Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Lebanon War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Iran in the list of belligerents?

The listing of Iran seems far fetched and not supported by independent sources. The references quoted seem weak: Source 3 which is clearly not independent, and blatantly pro-Israel, even then does not confirm that Iranians were fighting but merely alleges dead Iranians were flown back to Iran.Even if some iranians were fighting which is far from proven, it does not mean that Iranian government was invoved directly and therefore can be used as evidence that Iran was a party in the war. Source 4 is an Israeli source and seems to repeat Israeli government rhetoric against Iran which is well know. Again it can hardly be considered independent source no more than quoting Hezbollah Almanar can be considered a reliable sources of information. The information it quotes has not been confirmed by any independent sources. Source 5 clearly states in the first paragraph that “No evidence has yet emerged, however, that the Iranians are actually operating any weaponry in the fighting, say U.S. officials.” The source quoted seems to contradict what it has been quoted for. Iran at best provided weaponry to Hezbollah and other military assistance. If this qualifies as being part in the war then surely the US who evidently provided weaponry to Israel before and during the war (as evidenced by the prompt shipment of the requested precision bomb cargo during the war) should be listed as well. I am of the opinion that the list of belligerents should be kept to parties actively engaged in the war. Adding Iran is not evidenced and seems pandering to israeli’s anti-Iran rethoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.131.165 (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your rant aside, I've reconsidered the matter and agree that though there is ample proof of the IRCGs advisory role and the fact that it sustained casualties during the conflict, there is no hard evidence from the cited sources that they were in fact combatants (though I would bet dollars to doughnuts that they were). In light of that, I removed them from the list of belligerents.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the firing of two anti-ship missiles during the conflict is universally seen as being action and involvement of IRGC personel. Regardless of the origin of the two missiles(Iranian or Chinese made), one struck and seriously damaged an Israeli warship, and another sank a civilian freighter. That incident alone, even if limited in scope, would still place Iranian personnel in the direct combatant role. Just my two sents... The Scythian 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think I'm mistaken in removing Iran as a belligerent, I don't have a problem with you reverting me. I just think we need some harder evidence of Iranian involvement (other than IRCG casualties and advisory roles) to raise it to an encyclopedic standard--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So now I am confused. Do you or don't you see Iran as a combatant in some form or another in this conflict? Oh, and I am not that initial IP address you responded to, just so you know. The Scythian 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No confusion The Scythian. The IRCG sustained casualties during the conflict. Of that there is no doubt based on the sources. However, it is not clear whether their role was advisory or direct combatants.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying. Most sources certainly view them in a clear combat advisory role, to the degree that they had a presence working with Hezbollah. It almost comes down to semantics, I suppose. If they were advising Hezbollah, handling the more technical aspects of the show behind the scenes, such as battlefield communications and electronic surveillance, anti-ship missiles launches, etc. Occasionally getting killed not to mention...The overall consensus is that Hezbollah itself was/is not savy enough to utilize such a system like a C-802 [1] on their own, so at the very least you have Iranian "advisors" setting things up, even if they did not actually pull the "trigger." I guess we will just leave that one up to the various sources. The Scythian 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah was removed from South Lebanon

The IDF suceeded in pushing Hizbollah away from the border. This is a decisive fact which should not be expelled from the infobox. The hebrew and the norwegian article includes this, and I think it should be included here as well. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your source for this? Please review Wikipedia's policies on original research, citing sources, and reliable sources; foreign language Wikipedias are not reliable sources. It's an extreme claim, so you'll need to provide numerous, extremely good sources to support it. It's also problematic that it flies in the face of numerous reliable sources. This, for example, is an article published by Voice of America last week, which states that "Washington is concerned about arms that are being smuggled to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon." Similar statements regarding Hezbollah's presence in (or control of) southern Lebanon are readily available. ← George^talk 04:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The hebrew article claims that Hezbollah were removed from the border. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Hebrew article? Are you talking about the Hebrew Wikipedia? ← George^talk 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But by the way, it kinda suprises me that this fact is unknown to you guys. The Hezbollah were pushed out of South Lebanon by IDF, and replaced by Lebanese and international peace-keeping forces. Israel scored a long-term strategic victory by clearing the border. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an "unknown fact" because it did not happen. Hezbollah was hardly kicked out of South Lebanon by the IDF, and no serious source considered the 2006 war a strategic victory, or a victory of any kind, for Israel. Lets keep things here sourced, and as militarily factual as possible. The Scythian 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually The Scythian you are incorrect. There are many reliable sources that consider the 2006 Lebanon War to have been a strategic success for Israel. The border is quieter now than its been in over four decades and Hezbollah is no longer able to throw so much as a stone across the border without inviting clashes with The LAF and UNIFIL. Israeli deterrence was enhanced and this is evidenced by the fact that during operation Cast Lead, Hezbollah did nothing except to pay lip service to their Hamas brethren. This stands in marked contrast to Hezbollah's actions during Israel's 2002 Operation Defensive Shield where Hezbollah fired over 600 rockets into northern Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians. The war changed the situation drastically in Israel's favor--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see the origin of those sources. After all, Hezbollah was not destroyed(Israel's main objective), and Hezbollah is still is in Southern Lebanon, as they were never "removed" by force. Those are called failed objectives in military lingo. It has been quite for the last 3.5 years do to a truce between all parties involved(I am not counting Hamas in the conflict, because that is a wholly different issue and organization all together). Both sides are re-assessing and re-equipping for the next showdown to come, and are not itching for a fight until they are individually ready. That is the reality of the situation. That is why it is quieter for the time being. If Israel had "won" in achieving it's objective(s), this would not even be an issue. Now here are some sources from reputable news outlets and periodicals(not extreme right-wing or left-wing) that see Israel's 2006 invasion of Southern Lebanon as a tactical and strategic failure:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. If Israel was such a clear "winner", why does the simple Google search of "Israel 2006 War[2] come up with so many critical articles by unbiased sources that see the conflict as anything but an Israeli "success"? Do explain. I think it does tie into your views of Iran as a belligerent or combatant in some form or another as well. The Scythian 21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't focusing on capturing the information in cited reliable sources using policy based arguments be better than expressing personal views ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I could really care less who won our lost the conflict, only what the sources say. Differing opinions in the sources will be noted. The vast majority of sources do not see the conflict as a victory for Israel. Unless one is pushing some kind of agenda, all sources should be included and equally weighed, letting the facts speak for themselves. The Scythian 06:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By the end of the war, the IDF had pushed Hezbollah away from the southernmost parts of Lebanon. In this zone, the UN peace-keeping forces established a bufferzone. In my opinion, this is a territorial change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikrobølgeovn (talk)

Please read through the discussion thread. This has already been argued to death. The Scythian 00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But what if the article says that Hezbollah withdrawed/retired from South Lebanon, instead of saying that they were kicked out? Then it keeps its neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.155.91 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Iran and Lebanon as belligerents

Regarding the inclusion of Iran and Lebanon in the list of belligerents, editors need to look up the definition of the term belligerent. A casualty - even a military one - is very, very different than a belligerent. For instance, a Canadian soldier at a cafe in Israel killed by a Hezbollah rocket would not make Canada a belligerent. Editors inserting this in the article, please provide reliable sources that label either country a belligerent and reach a consensus on the issue prior to re-inserting them in the article. ← George^talk 04:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, this discussion has been held before (in the context of including the Lebanese army as a belligerent), and the consensus at the time was that the Lebanese army was not a belligerent. Lebanese army casualties weren't considered belligerents because, despite being killed, they weren't actively fighting. ← George^talk 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahmaed Jibril

To my knowledge, Jibril was not a major player in the conflict. Placing him as a belligerent commander (next to Mugniyah and Nasrallah) is a bit misleading. Any other opinions?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has provided sources or otherwise noted any basis for the Jibril edit, I've rverted it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Propaganda piece

another useless pro Israel propaganda piece hardly credible, in fact it is incredible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide specific examples ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are giving excessive space to minority scholars of unimpressive status, doubious neutrality and generic background who want to persuade us this was a "victory for Israel" that the evil media didn't want to report. Hold a referendum among qualified observers and you will see they are a tiny minority aligned for political reasons... in the "Israel won" front, this article is quoting 1 British scholar object of peer review criticism about his naif views of the political dimension of war (see his own bio), A US journalist (Friedman) of known bias (I mean just read his pro Iraq War editorials in 2003) and a IDF military man... I think you could try to include analysis made by other scholars of non US, British or Israeli origin (not Arabic...Russian, Swiss, Chinese, whichever you want)...

I think the contributors who quoted a long list of quite aligned commentors, some forgettable, all underscoring "the obvious" (that Hezbollah suffered heavy losses on the ground), serves the purpose to minimize "the important", that is - Israel is losing, as very often these days, the war in the media, and not because they are evil, but because their Arabic opponent have played their propaganda cards increasingly well in the last decades. I really think that reducing the outcome of the war to the fatalities misses the point of contemporary warfare - image, perception, opinion, esp. when the wars discussed are asymmetric and involving terror or doctrine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.160 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give specific examples of potentially problematic sources in the article, maybe their current reference number so that people can have a look at them ? Every Arab-Israeli conflict-related article has problems like this despite being covered by sanctions intended to help to prevent this kind of thing so it would be useful if you could give specific examples. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts Forum vs Asia Times

Regarding this edit that removed material from Conflicts Forum added by an IP on the basis that it isn't an RS. The article by Alastair Crooke (the former Middle East adviser to European Union High Representative Javier Solana and staff member of the Mitchell Commission investigating the causes of the second intifada) and Mark Perry (Washington, DC-based political consultant, author of six books on US history, and a former personal adviser to the late Yasser Arafat) was initially published in the Asia Times on October 12, 2006, here. I think the Asia Times Online itself is an RS and I guess the article is a reliable source for Crooke and Perry's analysis/POV. I have no opinion on whether the specific material that was added should be there or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ConflictsForum is self-published, and would best not be used for extraordinary claims. Asia Times appears to be a RS, but even so the claim being made is somewhat exceptional. I think it would be best if supporting sources were found for it before re-adding the info. Rami R 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah Casualties and Losses

A clear mistake was committed in the casualties and losses box regarding Hezbollah. It is claimed that 200 bodies of Hezbollah soldiers were captured by the IDF. But the cited source clearly states that only eight bodies were actually captured by the IDF. The article in question discusses 200 bodies handed over by Israel in a swap deal in 2008: those bodies belonged to Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian and other Arab fighters captured in successive confrontations with Israel since the 1970s, so these have no relation to the 2006 conflict. Since I am not a regular contributor, I shall not edit it myself, but I hope someone will take the task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.143.106 (talk) 23:05, April 29, 2010

I verified this, and removed the information accordingly. ← George^talk 00:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no Israeli victory

The page says that this was an Israeli victory. This is a biased statement. In fact, one can safely states that this conflict was mostly a failure for Israel since the two main objectives were NOT met at all : 1) Free the captured soldiers; 2) Disarm Hezbollah and kick it out of Southern Lebanon. As you know, Hezbollah still firmly holds its position in Southern Lebanon.

The objective of disarming Hisbolla could only be achieved if the IDF had occupied the entire Lebanon. As far as I know IDF never attempted to do so. This is not the case of IDF trying and failing, rather Israel never really tried to put the declared political goals into practice. Hisbolla was indeed kicked out of South Lebanon. And the UN ceasefire clearly stated that Hisbolla shouldn't return there. Keverich1 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So the page should at least say that the war ended in stalemate. The war wouldn't have created such a mess in Israel if it was a "victory" and most Israelis (even right-wingers) agree it wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.194.96 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel won the war in Lebanon. Whatever happened after the ceasefire was signed, IDF occupied significant part of South Lebanon. Israel therefore should be in the 1st column of the table. If you take look at other articles about wars, you'll see that the winner is almoust always in the 1st column, and looser is in the 2nd. Putting Israel in 2nd column implies that Hesbolla military defeated Israeli military, which is wrong. True enough, Hezbollah still controls Lebanon, but this happened as a result of UN-brokered ceasefire. You have to distinguish between mititary action and post-war settlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keverich1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's questionable if Israel won the war, with issues such as not achieving its declared goals, etc. search the archives. I'll reiterate arguments I've made before:

The infobox should not contain any POVs (even widely accepted POVs). It should just stick to the facts.
In the post-modern world, both sides of a war can loose.

As for the order of the columns: I don't care. Do as you see fit. Rami R 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your definition of victory is way too sophisticated. It appears that you define victory as achieving the declared political goals. I define victory in pure military terms: victory means occupying enemy's territory and inflicting losses on enemy. I believe that the vast majority of users define military victory just like me. And because it is an article about military conflict, victory should be understood in military terms, rather than political. Now, we know as a matter of fact that Israel occupied part of Lebanon, and we also know that Lebanese losses both military and civilian were much higher. This makes Israel a clear winner in military terms. Keverich1 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel didn't get to keep the territory; boundaries at the end of the war were roughly where they were at the beginning. The U.S. Army Command and General Staff School analysis considers it a win for Hezbollah (not Lebanon). Bush says Israel won, which is correctly cited in the article as opinion. The info box currently says "ceasefire", which is reasonable. --John Nagle (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't Hisbolla that prevented Israel from keeping the territory, but the pressure from international community. Again, I'd like to stress the distinction between military action and post-war settlement. IDF quickly occupied the territory they wanted to occupy, and started to deal with unsurgents that were hiding there. IDF killed many of Hisbolla fighters, destroyed ammunition depots and other infrastructure. As long as the military activies lasted, they were going in Israel's favor. At no point of the conflict we saw Hisbolla fighters pushing into Israeli territory.

The "ceasefire" entry in the infobox is bad, because it provides no information at all about destoyed Hesbolla terrorists and military infrastructure in LebanonKeverich1 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

@Keverich1: The outcome of a war being determined based on purely militaristic aspects is a legitimate opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. I believe your definition of victory is way too simplistic, as it ignores the political motivations behind a war (any war). At all events, this discussion just proves my point that this is a point of view issue. Infoboxs are for quick facts, not POVs.

btw, even military-wise the Israeli victory claim is disputable as Hezballah continued shooting rockets into Israel throughout the entire war, and I don't think that stopping those rockets was an exclusively political objective... Rami R 21:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but as far as I know, Hesbolla started to fire rockets before the beginning of the war...And Hisbolla is not firing rockets NOW. This in itself represents a victory for Israel. IDF military action eventually forced Hisbolla to abandon the practice of firing rockets. Perhaps we should mention this in "result" section of the table.Keverich1 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

stopping Hisbolla from launching the rockets was a political objective, because they posed a negligible threat to the IDF. Trying to stop these activities wasn't worth a life of single IFD soldier from a military point of view. The rockets were big deal for Israeli public though.Keverich1 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So enemy rockets landing within a nation, killing its citizens and causing massive evacuations, is not the military's concern? I always thought that the military's duty is to protect the nation and its citizens from foreign enemies...

Also, can the lack of rockets now really be attributed to the war? Not the cease fire agreement? Or the prisoner swap? Does the lack of fire now really mean anything? Is there any assurance that the fire won't resume?

I don't mind to continue to discuss this. However, the more we discuss this, the more we prove my point that this is a matter of opinion, not something that can be trivially quantified as "Victory" or "Defeat". Rami R 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a matter of opinion? After all the same can be said about every single military conflict. For instance, after the Gulf war Hussein declared that Iraq had won. That was his opinion. Yet the article about Gulf war states, quite bluntly, it was a coalition victory. Why do need to go into philosophic discussions instead of just looking at the casualties and troops movements?

Read the C&GS study, linked in the article. It's part of their "long war" series, where they look at conflicts that stretch on for decades, flaring up into battles occasionally. This is such a conflict. From a purely military perspective, they consider this a big setback for the IDF. Before the war, the IDF had assumed they could move into Lebanon with armor and troops, and operate there without much risk to their own troops and without losing many tanks. They'd done that before, successfully. Not this time. This was one of the very few times in history that an armored attack has been stopped by an irregular force. The U.S. Army C&GS officers explore that issue in considerable detail; they need to understand how Hezbollah developed an asymmetrical armored warfare doctrine that works. The overall effect of the war is that both parties are back where they started in terms of territory, but the IDF is now much less likely to try moving into Lebanon again. That's a "ceasefire" result. --John Nagle (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The IDF moved into Lebnon not because it wanted to, but because they were forced into action by hisbolla's attacks against Israeli territory. They did this then, IDF will do this again. People in Lebanon understand this, and hisbolla is now much less likely to attack again, because they know that Israeli retaliation will follow.

To say that hisbolla stopped IDF attack is BS. First, occupation of the entire country had never been an objective of the IDF, and second, IDF's advance was halted by the UN ceasefire, which came just 3 weeks after Israelis crossed the border of Lebanon. They simply weren't given enough time to annihilate hisbolla completelyKeverich1 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, per the first message, the some goals was partially met. It is unlikely that Hezbollah will launch another rocket strike again, since, per above, the IDF occupied part of Lebanon. (first part of objective 2) The meaning of the word "occupy" may vary, but assuming it means "securing a piece of land," consensus here is "Israel occupied some parts of Lebanon," which "kicked Hezbollah out of occupied territory," since occupied land, according to my definition, is "secure," which means "cleaned of enemies." (second part of objective 2) Although they gave up all occupied territory, the goals were accomplished when the war ended. (The fallback out of occupied territory is not considered part of the war)

I think what happened in the war was that they both failed or both won depending on what happens in the future .For example if there was no war in the future and both sides don't want to intitate an attack then bith could claim victory . Because Hezbullah could claim victory in that they have stopped Israeli aggressions in Lebanon , and Israel could claim victory in that they secured there northern border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.167 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthews' paper is total garbage. I just read it. Just because he WAS associated with the US Army History section means nothing. He holds a BA in History from Kansas State. He has no higher training as a historian. He was an enlisted man who became an officer in the Army Reserves, not an officer on active duty.So he is basically someone with a Bachelor's Degree whose highest rank while on active duty was an enlisted man. Becoming an officer while on active duty requires much more general military expertise. His references are almost all news reports especially a very one sided pro-Hezbollah pair of articles from the Asia Times. He also shows , in my opinion very clear pro-Hezbollah bias. His research is very sloppy and contradictory. He gave a KIA figure for Hezbollah as 164 when every other source including Hezbollah itself (as indicated in the main article gave a figure of KIA of at least 250. User: Jay b hamilton 10 August 2009 Jay b hamilton (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay b hamilton (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Other indications of how Hezbollah really felt about their "victory" are : Their leader's statement to the effect (paraphrasing) "If I had known how Israel would react I would not have kidnapped the soldiers". A second important point is if as Matthews states Hezbollah was clearly victorious , why didn't Hezbollah fire even one rocket during the January 2009 Israel operation against Hamas in Gaza? When several rockets were fired during Jan. 2009 at Israel from Lebanon by an Al-Qaeda related group, Hezbollah very quickly stated they had not fired the rockets. Hamas and Hezbollah are closely linked groups or movements sponsored by Iran. If there was ever an opportunity for Hezbollah to damage Israel and it's reputation it was during January 2009. User:Jay b Hamilton Jay b hamilton (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 10 August 2009.

I have no opinion of this at this point, but I'd like to point out that the paper in question was published by the Combat Studies Institute of the US Army, and not self-published or anything. I don't know if he's still there, but I believe it's not just his opinion. That said, even if he is a reasonable source to quote, he might given way too much space here. okedem (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The info-box should include "Military Israeli victory", as Israel clearly defeated Hezbollah on tactical level. Before the war, Nasrallah stated that no UN-forces should be placed in South Lebanon. Hezbollah no longer controlls South Lebanon, as UN took controll, and they have kept the ceasefire. Nevertheless, as Jay b hamilton says, Hezbollah stayed out of the conflict in 2009 on Gaza. Israel found several hiding places, and Hezbollah suffered at least five times bigger casualties than Israel. They certainly had a challenge recruiting new soldiers, and it is not done overnight. The fact that Hezbollah was removed from South Lebanon, is enough to state that this was a military victory to Israel. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry put it in the wrong place,hezbullah s involvment with the palestinian groups has amplified in the wake of the war moreover israel knows this. So i would not say that hezbullah has actually became less offensive after the war . Furthermore , evidence suggets that hezbullah's status with iran and syria have increased after the war .In addition syria and iran has started sending anti - air and more devestating rocketry to hezbullah which was prohibited before the war . Also, Hezbullah wasn't kicked from the border even while the forces were in battle and the israelis know this. In addition , i doubt israel is going to be attacking lebanon any time soon so i think this would actually be considered positive points for hezbullah .and finally if you consider the resolution as the basis for an israeli victory than the arabs won 1967 and 1982. --Nader ecl (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How could it be a victory for Hezbollah when they got pushed north and away from the border, lost masses of rockets and weapons, and had five time+ higher casualties than the IDF? Not many rockets have been fired from Lebanon since 2006, and therefore Israel achieved all their goals. They never intended to destroy Hezbollah, Olmert said this all the way. Even Nasrallah admits that the war was a failure. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in reading it, the United State's Army Combat Institue, produced a very detailed analysis [3]on the conflict, it does overall suport the idea of a general IDF opperational faliure though.-Freepsbane (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

Can we keep the casualty listings uniform? Not differentiate into what type when only one group has offered that information. I know people have an agenda against Israel, but this is clearcut. Unless we have equivalent listings for Lebanese and foreign casualties, all figures should list ONLY dead and injured/wounded. Metallurgist (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll hold off on reverting to see what other editors think, though there's a few things to consider. First, this has been discussed—repeatedly, over the years—and after the usual rounds of edit wars, the breakdown is the version that has tended to float to the top. Second, and the reason it probably floats to the top, a lack of information on one side isn't a particularly good reason to censor available information on the other. Third, and in the interest of assuming good faith, have you considered that breaking down the casualty figures may not be due to "an agenda against Israel", any more than inflating the casualty figures could be considered a pro-Hezbollah agenda? After all, higher Israeli casualties figures would bolster Hezbollah's image more than it would hurt Israel's. ← George^talk 07:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is bias toward Israel in almost every article created that involves partners from the Arabic world. For examples, the war had devastating causalities on the Lebanese in terms of loss of human life and the devastated economy. However, this article hardly mention it while in the same times it goes in depth when it comes to discussing the Israeli losses. I believe this whole article should be rewritten by a third party who do not have a personal agenda to gain.--Saab 1989 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

infobox

There appears to be an edit war over the infobox and there doesn't appear to be any discussion about it here. So, I think the best course of action is to discuss it here so that I don't need to ask for the article to be locked to force discussion. My comment on the content is simply that the statement Hezbollah retreat from border areas and its replacement by UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army isn't supported by the Haaretz source being used. That is WP:V non-compliance so it needs to be removed or the source needs to be replaced. Also the citation isn't formatted properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the following info from the infobox to prevent further edit warring.

Hezbollah retreat from border areas and its replacement by UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army^[6]. Hezbollah partially reeastablished their presence in the war's aftermath.^[7]
Both sides claim victory^[8] ^[9] ^[10]

This section is for discussing what to do next. I suggest just having the ceasefire in the infobox and putting the details (which must of course have sources that support what is being said, unlike now) in the body of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your moving it back to the precontent dispute revision, it looks like there was a reason the editors had settled on it: any claims on positions or such on the infobox seem guaranteed to bring out conflict over what it says, so long as something of that sort is up it's going to be the center of an edit dispute. It's probably much less disruptive to integrate whatever sources say into the text below the article. As far as the claim of a retreat goes though, I haven’t seen anything in the linked sources that says so, so it strikes me as being nothing more than original research. Also since the other editors were ambiguous about whether they were talking about the conflict or it’s aftermath it’s harder to understand. The sources I’ve seen though indicate otherwise; the UNOSAT map, which is about as objective a source as you can get, shows that the captured positions south of the Metula salient amount to only three towns/cities out of the entire conflict zone. If it was supposed to concern post war developments then media from groups not tied or overtly sympathetic to either of the conflict parties still says the opposite [4], the Lebanese soldiers have according to the Washington Post, made no effort to evict Hezbollah from it’s strongholds and tacitly accepted it’s presence in the border, and Israeli sources say [5] the Lebanese army is actually colluding with Hezbollah and has blocked the UN peacekeepers from investigating Hezbollah’s arms caches, reportedly Hezbollah has close relations to the Lebanese army.

Of course all of that belongs in the lower sections of the article, the consensus revision is probably as stable and non controversial as that position can be, which is a good thing for the article as a whole.-Freepsbane (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The map you added had nothing to do with the statement your posted. You wrote that Hezbollah remained in border areas, but the link did only lead to a map which showed the course of the war. This is irrelevant information, and has nothing to do with the ceasefire and it's aftermath.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It shows what the positions were at August 14th and since you indicated that you were talking about the tactical and operational situation at the end of the conflict, it seemed like a rather clear authority on the issue; it does indicate that as far as positions go there wasn’t much in the way of capture in the border(despite fighting, some of it described as intense, throughout all the border positioned population centers) so that doesn't support the idea of Hezbollah being militarily driven from the border given the situation depicted at the closing day. The mention of the Lebanese Army tacitly accepting Hezbollah’s presence, and colluding with them, doesn’t do anything for that point either. If you had talked about the issue as I asked you could have clarified what exactly you meant.-Freepsbane (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As an adenum, the United State's Army Combat Institue produced a very detailed analysis [6]on the conflict. There's a lot of reference material in it given it's size so other editors might find it usefull.- Freepsbane (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the article, many historicans agree that Hezbollah suffered a military setback. One report alone cannot conclude this issue in Hezbollah's favour. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, included the disarment of Hezbollah. The article says, "Hezbollah agreed to disarm its forces south of the Litani River, but not to pull its forces out of southern Lebanon.". A partial, if not complete withdrawal, took place, but it didn't last for long.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah was forced to redeploy from rural areas of the south where LAF and UN forces operate. Because of UN and LAF deployment, Hezbollah is now forced to operate in urban shiite areas where the UN jurisdiction ceases. Thus, in can be said that Hezbollah's freedom of movement was severely curtailed as a result of the war.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If we’re going to selectively quote the Institute do we mention the part where it says IDF claims of victory were more high-tech fantasy than anything else, or where it describes various actions ranging from the Aerial campaign, the use of Reserves, problems with managing formations larger than a Brigade, or the attempt to penetrate and reduce Hezbollah’s positions days before the ceasefire(which according to the analysis was done for political reasons and did more to isolate the various formations and expose them to ambushes and indirect fire(s) from the supporting Hezbollah positions around them than achieve gains, nevermind the mention of the air assault formations near Litiani having been enveloped and that having been a potential disaster if it wouldn't have been for the ceasefire) as operational failures? No, I think it’s probably best to look at the work as an aggregate, from the description it doesn’t sound like either of the parties had been militarily defeated at end of the conflict.

The retreat claim is original research: it isn’t mentioned by the sources, observers ranging from the UN to the Army Combat Institute note that the IDF was unable to evict Hezbollah from its positions on the ground, and sources covering the aftermath indicate that Lebanese troops accepted Hezbollah’s presence upon arrival and are actually interfering with the UN peacekeepers. To put it simply all the information indicates that there never was anything resembling a retreat during the war, and the peacekeepers never removed Hezbollah, either because of political ties to them, or because of an inability/lack of will to do so.

As for the built up areas, The Institute, and Analysis from the Rand Corporation say that Hezbollah had used towns with webs of bunker networks as the center of it’s logistical, and operating base areas that it uses to project it's force and fires from,(The giant bunker network mentioned in Maroun for instance), so having its presence set around them isn’t a significant operational problem, it hasn’t hindered the movement of arms to the border (Supposedly it now includes material such as tactical missiles and SAMS) and because of collaboration with the Lebanese army, and it’s jurisdiction over operations and interference with peacekeepers (preventing them from investigating areas and such), it doesn’t seriously compromise it’s freedom of movement, or logistical network. At most it really just means that they wouldn’t mass equipment or formations in the open, and given the strategy Hezbollah uses, they really don’t fight or mass outside of their operating bases, even during the Second Lebanon war. Also, if Hezbollah pledges to something there's no reason to believe that they'd follow through unless if there were an actual enforcer, which Lebanon, and the UN turned out not to be. Paying lipservice to something (disarmament) for a political gain, and doing the ought right opposite because there's nothing to make you keep your word isn't a rare thing at all, so no I don’t think empty promises equal a retreat.-Freepsbane (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the war, Hezbollah had a state-in-a-state in Southern Lebanon. When the war ended, many Hezbollah positions were replaced by the UNIFIL, so at least a partial retreat must have taken place.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why so? The UN was only deployed and has authority in unpopulated areas, it’s ineffectiveness has been noted and is furthered by Lebanese interference coupled with a limiting mandate, and the Lebanese Army hasn't challenged Hezbollah's actions and has a rapport with them. It isn't going to disrupt Hezbollah's defacto control over the population centers, or the operating bases which it has constructed out of them along with the flow of weapons to them, (The arrangement is really the same as other parts of Lebanon, even Beirut's Shia slums). Now, had Olmert actually been able to get NATO to to patrol the south with an actual mandate it might have been different. -Freepsbane (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Hezbollah's freedom of movement and its ability to carry arms in the open in the sub-Litani region, was curtailed as a result of the war--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Given their ability to bring in weapons into the border, some of them the kind you'd find in conventional armies' missile batteries and construct new fortifications for their sake, no. It doesn't look like Hezbollah's ability to operate move around arms, and influence hasn't been curtailed to any significant degree, the lack of any sort of effective material, financial and arms embargo unlike Gaza plays a role of course, but if it wouldn't be for what's effectively a lack of interference or opposition that wouldn't be the case. - Freepsbane (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the war, Hezbollah controlled the border areas. When the war ended, the UNIFIL was introduced into the areas as a buffer between Lebanon and Israel. Because the UNIFIL was placed in an area previously controlled by Hezbollah, one can fairly say that Hezbollah "lost land", right?--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's only fair to say what reliable sources say. We're just "source puppets" as I saw someone say the other day. If something is the case it should be easy to find sources that say it's the case, cite them and comply with WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the link to Georgetown is nonexistent, is this a way to create sources if they dont actually exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.121.28 (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry, my bad that is the footnote to a jamestown article, number 97 i think....possibly bc it is two yearss old, but if this is doable it seems pretty easy to make up sources from nowhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.121.28 (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

This article is not fully referenced, as noted by the large numbers of citation needed tags, and has been reassessed as C-class for lack of references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that the stalled and flawed recent reassessment has been closed, please feel free to open a new community or individual GA reassessment of this article, raising the concerns you mention. If you don't feel confident to do so, but would like GA reviewers to look at the article, add {{GA request}} to the top of this talk page. Geometry guy 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese citizens

Regarding this edit[7]I tend to agree with it. The sources that state "mostly Lebanese citizens" are problematic because they contradict other reliable sources that state that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah and affiliated guerrillas were killed. Even by conservative estimates, some 500 guerrillas were killed. These figures simply don't square with the claim that those killed were "mostly Lebanese civilians." I therefore voice my support for the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah guerrillas are Lebanese citizens. Editors are confusing citizens for civilians, which are two different things. ← George^talk 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, even if this were talking about civilians (and not citizens), most reliable sources report that the majority of those killed were Lebanese civilians (here is one from the AFP from two days ago, for instance). The number and reliability of those sources outweigh the very few that give conflicting estimates for the militant-civilian breakdown. ← George^talk 05:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

When a lie is repeated often enough, it begins to seep into the mainstream. In any event, would phraseology like, mostly Lebanese citizens, combatants as well as civilians, be acceptable? I would support it and that would probably put an end to the low-level edit war.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah's casualties were not less than 500 and may have reached 700--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it's a lie, just that it's widely reported. Sources for the other view, such as the one you linked, tended to be biased (though still reliable). I actually think we should use something like the phrasing from this AFP source from two days ago. Something like "The conflict killed at least 1,300 people - approximately 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers..." ← George^talk 05:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would object to that because it is contrary to variety of sources (and not necessarily Israeli) that say otherwise. I can and will provide them if you request.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I believe that your sources constitute the minority viewpoint, but I'm open to comparing number and reliability of sources. In the meantime, I'll change the article back to the previous version while we discuss. ← George^talk 05:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added some sections below so we can each work on lists of sources. Cheers. ← George^talk 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgot that this article now falls under 1RR, so I've self-reverted to your version. I still think that we shouldn't add "(including Hezbollah combatants)", and I'd appreciate if you'd remove it until we can discuss the matter further. It's pretty silly, like saying "Most Americans citizens (including Republicans) think that...". In the same way that Republicans are inherently American, Hezbollah members are inherently Lebanese. If you don't want to remove it, that's fine, I'll get back to it tomorrow. ← George^talk 07:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the self revert and kind comment Jiujitsuguy. I'm not so worried about being reported, but it would be disingenuous of me to uphold others to a standard I myself don't live up to. After looking through sources, it seems the most common way the casualties are reported is as a breakdown for each of the two sides, rather than a total count (what the article currently does). I'm going to look for more sources before I make any particular suggestion for a change though. I'll also try to add quotes from my sources (it's surprising how similar they actually are in their phrasing, even when their exact numbers differ slightly). Cheers. ← George^talk 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources saying that most of the overall casualties were Lebanese civilian

BBC

January 8, 2009

The Guardian

September 14, 2006

Los Angeles Times

September 12, 2009

Reuters

October 18, 2009

UNICEF

September 14, 2006

UPI

August 9, 2010

Sources saying that most of the Lebanese casualties were civilian

AFP

BBC

China Post

December 30, 2008

Daily Star

Reuters

Telegraph

May 9, 2007

Sources saying that most of Lebanese casualties were guerrillas

the numbers

The lead currently contains the following:

The conflict killed at least 1,300 people, mostly Lebanese citizens,[34][35][36] severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese[37] and 300,000–500,000 Israelis.[22][38][39] After the ceasefire, some parts of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to Israeli unexploded cluster bomblets.[40]

The supporting references:

34) [8] "The ensuing fighting killed more than 1,000 people. Most were Lebanese civilians..." (not "citizens")
35) [9] dead link
36) [10] "500 people killed by the time this went to print" Wikipedia should be able to have better figures than this four years plus later.
37) [11] dead link supporting "displaced approximately one million Lebanese" - this can be supported by the usatoday link #39
38) [12] "Here is an estimate of the impact of the crisis on Lebanon and Israel up to 14 August, 2006", Again, Wikipedia should be able to have better figures than this by now.
39) [13] "The conflict left nearly 950 people dead - 791 in Lebanon and 155 on the Israeli side, according to official counts. An estimated 500,000 Israelis and about 1 million Lebanese, or a quarter of the population, were displaced in the conflict, government officials said...... The civilian toll was enormous - 692 in Lebanon and 39 in Israel." This conflicts with #34. ( >1000) But none of the sources actually given in this article say "at least 1,300 people."

Could someone please fix this? It is embarrassing. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested section merge

Of "Timeline of the Conflict", "Hezbollah Action", and "Israeli Action" into one section.--RM (Be my friend) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Army Combined Arms Center Combat Studies Institute report

What is the issue with the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center Combat Studies Institute report used in this edit by 99.157.98.136 ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's just stack the entire infobox with all reports and commentary. There are views written by noteables that stand for the opposite. Infobox should be short and concise, not bloated. Honestly, it looks rather silly now. I would have preferred the Results section to be limited to the UN resolution that was adopted by the belligerents and brought an end to the conflict. In any event, We have a section for analyses of views of the conflict and if the edit belongs anywhere, it would be in that section.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that but the source seems okay doesn't it ? It might be useful for the reviews section as you say. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As usual, I agree with you Sean (scary we're agreeing too much lately). However, I just scanned the section and Mathews is already noted. I suspect that the troll read the section, saw the source and was dissatisfied with its placement and wanted to feature it more prominently in the infobox.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a troll, and going by your block history and actions with other users I don't think you really should just be throwing that acusation. Those reports are important because they allong with the Kenesset's report are the main govermental alaysists of the conflict. They're also important in laying out what the Israeli goverment and Army think about the outcome. Saying that those postions both institutions have are less valid than what pundits say just makes your bias transparent. If the Kenesset and institue don't think it was a military victory then it is missleading to frame it as if the position of all institutions allied and affiliated with Israel was the opposite, in short the current form was not representative. So does your calling everyone who doesn't do what you want a troll. If you look at other conflicts boxes, goverment comissions often act as a base for the results section.Barboosh (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to talk then I'm fine with that, but calling others trolls and vandals when they are acting in good faith is not talk.Barboosh (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Troll or IP-hopping editor from Georgia, whatever suits you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Laughable Zionist Bias

re: Hezbollah casualties

I cannot help but notice that Israel estimates Hezbollah casualties, Lebanese officials estimate casualties, UN officials estimate casualties, the IDF estimates casualties, but Hezbollah "claims" casualties. Why the different wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.28.217 (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with the terrorists' track record on telling the truth being so incredibly poor - case in point, Jenin. FlaviaR (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed 'claim' to 'est.' per WP:NPOV. And thanks FlaviaR for maintaining neutrality by not specifying which of the belligerents you were calling terrorists. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is chock full of bias if in fact it begins with "Hezbollah" started the war. Certainly, we know who finished the war and I ought to know, I was there. My home was invaded and Israeli soldiers shat in my washing machine and beds. --Lilac Cotton 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talk • contribs)

You're biased. I was in Israel during the time, and its not fun to be shot at with uncontable rockets, and watch all the dead and captured solders on TV. Think about it

206.126.80.174

It also isn't fun for your children playing in the street by unexploded Israeli ordinance that bears the words "Made in USA" (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the 1200 slaughtered Lebanese Civilians (a third of whom were children), would agree that your POV is the biased one if they were still alive and able to speak. 67.142.172.21 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I will need sources to believe that. But then, terrorists only "claim" casualties.

Nachother (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

lebanese parties opposed to hezbollah?

These are Israel sources and not true and I will romove it and even all lebanese parties claimed victory including Lebanese President and Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.204.184 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon army as part of war.

Though rarely engaged in combat, 46 Lebanese Armed Forces soldiers were killed and 100 soldiers were wounded, most of them in Israeli airstrikes.[8]

And Lebanese army was shooting antiaircraft machine guns on Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.45.17 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph and Sentence on rocket/missiles do not make sense

Folks,

The paragraph about Hezbollah launching rockets/missiles at Israel with Hezbollah's satellite TV station Al-Manar reported that the attacks had included a Fajr-3 and a Ra'ad 1, both liquid-fuel missiles developed by Iran. at foot notes 96-97-98 are in error some how and do not make sense. The first weapon is basically an improved 122mm rocket from either China or N. Korea and the other is linked to an Iranian copy of the AT-3 Sagger wire guided antitank missile. Both are not liquid fuel (ie they are solid fuel) and the second missile type stated had a range of only 4km and in no way could attack an Israel village at the distance claimed. I know it has a foot note of a news report but that news report is in error as many are. I am not going to get in an edit cat fight, but the second rocket listed should just be deleted until the ID of what type of rocket it really is established. The first rocket listed should be stated as a solid fuel artillery rocket with 45km range. Either way the paragraph is not only in error and contradictory and makes no sense. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening Bias

In the opening segment (If that's what you call it - I mean the first content, before the table of contents), there is the following paragraph:

The conflict killed at least 1,200 people, mostly Lebanese citizens,[38][39][40] severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese[41] and 300,000–500,000 Israelis.[26][42][43] After the ceasefire, some parts of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to Israeli unexploded cluster bomblets.[44]

It is blatantly obvious how anti-Israeli this paragraph is. The information might be true, and there is some doubt as to whether it actually is, but the way in which it is organized, especially in the opening segment, is ridiculously biased. A reader would probably read it whilst skimming the article, as it is the shortest paragraph in the opening segment, and then get the following information: Israel killed many Lebanese citizens; Lebanese civil infrastructure, which means hospitals, roads, etc., was destroyed by Israel, Israel displaced twice as much Lebanese civilians, and they used cluster bombs which render some Lebanese area uninhabitable.

Completely biased. Completely anti-Israeli. Completely ridiculous. Completely unacceptable of a Wikipedia article, especially a "good" article.

I recommend either changing the wording (Maybe removing 'mostly Lebanese citizens', 'Lebanese', and changing it to approximately 1.5 million people displaced, as well as completely omitting the last sentence). The entire paragraph could be removed entirely, with some of the more important information being integrated to other paragraphs.

And, full disclosure, I am currently leaving in Israel, but I would be writing this irregardless of my current location; biased articles are biased articles globally. I was not influenced by my current country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.120.209 (talk) 19:26, 6 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) 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New lead picture

I would like to see a link to the picture that you claim is a building after Hizbollah shelled it.The links to your picture seem not to exist so we only have your word for it.Thanks Owain the 1st (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The image was deleted as a copyright violation in 2008. We should remove the image from the lead, or replace it with a comparable one. ← George^talk 20:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This one probably needs deleting too then. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)