly what it says (if someone can provide it to me, it would be helpful), but just one citation is not sufficient for such a claim. Thirdly, even if this was correct, it should not be stated in WP's voice. It is clear from reading the source, that it is an extremely biased and opinionated source. Finally, it is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. For example, see the other American source claming 5,000-8,000 civilians killed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:The citation your reverted is a book from academic publisher not newspaper article--Shrike (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I know it is a book. It is citing a Washington post report. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what is citing.It was already explained at WP:RSN by uninvolved edtor to you that book by academic publisher is WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It does matter what it is citing. Just because someone cites something to prove something else in a book does not mean that it is true. I have tracked down the original Washington Post report. It makes no mention of any repudiation of the 20,000 figure. That has been tacked on by this particular guy. The quote is: "In demanding war reparations, [Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohammed] Haj said that about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion and that more than 1,000 others were wounded". It is possible that he was simply talking about the Lebanese soldiers killed. If Lebanon has indeed repudiated the figures from 20,000 to 1,000, it should be possible to find something directly saying so. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't think the 1,000 figure self-evidently contradicts the earlier figures, there is still no reason to exclude it, your original research notwithstanding. The Lebanese would be in a better position to know than anyone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You own explanation why do you think that the source is wrong don't really matter.The source coming from respected academic publisher and as such there are no reason to exclude it.--Shrike (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I wonder what happened to WP:BRD? Reverting in the middle of a discussion? If someone gives a figure 20 times lower than the official figure, that falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you feel that there is a contradiction, find multiple reliable sources which explicitly say there is a contradiction. That requires a better source that one newspaper report, which does not even say it is a contradiction. If someone claimed that in WW1, not 20 million, but 1 million died, you would not be so blase about including such figures. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Widely-repeated" does not mean true or official. The Lebanese figure of 1,000 is not fringe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The article says, just by the first week, Red Cross and Lebanese police reported 10,000. If you want to say that Lebanon officially retracted the figure, you need to provide a better source than an obscure book edited by an English professor and another writer. As I mentioned, the citation does not even mention anything about repudiation. And, again, the 20,000 includes both Lebanese and Palestinians, so it is meaningless to say that Lebanon has retracted the figures when it is talking about something else. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You're citing this article as a source--one of the worst-written POV articles anywhere on Wikipedia? The Red Cross were just repeating extreme PLO propaganda, which also claimed there were 600,000 homeless in south Lebanon, more than the entire population of the area. I do not know why you think an estimate of Lebanese casualties should be excluded for not including Palestinians. There is no argument for blanket removal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not WP:BRDDDDDD--Shrike (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on WP:RSN for this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: As I understand you recieved an LA piece too do you agree to rewrite it according to WashPO and LA sources?--Shrike (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Not sure what you're referring to. I only have the Wash Post piece. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added some newer sources for the 19,000 figure. Also removed big unwieldy table and summarized it. Have removed the statement by Haj due to the reasons given at WP:RSN. Put the figure by Israel at the top of the section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No consensus, no change. RSN is hardly the appropriate place for a content dispute over due weight. Bogdanor is no longer the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I am afraid that is not the way it works. The WP:BURDEN is on the person who wishes to add content. If you wish to add this, use dispute resolution methods, you might try WP:DRR, WP:DRN, or open an WP:RfC. There is no consensus to add this right now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli claim is duplicated. I have removed that part from the article. As for your comment that WP:RSN is not a valid place for discussing this: I have posted this at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#1982_Lebanon_War_casualties. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bogdanor is a polemical controversialist reliable for nothing but his own views, and cannot per WP:Undue and WP:fringe be used for an issue of historical statistics. He should be reverted on sight, esp. for the absurdity of the claim made, which is counterfactual and defies commonsense, apart from the large consensus of scholarly works.

The following sources can be used for both the overall figure and specific days in the campaign.

( a) Molly Dunigan, Victory for Hire: Private Security Companies’ Impact on Military Effectiveness, Stanford University Press 2011 p.103 =

(a)‘By late August 1982, Lebanese sources placed the official death toll in Beirut AT 6,776. This s figure included victims of the June 4, 1982, bombing, which occurred two days before the actual commencemnt of the operation. Lebanese police claimed that civilians accounted for 82 prcent of the fatalities. This figures squares with the estimate of 80 percent often cited by international doctors who served in Beirut during the siege.' (b)’Other estimates of the death toll during this entire Israeli campaign, known as “Operation Peace of the Galilee,” range as high as 20,000 killed on all sides, including many civilians, and 30,000 wounded.’

(b) Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh In The Path Of Hizbullah, Syracuse Univrsity Press 2004 p.16 (18 thousand from Jjne 2-August 12)

(c)Brian Parkinson and Spencer C. Tucker, Lebanon, Israel Invasion of (1982)' in Spencer C. Tucker (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts, ABC-CLIO, 5 vols. 2010 Volume 2 p.732:'estimates of casualties vary widely, although the numbers may have been as high as 17,826 Lebanese and approximately 675 Israelis killed'

(d) Noam Chomsky Fateful Triangle, 1983 p.221 gives newspaper sources for the period.

(e) Robert Fisk Pity the Nation, Oxford University Press 1991 pp.437ff. p.649 goes into the details of a lot of cross-checking he himself did at the time with Nick Tatro involving hospital casualty lists, cemetaries, Red Cross statistics, noting:’The Israelis still claimd that the casualty figures were lies, that the information came from the PLO rather than from our own investigations. Not once did they ever produce evidence to th contrary.In one small graveyard at Sabra th gravdigger had a diary tabulating the names of those he had buried since 6 June, i.e.250 by the end of that month. Fisk had the names of 270 men, women and children who died in the Israeli bombing of just Beirut on June 7.

(f) Ahron Bregman,Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947, p,174 On June 7 alone in densely populated Beirut the IAF and the Israeli navy offshore bombed or struck with missiles some 500 buildings alone. On August 9 alone the IAF bombed massively for 12 successive hours a sector of Beirut causin 300 deaths (‘Black Thursday) p.175

(g) Douglas DuCharme, ‘Lebanon’ in Jack Donnelly, Rhoda E. Howard (eds.) International Handbook of Human Rights. Greenwood Press 1987, p.247 ‘The best estimates indicate that the invasion and the siege of Beirut, had by the beginning of September 1982 resulted in 18,000 dead and 30,000 wounded, of which 90 percent were civilians.’Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of all these sources Fisk actually war on the ground there, gathering statistics from hospitals, graveyards, and news reports, which makes his figures more reliable than what governments report. Secondly, the Lebanese government at that period was highly unstable, riven by conflicts, with pro- and anti-Israel lobbies, and 'official' for any one period is 'official' for the regime of that day, in the sense that official proclamations send signals in that region and we shouldn't rely on them if they are wildly out of keeping with the known situations of the day.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed Fisk as he not historian and not reliable source per comments by uninvolved editor in WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Shrike: The commenter at WP:RSN did not say anything about reliability of Fisk. The commenter was under the impression that Fisk's journalistic reports, not a book was used. I corrected that. The book is published by Oxford University Press and is reliable WP:SECONDARY for statements of the Red Cross. One should not directly quote the Red Cross, that would be WP:PRIMARY. You are free to take it to WP:RSN if you disagree. I have restored this edit. I also find it bizarre that you are arguing for keeping the newspaper source, while removing the Fisk source.
• Is it possible to get a text of what Gabriel states about the casualties? Is the figure 4,000-5,000 only about the seige of Beirut? I can't see the text on either Google Books or Amazon. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:You have to be logged in to see in Amazon search for "5,000" and yes its talks about the siege but earlier it seems it talks about the invasion itself but those parts are not available for me.--Shrike (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bagdanor was published by transaction press I don't see any difference.Also I am not sure how 1983 estimates are relevant at all I think we should give the most updated numbers as possible.--Shrike (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare Robert Fisk, awards section to the parallel data in the non-existent, because as yet non-notable Paul Bogdanor. Or google Fisk vs Bogdanor (438,000 vs 3,700 Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made various changes to the section, with some semblance of chronological and topical order.

• Initial sentence: "Casualty estimates vary"
• Fisk source quoting Red Cross and Lebanese police, as noted above, Fisk is WP:RS for Red Cross figures.
• Figures for the Siege of Beirut. Lebanese sources, then Gabriel. I am assuming that the 4,000-5,000 figure by Gabriel is just for the siege.
• Rest of the section is about total figures. First added disclaimer about "hard to verify". Moved Shipler quote from beginning to here. Then sources: First, An-Nahar, second, Lebanese authorities, third, Gabriel, fourth other sources, fifth, Israel. The last sentence by Haj should be removed, but I have kept it in for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)