Jump to content

Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UNIFIL

[edit]

UNIFIL cannot be placed with Hezbollah, but between the two contenders in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.124.139 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add the following quote from ISW latest report (link):
Likely Hezbollah fighters fired at UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon on November 16.[17] UNIFIL reported that an armed group prevented a patrol of French and Finnish peacekeepers from conducting a patrol in Bedias, Tyre District. The patrol continued along its planned route into the village of Maarakeh. UNIFIL said that “likely non-state actors“ fired upon the patrol about 40 times. The only non-state armed groups operating in southern Lebanon are Hezbollah and groups that Hezbollah permits to operate in southern Lebanon. Some patrol vehicles had bullet impacts but no peacekeepers were injured. UNIFIL said it is unacceptable that peacekeepers are routinely targeted while conducting UN Security Council-mandated tasks. UNIFIL stated that it is the responsibility of Lebanese authorities to ensure that UNIFIL peacekeepers can carry out their mandated tasks without fear or threats. Urionics (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another incident of a likely Hezbollah attack on UNIFIL Reuters on October 29 Urionics (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon into 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Clear consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" contains only a sentence, it can easily be added to the "2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" article. I would do this myself, but I'm uncertain where exactly the claim would be placed. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This should be put into the War crimes sections of Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Use quotes from those allegations for more detail. Prodrummer619 (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Given that there is a significant amount of sources, the article could be expanded further, enough to warrant a stand alone status. Support per other arguments. ByteBaldur (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per ByteBaldur's reasoning Mason7512 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That article currently has 8 different sources listed. Give it time to grow, as it was only created just a few days ago. JasonMacker (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just three of them are cited for claims of a genocide in Lebanon; of those
  • Mondoweiss makes such a claim only in the WP:HEADLINE of an WP:NEWSOPED
  • Jacobin does in the WP:HEADLINE and a politician's quote.
  • Green Left doesn't at all, verification fails for me.
— xDanielx T/C\R 05:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as from the online material I have read, there are no substantial arguments or evidence or sources supporting this allegation - yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but that's a reason for why the title would be Allegations of genocide in Lebanon' instead of 'Genocide in Lebanon', and not for notability. ByteBaldur (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's when the allegation passes the threshold of being considered as fact; but what I was saying is that the earlier threshold for it to be even considered an appropriate allegation hasn't been met yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can always recreate if situation warrants.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. especially given the page has no prose substance and references are vague at best. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the irrelevant references now removed, the page has very little standing in terms of sourcing, and the one sentence of content should definitely be merged. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JasonMacker. Skitash (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a genocide? I dont undestand can someone truly explain this to me, please? 198.105.46.252 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very little substantive sources to warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge not independently notable. Andre🚐 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge for now, but this article could be moved to a draft. Prodrummer619 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it simply fails WP:GNG. Not one source is really discussing the topic of Lebanon genocide accusations. Quoting a brief statement by a politician falls short of the significant coverage that GNG requires. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's not "genocide" and the article has 1 source, Al Jazeera. Shaman007 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaman007: I think you meant support (the merge)? But also, it looks like you're not extended confirmed. Per WP:PIA, you should hold off on participating in the Israel-Palestine topic area (other than edit requests) until becoming extended confirmed. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Genocide is the most serious allegation of all against any state, surpassing even terrorism or mass murder. We need better sources than Jacobin if we are to write a page about genocide allegations. Bremps... 23:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fringe accusation, not independently notable. Whizkin (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am just not seeing how reliable sources have made substantial allegations of genocide in this case let alone whether those allegations were to be credible. Without trying to substitute any editor's position for the position of the reliable sources we should note whatever the reliable sources say in the main article at most. Jorahm (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We have Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel that resulted in 1163 deaths. Death toll from the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon already surpassed 3000[1] and it's going up fast. We also have sources that call it a genocide Crampcomes (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

[edit]

The infobox is currently bloated; I think there is no need to place UNIFIL and Lebanese army in separate columns; they should be placed below Hezbollah, but with clear dealination to avoid implying they are fighting together, but rather all being hit by the invading Israeli army. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to this or some other alternative to the current crowded situation. Mason7512 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Can we move the LAF to the footnote because they are not even a belligerent in the conflict? ByteBaldur (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of the LAF is currently justified by this, I believe. Just putting the reasoning out there, not saying it is logical or illogical. Mason7512 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and done what you've suggested. Please let me know what you think. Personally, I do think that this is a better format, since all three of the belligerents listed in that column (Hezbollah, LAF, UNIFIL) are being attacked by Israel and haven't fought each other. JasonMacker (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the casualty counts for Lebanon and Hezbollah overlap. The Lebanese Ministry of Health includes all Lebanese casualties (including Hezbollah). Likewise, RS include Hezbollah medics[2] among total medics killed.
Secondly, UNIFIL's mandate is to be neutral. I don't think we should put them under Lebanon/Hezbollah, rather they should indeed be in a third column.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't alter any of the content of the infobox. I only moved around what was already in it. Lebanon and Hezbollah's casualties were already overlapping before I slimmed it down from 4 columns to 2. So that has nothing to do with me changing the number of columns.
The fact that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and UNIFIL are in the same column does not imply that they are on the same "team". They have those horizontal divisions that separate them. What they have in common is that all three have been attacked by Israel. For comparison, see the infobox of War_against_the_Islamic_State that puts the United States, Iran, Russia, Egypt, Israel, and Nigeria all in the same column, but uses the same horizontal divisions to show the "teams." JasonMacker (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and UNIFIL are in the same column does not imply that they are on the same "team"" - Maybe not to you, but definitely to our readers. This is ridiculous and urgently needs to be changed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Lebanon and UNIFIL have clarifying hatnotes explaining their positions in this conflict. Using that dividing line is standard for infoboxes. You're demanding changes based on hypothetical readers when you've provided no evidence for their existence in the first place. JasonMacker (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Lebanon or UNIFIL belong in the infobox. If they absolutely must be there, there is no reason to keep them in the same column as Hezbollah. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the arguments already presented. As I pointed out, War against the Islamic State has the United States, Iran, Russia, Egypt, Israel, and Nigeria all in the same column, but uses the same horizontal divisions to show the "teams." Has there ever been a reader complaining that it's confusing that these different parties are in the same column? Do you want that article, and countless other articles that use similar infoboxes, to instead make a whole bunch of columns for every separate fighting group rather than use the horizontal division lines? As I explained, it actually makes sense to put Hezbollah, LAF, and UNIFIL in the same column because all three of them are being attacked by Israel, while little, if any, fighting is taking place between those three belligerents. To put LAF and UNIFIL in separate columns could falsely imply that Hezbollah is targeting LAF and UNIFIL too, and reliable sources make no mention of that happening. This war is primarily between Israel and Hezbollah, and by having only two columns, the infobox reflects that fact. But it also has hatnotes explaining why LAF and UNIFIL are involved in this conflict and listed in the infobox.
The reason why I made the edit in the first place was because three users in a row said that they disapproved of having 4 columns in the infobox, so I went ahead and got bold. Would you prefer if we have an RFC for editors to decide which infobox format they prefer? JasonMacker (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with the War against the Islamic State doesn't hold up. These countries/factions were not allied, but nevertheless fought against the same enemy (ISIS). Whereas both UNIFIL and the LAF are neutral, a fact recognized by the warring parties. Including them at all sets a problematic precedent, and we should at the very least not create an impression that it's Israel vs. co-belligerents Hezbollah/UNIFIL/LAF. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has engaged in combat operations against both LAF and UNIFIL, multiple times. That's the whole reason they're even listed in the infobox in the first place. Take a look at Template:Infobox_military_conflict's description of when to use "combatant3":
combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional –the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion).
This, I think, is very clear guidance on what we should do here. This conflict is primarily between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon and UNIFIL don't really have a distinct "side" in this conflict. And if they do, they're not fighting against Hezbollah. Contrast this with the Aerial incidents in Switzerland in World War II article, where Switzerland is listed as a separate combatant because both they returned fire on both the allies and the axis. However, here, LAF are not engaging in hostilities with Hezbollah (or UNIFIL, for that matter), so I don't think it's appropriate to list them completely separately. Again, if you're not satisfied with this explanation, feel free to start your own RFC on the format of the infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You correctly point out that the LAF and UNIFIL side with neither Israel and Hezbollah, which is expected, as both are formally neutral. Isolated incidents with the IDF do not render this point moot, although some editors have tried to push the narrative that the LAF is a party in this war (although the IDF has even apologized for hitting them on one occassion). In short, listing Lebanon and UNIFIL is problematic in the first place; listing them in Hezbollah's column makes it even worse. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but we also this infobox at Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) which lists Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, neither of which recognize Israel, as Israeli allies against the Palestinians (although Pakistan was recently removed from the box). How would you configure that infobox? VR (Please ping on reply) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonMacker: Those horizontal divisions only work as a separation as long as one knows that they should indicate the non-togetherness of these factions. But 99 % of our readers don't know this and this interpretation also is not intuitive. Chaddy (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both LAF and UNIFIL have hatnotes explaining their stances and this is in addition to the main text of the article that makes their stances clear. If someone is unfamiliar with the format of the infobox, then they should learn it. Wikipedia doesn't have to cater to the most ignorant & misinformed people in its articles. This article is written for a general audience that has literacy & enough intelligence to read the article before reaching any conclusions. Wikipedia deals with a lot of complex topics and if it really needs clarification, then we have articles like Introduction to evolution or Introduction to Quantum mechanics that explain these concepts in a more elementary way. What you're saying is that this subject is too complicated for the average lay person. If that really were the case, then that necessitates one of those "Introduction to..." articles, and not to dumb down this article for the sake of people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter to such a great extent that they don't understand that a UN peacekeeping force is not actually taking sides in this conflict (as the hatnote literally explains in one sentence!). So in other words, you want this article to cater to people who are not only ignorant of the political dynamics of the Middle East and the world order, but also are so absentminded as to not bother looking at the hatnotes or the rest of the article. That's not a sustainable view. And definitely not a view that this article should cater to. JasonMacker (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If someone is unfamiliar with the format of the infobox, then they should learn it." - This is not how it works. We are responsible to design it intuitively. And your further arguments also don't consider the basic idea of an infobox: An infobox should give a fast and brief overview of the topic. Of cource, an infobox never can replace reading the article. But by reading the infobox one should be able to comprehend the basic facts correctly.
And that is the problem in this case: The current formats is capable of being misunderstood. It even can lead to misinformation. This is not the right way.
I can fully understand that in your mind the current design totally makes sense, because you designed it. But please look at the infobox and try to put yourself in the mind of someone other. E. g. in the "Belligerents" part, below "Hezbollah" there stands "allies:". And in the next two lines there stands "Lebanon" and "UNIFIL". Of course, there are thoese lines and of course right to "allies:" there stands "[show]". But even though, the format is confusing and it implies, that Lebanon and UNIFIL would be allies of the Hezbollah. Furthermore, in the "Commanders and leaders" part it seems that all those commanders from France, Spain, Germany and so on would be on the same side as the Hezbollah. Yes, there are these horizontal lines. But it is not intuitively understandable that all those persons do not belong to the same team. And this also applies to the other parts of the infobox.
In the current form the infobox is very confusing and could even spread misinformation. We cannot leave it like this and if you don't want to improve the infobox then I will do. I am sure there could be a solution to make it clearer without bringing back a 3rd or 4th column. Chaddy (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is currently attacking three different groups in Lebanon: Hezbollah, LAF, and UNIFIL. This is what the article describes. But, these three groups are not in an alliance, so we use the horizontal separators to indicate this. Using your logic, using the horizontal separator is never justified in infoboxes. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Horizontal dividers are used in a lot of different infoboxes. See First Congo War, and how, like this article, it uses the horizontal separator, and even includes a hatnote explaining the situation. You can also see horizontal dividers being used in Insurgency in the North Caucasus. In addition, we can consider articles such as War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2021), whose infobox is much more complicated. As far as infoboxes go, this conflict is fairly simple, because there are really only 4 different groups. You might think that it's "confusing" that LAF and UNIFIL are placed on the same "side" as Hezbollah, but the reality is that what those three groups have in common is that all three have been targeted by Israel, and those three groups aren't fighting each other. And again, I reiterate, the hatnotes explain both LAF and UNIFIL. Why are you ignoring that?
You tell me, what is your alternative here? What should we do? To remove LAF and UNIFIL from the infobox entirely would be to minimize the repeated, consistent attacks against them by Israel. JasonMacker (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, thanks to whoever changed this. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, this looks much worse now. Now we state, that UNIFIL would be an ally of the Hezbollah and that Israel would fight e. g. against a German admiral. This is ridiculous. We cannot leave it like this. Chaddy (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think UNIFIL should be moved to a third column. Hezbollah and Lebanon should remain in the same column, for a variety of reasons, one of them being that Lebanon counts deaths of Hezbollah members among total Lebanese deaths. And many Hezbollah-affiliated institutions, like hospitals, also have significant non-Hezbollah Lebanese presence.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as I argued more than a month ago, several sources have written that an "International Armed Conflict" (IAC) exists between Lebanon and Israel, even before the invasion. "IAC" is a specific term in international law that has implications on how parties must behave, and is contrasted from "NIAC" (Non-International Armed Conflict). None of these sources deny that a NIAC exists between Israel and Hezbollah, but argue an IAC also exists between Israel and Lebanon.[1][2][3] Hence, Lebanon should be listed in the infobox.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Said, Mohamed El-Sayed (18 September 2024). "Lebanon: Massive cyberattack risks further plunging region into war". Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS).
  2. ^ "Military occupation of Palestine by Israel | Rulac". www.rulac.org. an international armed conflict exists between Israel and Lebanon.
  3. ^ Badreddine, Hussein (18 September 2024). "Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon: A Tripartite Conflict?". Opinio Juris.

NPOV: Opening paragraph doesn't mention the 11 months long Hezbollah campaign against Israel which started on October 8th, 2023

[edit]

The opening paragraph reads as if Israel invaded Lebanon completely unprovoked and shows a POV that is definitely not neutral. 2A0D:6FC7:214:2D49:9119:2364:3597:3DB9 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is "On 1 October 2024, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon in an escalation of the ongoing Israel–Hezbollah conflict, a spillover of the Israel–Hamas war."
It literally mentions spillover of the Israel-Hamas war. JasonMacker (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the following paragraph is:
"It followed a series of major attacks on Hezbollah in September that degraded its capabilities and devastated its leadership, beginning with the explosions of its communication devices. This was followed by a massive Israeli aerial bombing campaign throughout Lebanon, killing over 800 Lebanese people in one week. On 27 September, Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike.".
According to the logic you are presenting, should this paragraph be deleted as it can be included in "spillover of the Israel - Hamas war"?
Fact of the matter is that someone who isn't educated on the subject reading the opening paragraph will easily think that the invasion was unprovoked. This is blatantly biased. Not to mention that the Hezbollah rocket attacks of Israel haven't just started on October 8th, 2023, they've been going throughout the whole timeline from that day until today. 80.178.255.158 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You falsely claimed that the opening paragraph doesn't mention the fact that this invasion is directly related to spillover from Hamas's October 7 attack. Instead of whining about bias, make an actual suggestion about what you want changed. Are you saying that the Israeli justification for the invasion should be given more weight? And then you randomly say that a paragraph in a different section of the article should be deleted "according to the logic you are presenting." What "logic" did I even present? I made a factual statement regarding what is included in this article's introductory paragraph. Make a suggestion about what specifically you want changed. JasonMacker (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very experienced(so you probably shouldn't listen to me), but to be fair the article is on the invasion, so it focuses on that. If I'm not mistaken it is fairly common for pages about battles on Wikipedia to have a Prelude section or something similar, and while this is larger than a battle, it does have a background section. In a similar vein though I do think that the background section gives very little detail about the events leading up to the invasion. Mlayap (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems a bit much

[edit]

To be doing a daily blow-by-blow account of every single thing that happens. I would suggest as time passes that these myriad subsections be merged into broader descriptions of trends this way and that in the war. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

[edit]

Change "2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" to "Israel Hezbollah war" why becasue you know exactly why. This is not an invasion its a war. Don't ruin Wikipedia, you know exactly what is going on here, just fix it. Bklausner (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such a change would require consensus. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) article. This article is focused specifically on Israel's invasion of Lebanon. JasonMacker (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel's method's" is baseless

[edit]

"Israel's methods were met with criticism in Israel [emph. mine], with Israeli media complaining that 50,000 Israeli soldiers were unable to take a single village and have gotten bogged down against Hezbollah, failing to make any gains." It is factually incorrect that people inside israel believe the IDF had failed take any village (and also factually incorrect that it hadn't). The citation supporting the claim is not an from an Israeli media outlet, but a foreign one (El Pais), written from Beirut. The cited source claims it was written in Yedioth Ahronot, but does link or give any evidence for that. Google search in either Hebrew or English gives nothing. There are many kinds or criticisms of Israel's war within Israel, but "failing to take any village" is not one of them.

Moreover, even that article does not claim that IDF did not penetrate Lebanon, but claims that the soldiers go back to inside Israel every night (which would be an incredible, nigh impossible, logistic feat...) so thus passage is a misrepresentation of the article, which in turn misrepresents the truth.

The last sentence is "Furthermore, Israeli casualties in October were so high that Israeli radio referred to it as 'Black October'" - this is true, but not an analysis or a criticism of any kind. elazarg (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah casualties

[edit]

The 521 casualties for hezbollah is since October 8 2023 this article is since the invasion begin in early oct, if your gonna put the casualties since oct 8 2023 then you have to add the 30 other soldiers idf acknowledgd since oct 8 2023 2601:403:4200:D4D0:B527:9B13:333A:3622 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue(?)

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia but I fail to see how the inclusion of an Al-Jazeera article as a source for using the extremely weighed wording in "Although UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force and is not actively engaged in hostilities, its positions have been targeted and its peacekeepers have suffered casualties." when the same reference only uses the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media as a source. The vague implication from the UN that Israel may have targeted caterpillar lines near the Lebanese border is not at all enough of a confirmation to simply place an objective statement that Israel committed a war crime in this supposedly neutral medium of information i.e by stating Israel targeted UN peacekeeping installations in Southern Lebanon. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL itself has stated multiple times that its positions have been targeted. This has also been reported on by secondary sources. Just look at the rest of the references in the article:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do you want all of these references in the infobox? I choose that Al Jazeera reference for the infobox because the title very clearly says that Israel targeted UNIFIL, but also has statements from the UNIFIL, the Israeli military, the Lebanese government, Hezbollah, the UN Secretary General, the Russian government, Human Rights Watch, the Chinese government, and several other governments. I don't know how you're claiming that the Al Jazeera article only cites the Lebanese government and its state-affiliated media. The article has statements from a wide variety of sources, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only giving one side of the story, I don't know what your expectation of a "neutral medium" is, but WP:NPOV doesn't say we're not allowed to report that Reliable Sources have said that Israel has committed war crimes. JasonMacker (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do you want all of these references in the infobox? I choose that Al Jazeera reference for the infobox because the title very clearly says that Israel targeted UNIFIL"
All 6 references lack a definitive statement that Israel targeted UNIFIL -- the only reason why Al-Jazeera is the sole organization that actually used the weighted term "targeted" is because of it's notorious conflict of interest on topics revolving around Israel.
"The article has statements from a wide variety of sources, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only giving one side of the story"
The article only has statements from the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media, which is not a reliable source on UNIFIL casualties to any degree -- that's not it's jurisdiction and Israel which has published directly contradicting claims is essentially as credible as the government of Lebanon. The UN itself is cited in the article but as is common with the UN they have avoided making a definitive statement on accusations of war crimes and Al-Jazeera does not cite a deliberate statement from them -- Al-Jazeera is using an unreliable source i.e. the anti-Israeli Lebanese government to make the objective claim.
WP:NEWSORG clearly states that individual articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis and although I disagree with the idea that Al-Jazeera is a "reliable source" for this topic, even if it was it'd have to come under scrutiny for individual articles and this only is clearly not reliable.
Overall, using "targeting" specifically implies that Israel is executing premeditated attacks on UN positions when the UN has not stated this is the case and the only reliable source you have to substantiate this are those that are themselves referencing the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media, which inherently should make this article unreliable. I suggest changing all references to "target", "targeted" and "targeting" to neutral terms such as "fired at", "assaulted" or "attacked" that indicate the reality of the scope of evidence thus far on alleged war crimes committed by Israel and Hezbollah against UNIFIL as the premeditation implicit in "targeting" is simply extrapolated and assumed to be true for whatever personal reason you may have to frame Israel as an evil state. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL as a belligerent

[edit]

They are an observer force, UNIFIL has not been involved in any direct clashes with either Israel or Hezbollah. If they are going to be listed in the factbox, it should be as a 3rd category, to reflect their supposedly neutral status in the hostilities. Unless Wikipedia agrees that UNIFIL is tacitly supporting Hezbollah? 31.154.220.95 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Lebanese army are hardly belligerents in the conflict except for a few rogue members associated with Hezbollah and other armed groups, and have played a neutral role (withdrawing from their positions to avoid confrontations with the IDF) 31.154.220.95 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is attacking them (UNIFIL and LAF). As the article points out, Israel has targeted UNIFIL bases. They have suffered casualties. They are a military force involved in this conflict. Yes, They are primarily observers and are not engaging in offensive action, as the hatnote states. But even engaging in defensive actions is enough to qualify them as a participant. It's a similar situation with the LAF, except there have been multiple deaths in the LAF as a result of Israeli attacks, and the LAF has returned fire on Israeli forces in at least one instance. That's why they're in the infobox. Importantly, here's what the requirements for a 3rd category are, as listed on the conflict infobox page:
The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles.
That's the issue here. Neither LAF and UNIFIL are on a distinct third "side". That's why I don't think it's right to list them as a combatant3 (or 4). JasonMacker (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon&oldid=1258719369"