Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 49

Robust Resource- Arkin Book

Divining Victory, Airpower in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War by William M. Arkin. Air University Press. July 2007. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, U.S. 348 pages with chronologies, well footnoted pdfGodspeed John Glenn! Will 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are always appreciated. Many of the ones written on this topic are citing each other! --Shamir1 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The top photo for this article is a picture of lebanon being bombed. I believe that a counter picture should be placed beside it in order to achieve maximum nutrality. This can be a picture of an Israeli house or building destructed after a katyusha rocket hit the building (most popular form of damage on Israeli side). Leaving one picture can create an impression that only Lebanon was destructed in the bombings and Israel was left untouched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.46.83 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include such a picture, do so. I don't think it's good form to delete a picture and make chaos of the lede. Lebanon was bombed so that's a good reason to include the photo.-Delad (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two complementary photos would also be misleading, however, implying a complementarity in the destruction where no such proportion ever existed. 76.104.126.200 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That dosen't matter. You will never reach equality (which, also, is somewhat disputed), but let's say 70%-30% is definitely more fair than 100%-0% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.157.86 (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the abiding image of the war was the flattening of Beruit by Israeli forces, perhaps the pro_Israeli lobby can add an image of one of the 2000 Israeli casualties of 'shock and anxiety.' LOL?

Please keep your comments civil, without attacking other editors, or alluding to some conspiracy. okedem (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to bring the pro-Israeli lobby into this. I think a picture from Israel would be very appropriate. I will go ahead and be bold, and add one. The only one that I found in Wikicommons is not incredibly good, so I would appreciate it if anyone who has a picture would step up and upload it so that we can use it. Screen stalker (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to upload this picture, but I did not succeed in doing so without erasing the picture that is already there (which I don't want to do). If someone who knows how to do this could please do it, that would be great. Screen stalker (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel planning the war in advance

Shouldn't we write somewhere in the article that Israel had planned for this war months before the offense?

Israel did not plan, it prepareed. Living in the area surrounded by potentially 4 enemies, it must always be prepared for war (which was not the case in the Yom Kippur war, causing a potential threat to the existance of the country). Israel did not plan for the war as that would imply an intention to engage in war, which was not the case at all (it was an undesirable war for the Israeli side). The direct cause for the war was the capturing of the two Israeli soldiers and killing of another 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.157.86 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Things are complicated without airy generalisations of a propagandistic kind. Of Israel's four neighbours, two have peace treaties (Jordan and Egypt). Lebanon is a fragmented state, whose fragmentation some forward planners in Israel have long designed to assist. Israel planned for war, as all countries plan for war. They are called contingency plans generally. The capture of 2 soldiers can be a casus belli, if the offended party so desires to make it. It is not a 'cause'. Wars are engaged for deeper reasons, and when an Archeduke is assassinated or a couple of soldiers captured, that event is the pretext, or formal ground, not the real cause. This is generally understood in the literature written without an eye to pandering to the politics of patriotism. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

@ Nishidani, the kidnapping of soldiers is a serious action. That kidnapping, and the rocket fire that came with it (along with the rocket that had periodically occurred for years before the war) were what caused the Summer War. In addition to the value of two human lives (which is infinite) there was something else at work as well: Israel has made it its policy never to leave wounded or kidnapped soldiers, and to reclaim them at all costs. If you allow groups to kidnap your soldiers, then the kidnapping will never end. And what's more, soldiers will fear to venture into the battlefield, because they know that they risk being abandoned by their nation.

Also, regarding what you say about Jordan and Egypt's peace agreements with Israel, you forget that there are many enemies that make up for it. Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigrade, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al-Qaeda, and many other terrorist organizations. Also, we can't forget that Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen have all been involved in wars against Israel, and Iran would love to join that list. Actually, Iraq and Israel are still technically in a state of war. So it would be more than fair to say that Israel should prepare to face at least four enemies. Screen stalker (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a conspiracy theory section here? "Claim that the Israeli response was disproportionate and pre-planned" which takes quotes out of context to create a conspiracy is not neutral and doesn't belong. I found that the information that does belong is already discussed neutrally here[1]. The same goes for such a large discussion/summary of Gabriel Al-Amin's column. Who says it was important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzkibar (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I asked Ave Caesar what his reasoning was and he deleted my comment. Does anyone else think it should stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzkibar (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) And it was put in again without any explanation except that it is "important" and "cited". --Arzkibar (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Arzkibar, please do not remove referenced material like this. If you believe that the pre-war planning was mis-presented then please suggest better way for its presentation, if you believe that the quoted article was too long, then you can shorten or summarize it, but deleting referenced content is not the solution. Imad marie (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you finally joined the discussion, but you didn't reply to the points I raised before at all. There is a misunderstanding that reference is the criteria for being included in the article instead of the neutrality policies. --Arzkibar (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had answered your questions, there is a claim that the war was pre-planned, and we have good references for that, you call it "conspiracy theory" and I disagree to your naming. So please suggest better ways to present this claim instead of just removing it. Also you can summarize or shorten the quoted article instead of simply removing it. Now I ask you to self-revert. Imad marie (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We would have to shorten the column very much to include it, but the question is whether it belongs. Who said that it is important? We can't just put it in to criticize Hezbollah. Right now it is a primary source. Now you say that there is "a claim that the war was pre-planned" but there is no claim, there is a fact. The Israelis had plans for this scenario and many others and they say that openly. Making a section called "Claim that the Israeli response was disproportionate and pre-planned" made of different quotes about their readiness, a speculation about the US and Iran, and a repeat of Hezbollah's reaction makes a new and different picture than what the specific articles wanted and is not neutral. I found the basic fact already appearing in one of the other Wikipedia articles in a more neutral way though. What do you think is missing here? --Arzkibar (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the Israelis openly say that they planned the war in advance? do you references for that? The only material I have for this is: "Ehud Olmert said that the strategy used in the 2006 war with Lebanon was drawn up months in advance, and that it was decided at least four months before that any kidnap of Israeli troops on its border would trigger war." If you have other material then please share it. And don't forget we have sources saying that Israel coordinated the war with USA. Now I ask you again to suggest better ways to present this information, and where is this covered neutrally in other articles? I don't get your point. Imad marie (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Every army has what called contigency plans for many possible scenarios. Hizbullah action provided Israel suing such plan. As it turned out Israel did not execute on the plans it had and instead used a different type of plan. this is all covered by the Winograd report. Zeq (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, this whole "planned in advance" thing is incredibly ridicules. It's a claim that only works on people who have no knowledge or understanding of these matters, or people who will use any excuse to hate Israel. As Zeq said, every country has contingency plans for such scenarios. Armies and defense ministries around the world have entire planning sections, where people just sit around tables and computers, and work out different scenarios, so if and when a war erupts, their country can put well-thought-out plans into action, instead of improvising.

In this case, it's especially absurd - Lebanon and Israel have been in a state of war since 1948, and Hizbollah launched a very similar attack back in 2000 (then Israel chose restraint). It's just a non-issue. okedem (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What you claim contradicts with what Nasrallah claim and Hersh claim. Thinking that Israel destroyed half of Lebanon in reaction to Zar'it-Shtula incident is just not logical, I see the claim that Israel pre-planned the war and it was not a reaction to Zar'it-Shtula incident logical and it makes sense. Imad marie (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in what I said contradicts your links. All countries make plans for wars. The US even had a plan for a war with Canada (during the cold war, for the off-chance Canada's government would turn communist and pose a threat). You make plans, so you don't have to improvise when the situation comes. Planning wars is what defense departments do, this is what guides them in every action during peace time - the size of the army you want, what weapons you buy, what R&D programs you run. This is true for every country with a military - including peaceful ones, like Switzerland or Sweden.

You're trying to ignore the facts. Israel was brutally attacked from sovereign Lebanese territory, by missile fire on soldiers, 2 were taken captive, and more killed; simultaneously, Israel was attacked with rocket fire on its northern towns. This is a clear act of war, which justifies a military response. No amount of twisting can change these simple facts. Nassarallah tried to shrug off his own actions, but the point is - he initiated that war. The thing is, he miscalculated. He thought Israel would restrain itself, like back in 2000, or choose a very limited response. He didn't realize Israel was sick of his aggression, and chose a stronger response. That was his problem, and Lebanon's problem - had Lebanon acted like a sovereign nation, none of this would have happened. okedem (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me try to clear things up: there are two types of the alleged Israeli planning:

• Israel planned its reaction to Hezbollah in case they decide to attack in southern Lebanon. This is what Olmert claimed in his testimony before the Winograd Commission.
• Israeli large offense was not merely a response to the attack by Hizbullah but a planned operation coordinated ahead of time with the Bush administration. This is what Nasrallah and Hersh claim.

You are talking about the first type, I am talking about the second type. There is nothing wrong with adding the second claim to the article and I am willing to discuss the appropriate way for its entry. Imad marie (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The second claim is just a replicate of the first. Being strategic allies, it's natural for Israel to discuss and coordinate military plans with the US, including contingency plans. For example, NATO countries do that all the time. There's nothing interesting about that, and Nassarallah is just trying to use that on gullible people, who don't have basic knowledge of how these things work. Fact is - Hizbullah chose to attack Israel, and now its crying over the damage it caused to its own people, trying to blame everyone else. They're trying to make Israel look like the aggressor, as opposed to the reality of it. Israel decided that it had to respond with large force, to prevent further attacks of this sort, and to drive Hizbullah away - a legitimate cause, considering Hizbullah's continued aggression. okedem (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Result of War

Under result it says ceasefire - well that is the result of every war. The question is who won and this is what wiki should be and usually does answer, even if it does hurt national pride. I would have to say not Israel because they retreated with their objective unfulfilled. Reaper7 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The premiss is that wars are won. A victory on the ground is not necessarily an historical victory because formally vanquishing a foe can lead to consequences unintended, and feared by, by the victor. Vanquishing the USSR in Afganistan meant, at one point, US policy had 'won'. Its win in turn unleashed on the world a large number of highly trained terrorists, and thus it 'lost'. To fight them, it invaded Iraq, and 'won' in the short term, but 'lost' in the mid-term, but may have won in the long-term, by beginning the fracturing along ethnic lines into harmless, impoverished statelets, of nations that were rich and hostile. But it may also have lost, since those states are now disposed to allign with China, rather than the US.etc.etc.etc. There is a considerable amount of material from the commentariat ready to justify either reading: Israel, Hizbollah etc. Judgements on this are subjective and perspectival. If one dispenses with the premiss, one can say no one won, and ignore the question.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making it overcomplicated with your political correctness. If times shows the result changing, then we will change it. For the current time being we are allowed to say who currently succeeded in the War and who currently failed. Israel started the War and failed in its objectives. Why are you afraid to then say it was a victory for Hezboulah? Reaper7 (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the cliché you mentioned, nor fear. Wiki rules require that editors strive to establish a neutral text, whatever their private POVs. A neutral text will not call the result, but simply note the various, reliably sourced, opinions which argue the toss. Of course Israel started the war. I am not sure what its real objectives were, as opposed to the public ones, not having read either the Winograd Report, or the archival paper that explains real, and long-term strategic motives, as opposed to others, the ones we hear about in public. One long term, and well-attested strategy that does influence thinking is reflected in the old proposal to turn Lebanon into a basket-case, subject to Israeli and American hegemony. If this does occur, that aim will have been achieved. Wars can be lost on one level, won on others. But these are my private views, and not appropriate to the forum of wiki which aims at neutrality, even if the usual result is neutered understanding.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try again, how - 'for the Israeli public' or 'for the Israeli Government' can this be seen as anything but a failure? There are always casualties in war, and the first is usually the truth(Heroditus), we are already seeing those suffering from 'shock' amongst the Israeli casualties, so we know this article is already not 'neutral.' Reaper7 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

@ Reaper, mental injury is a universally recognized ramification of war. If these data were available, they would be presented on the Lebanese side as well.

I certainly wouldn't say that the Summer War was a victory for Israel, but it wasn't so clear that Hezbollah won it either. What were Hezbollah's objectives? Nasrallah wanted to use the captured soldiers to secure the release of Lebanese citizens from Israeli jails. This failed. He wanted the Sheeba Farms. Lebanon did not obtain these. Did Nasrallah want Lebanon to be bombed, and its citizens to be killed? If so, then he obtained his objective.

I think that the Summer War epitomizes the idea that in war there are no victors, only victims. Screen stalker (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of war crimes

I have mixed feelings about the newest addition. Media support for one of the claims made, by Al Jazeera, is something missing from the section that before only had positions of Hezbollah, Israel, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but it is from old articles. The articles are not talking about something that may have changed, but there must be a better source, and a better way to integrate it into the whole section. --Arzkibar (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find better sources - that'll be great. But these are sources from the time of the war itself - I see absolutely no problem with that. As they are notable, and clearly contradict the HRW/Amnesty claims detailed there, they are very important to the section. okedem (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

With so much time having passed, if this was a significant aspect wouldn't there be more sources that cover the contradiction, either in the Amnesty/HRW reports or in their critics reports? --Arzkibar (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more sources, and if someone has the time to seek them out - we'd all benefit from that. But for now - this is what we have. These are relevant sources (especially Al-Jazeera - an Arab news network, which usually criticizes Israel heavily), that give some balance to HRW/Amenstry's claims, which are, to some extent, just ignoring reality - at one point they claimed something like this: yea, so Hizbollah did operate (fire rockets at Israel) from inside villages, but it's not "using human shields", because it wasn't their intention to use the civilian population as cover. Come on... okedem (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Initial Conflict

This is a fairly simples complaint.

The quote in question is this....

"The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[21] Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were captured and taken to Lebanon.[21] Five more were killed in a failed Israeli rescue attempt."

The reference article claims 2 Israelis were kidnapped and eight were killed. The claim of the five Israeli soldiers killed in a rescue mission is neither reference nor substanciated. Finally, the article makes no mension of the firing of Rockets as a 'diversion'. I'd like the appropriate actions to be taken to correct this.

67.234.219.66 (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Ryan 4/11/2008

The source article talks about the five soldiers at the beginning of page two. okedem (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)