This page is a topical archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the topic:
"Israel in the infobox".
In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page page.
If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there.
Adding Israel as a supporter of the Free Syrian Army in the Belligerents Box
I know Israel hasn't openly stated it supports the Free Syrian Army, but there are sources of their alleged involvement. Hezbollah and Iran deny being in Syria and yet they're still included in the Belligerents Box. So as to not keep this article politically-motivated, as long as we are including ALL possible allegations, Israel will go up. Unless Hezbollah and Iran are kept out of the box.
We are not including ALL allegations. Hezbollah and Iran have been PROVEN by Reliable sources. It has to have a legitimate reliable source AND A GOOD REASON. Sopher99 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's undeniable that most of Israel supporters the Free Syrian Army. There have been videos of Israeli ministers telling counterparts that they support the army, or persuading them to support the army. There are Israeli rights groups assisting refugees in Jordan. But there isn't any indication of actual governmental support that is other than official statements and condemnations. The infobox as established requires more than just statements or sentiments among citizens.
Karim, please don't post this without first discussing it.
(Btw, if we end up agreeing to put them in the box, a lot of members of the FSA who see this article are going to drop out. --JethroB01:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"members who see this article". You do realize that only 3k people visit this article a day right? And only occasionally does it come from Syria. A FSA member with a computer? What is there like 10 FSA's with computers in all? And one that can speak English? Sopher99 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"10 FSA members with computers"? Not after all the "communications equipment" pumped into Turkey by the US, remember. Now they can all snugly masturbate in Turkey via Skype while watched by their al-Arabiya hostesses of choice. Anyway, not much evidence for Israel being directly involved, though there was a video from some former Mossad or IDF guy who gave his support to the "Syrian people". And opposition people (even the notoriou Sheikh Arour) have pleaded for Israeli help themelves, so I doubt Jethro's sentiments. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, back to work, boys. So again, Israel isn't directly involved, fro all available evidence. Pro-Zionist groups are pushing for America to take a stronger stance against Syria to weaken Iran, but the Israelis don't want to get into the mess themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Qatar is supporting the FSA to strengthen Israel and investing in Hamas in Gaza to weaken Israel and doing natural gas investment with America to weaken Opec and selling its stock to Opec to weaken the American economy and investing in the American doller in a conspiracy to strengthen the American Economy. Sopher99 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, FunkMonk, I heard something about a sale on tin foil at Wegmans. If you run, you might catch it. In all seriousness, though, as an American, I can tell you two things: 1) Mitt Romney is not likely to be elected president next week, and 2) there is just no appetite here for military operations against Syria, and very little sentiment at all that it has much to do with Israel. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Funky. I am liberal and all for rights for LGBT community, weed, free alcohol and stuff. But I really think that social courtesy dictates that no one wants to hear that you watch videos of guys masturbating. Keep this stuff of the wikipedia talkpage and preferably to yourself. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow this is absurd. Guys, this isn't a forum. See WP:SOAP. I'd respond to some of the absurd ridiculous claims here, but this jsut isn't a forum to talk about masturbing soldiers or conspiracy theories about pro-Zionist groups (how can you be pro-Zionist? You're Zionist or you're not!). Let's focus on the article and use reliable referneces whenever we discuss something, and get back on topic. --JethroB02:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess Mitt Romney is a Zionist then. Anyway, as I said already, Israel is not supporting directly, so shouldn't beinthe box. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel CANNOT be inside the infobox because it has no clear position whether they supports the FSA or the army. While at the beginning they said they want the downfall of the Assad regime, but so far they were silent about the conflict. So no. Myronbeg (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Dude! What did I say above. This isn't a forum. If you're going to make a claim that's actually relevant to the article, make sure you can back it up with reliable references. If it's not relevant, then there's no reason to push it. --JethroB04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know about that. Still there's no direct evidence about the Jewish state of Israel's involvement in the conflict, whether they have pro-Zionist ideology or whatever. This is like saying if there was a neo-Nazi group in Greece attacks the immigrants, then Germany is involved in those attacks. In fact, if you really want to notice, Israel is scared recently about the rise of bogeyman jihadist attempting to takeover those chemical weapons should if the regime falls. So if they are so scared, why would they want to back those FSA jihadist groups in the first place? Myronbeg (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of any number of reasons, among them humanitarian reasons, the fact it's Assad & Hezbollah they're concerned with regarding chemical weapons and not the rebels, and a great way to forge a relationship with an Arab country if they think Assad will fall. Whether any of this outweighs the risk of a jihadist taking over or someone who hates Israel even more than Assad (the front with Syria has been quiet for 30 years), I don't know. All I know is we don't have any evidence to put them in the infobox, on matter the pros or cons, or public sentiment. --JethroB04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because these jihadists are controlled by Saudi Arabia, who is an indirect ally of Israel's through the USA. They have similar regional interests. That's why there exist groups like Al-Qaeda who preach violence against Israel yet in reality have never so much as thrown a pebble at Israel.Karim226 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Karim226[reply]
That was the Israeli claim, according to their media. To them, they fear someone worst (understood to be jihadists) will come into power should if Assad falls, even though the current regime were enemies of Israel. And speaking about the Assad and Hezbollah alliance and dependencies, I keep hearing that Hezbollah will be "weaken" should if Assad falls, as if Hezbollah really needs to depends on the Syrian regime. This now comes to the relationship, do you know that there was a time when the Syrian army and the Hezbollah militants actually fought against each other during 1987 in West Beirut? During that time, the Syrian regime re-entered the city and it inaugurated its entry with a massacre of Hezbollah fighters in the Fathallah barracks.
So I would say their relationship with the Syrian regime is somewhat similar to the Saudi-Qatari friendship: Most of the times good friends in public, but bad enemies in their inside propaganda sites. Hezbollah, contrary to the popular belief, already prepared for the collapse of the Syrian regime. That was their Plan B.
PS: My reponse were referring to the second last post by user Jethro B's about jihadist and Assad/Hezbollah alliance, not the current ones. Myronbeg (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right again, I'm going to request we just stay on topic, and not talk about what we as individuals keep hearing and our own opinions. Looks like there's unanimous consensus, except for Karim, against putting this in the infobox, so I think this can be considered resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethro B (talk • contribs)
I wonder what would happen if there was some sort of border incident involving Israel, and either the Syrian Armyor FSA (like we saw with Jordan). Where would that put Israel in the box? FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to see that different forces like the United States, Al Qaeda, Israel , Turkey, Saudi Arabia are all engaged in one direct goal, destroying the Syrian governement.--Marjonesto (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its also interesting to see different forces like Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, the Al Mahdi army are all engaged in one direct goal, killing the Syrian people. Sopher99 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Or rather, fighting rabid Salafists that will threaten the entire world if they get hold of Syria. I look forward to 9/11 #2 when I can say "told you so". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Low-scale border clashes does not make countries combatants unless they engage themselves in war against Syria, which neither Turkey nor Israel has done so far. As for SA and Qatar, none of these countries has sent troops and should thus be removed. Same goes for Iraqi Kurdistan and propably also the PFLP unless direct involvement can be proved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there is quite a bit of precedent for including countries that support one side or another. Unless you have an extremely good reason why, in this case, we shouldn't include them, I don't see them being removed at all. Jeancey (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we remove them. With the important exceptions of Iran, Hezbollah and the Mujahideen, this is an internal conflict in Syria and not a regional war as of November 2012. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Germany and Italy participated directly, and so did the foreign volunteers. Not sure about Portugal, but the USSR and Mexico should definitely be removed.
That's a whole different case. The Soviets provided pilots and advisors, and the Germans and the Italians sent their respective air forces and troops. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that Iraqi Kurdistan can be removed (not any active part so far), but PFLP-GC did take an active part in Yarmouk fighting on the side of the Syrian Army - a dozen activists of PFLP-GC were killed over past two weeks (probably hundreds took part).Greyshark09 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Angolan civil war, Soviet Union wasn't just delivering weapons but sent intelligence officers, dozens of which got killed through the conflict - it was a significant deployment of logistics and troops not simply "weapon sales".Greyshark09 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Futuretrillionaire, you can't drag in other articles and expect that to be an argument. We should remove Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia from the infobox and stick to the realities and the facts, which is that none of these countries or autonomous regions have intervened with their respective armed forces. That, or let the infobox remain extremely misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrobølgeovn and Greyshark09, there was a heated discussion on this issue a few months ago, which also included an administrator I think, and a fine consensus among a majority was made to list all of the supporters, not directly engaged, on the supporters lists, but to leave Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the infobox because their open supplying of weapons and logistics to the rebels has been notable enough to warrant them staying in the infobox. Since than Turkey has also now engaged in direct conflict of sorts on an enough notable and major scale. There are multiple precendents on Wikipedia for listing supporters, this has also been discussed in those previous discussions. Read the previous discussions first please. The infobox is not a mess at all. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel joins
So Israel has now killed several Syrian soldiers and workers. That makes Israel a belligerent, no? Surely, if Iran and Hezbollah are listed though the exact nature of their actions is unclear, Israel should be too, as we know exactly who they've killed and how many. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, they've made several attacks just today, one on a Syrian army convoy, and another on a research facility. Plus the Golan attack a while back.[5] Expect it to continue. They've already killed half as many pro-regime Syrians as the Kurds have, yet the Kurds are listed among the "rebels". As for Sopher's argument that they're not "part of the civil war", see the infobox of Lebanese Civil War. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iran sent troops to Syria. Israel just launched a few strikes due to minor border clashes Hezbollah, events mostly unrelated to the core aspects of the civil war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight in its highest degree. One strike doesn't do anything. Turkey fired mortars into Syria and killed 12 troops but it didn't escalate beyond that. So we don't put Turkey as a belligerent. Iran has thousands of troops on the ground for over a year, about 500 of which died, and 48 of which were captured at one point. Big difference. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iran stuff is not "mere rumors". Its confirmed by everyone but the "axis of resistance" members themselves. And so what about "Three" . Turkey did over 5. Doesn't mean Turkey is a belligerent. Syrian troops shot a killed a Jordanian soldier on the border three months ago, doesn't mean we put Jordan in. Sopher99 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
based on "eyewitnesses" in Beirut and other heavily biased characters. And why am I not surprised the both of you show up at the same time? When are Lhaseral and Sayerselle joining the party? And yes, Turkey is a belligerent too. They're doing more than any other outside faction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually just about to add the LCC reported death toll to the timeline, and before doing so I always check botht the timeline's and the Syrian civil war's page history, to make sure its not being sabotaged. Hezbollah, iranians, al nusra, libyans and sadrs armies are the top 5 outside forces in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this evening's news, Israel was taking pre-emptive action to keep armaments from getting into the hands of their enemies in Lebanon and Palestine. There was no indicationg that they're interested in joining the war against Assad. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel really has no affinity with either side in the conflict—Assad is an old (though largely rhetorical) foe, while the presence of groups like Nusra makes the opposition repulsive. The rebels—even the secular ones—are hardly pro-Zionist either. During the border incidents in the Golan, both sides tried to frame Israel's responses as being in support of the other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel would never attack the insurgents. They're betting on the insurgents to weaken the Syrian army, so of course they have a stake in this. They're cosy with Mursi, so repulsive ideology is not a problem, as long as the extremists are obedient. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mubarak was a lame, toothless lapdog, and they're desperate to ensure that Egypt doesn't become a hostile neighbour again. Bashar talk(ed/s) a tough talk, but he was actually in some hush-hush talks with Israel about returning the illegally occupied parts of Quneitra to Syria prior to this war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So.. do we add Israel to the rebel column? Separated, of course, and with a clarification ("limited involvement" or "air strikes"). As accurate as that may be in terms of depicting the conflict, I can imagine folks inclined towards the SNC would not like it one bit. -- Director(talk)02:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of speculative. Common sense would dictate that the SNC would certainly condemn Israel's intervention, out of necessity, regardless of whether Isreal acted in their support or not (Arabs and Israelis being on such great terms and all). Even if the rebels were not, in addition, a mostly Islamist faction. What else can they possibly say?
In fact, that statement just looks like plain (war) propaganda. Neither the rebels nor the government are in any kind of position to actually retaliate against Israel. Even were it not in a civil war, Syria's ability to "retaliate" against Israel would be highly questionable. As things are, the very idea is laughable, and would constitute military and political suicide.
The statement is just a clever propaganda twist ("never mind Israel helping us, see how Assad is powerless against the Jews!"). All it shows is that the rebels are publicly "opposed" to Israel's actions, i.e. it shows they're not allies - and that's what the dividing line is there for. The statement has no bearing on the question of whether or not they really are enjoying some support from the Israelis (who happen to be bombing their enemies..).
Its not as simple as that. Netanyahu doesn't care about whether assad stays or goes, and is instead scared of jihadists. Ehud Barak (defense minister) though has stated he would like to see foreign intervention in Syria. Obama and Clinton repeatedly say intervention is last resort and instead repeatedly "try to convince" Russia out of their positions. However neither Obama or Clinton are Anti-Assad die hards, and chuck hagel who may become defense secratary, is certainly the most reserved on the Syrian issue. Cameron and Erdogan explicitly hate Assad, and Hollande would be sending troops strait into Syria to support the rebels had he been in Obama's position. Sopher99 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assad liked to play the tough guy when it came to Israel, but it's abundantly clear that he was very much the "bitch" in that relationship—and a stable and predictable bitch at that. He had even been negotiating with Netanyahu in 2010 to work on the Golan situation prior to the Arab Spring. Syrian Druze in occupied Quneitra had been allowed to conduct business across the border thanks to mutual agreements between the two "foes".
Yes, it's propaganda—but so what? Assad's no stranger to that game himself, particularly when it comes to Israel.
The strikes weren't really in support of any rebel actions. Far as I know, the western suburbs of Damascus have been comparatively quiet, and a military research centre is likely not a high-value target for the rebels. The surrounding countryside is plastered with bases with more defensive capability—and fatter weapons caches. Neither a Lebanon-bound shipment of weapons, unless of course Hezbollah was planning to come back into Syria with them.
More and more these days, Israel is acting in its own self-interest with little care of what the rest of the world—including its allies—thinks, and this looks to be just another instance of that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sopher99, its just that simple. The US and Israel are one and the same thing as far as Middle East policy is concerned. If the US supports the SNC, you can bet Israel does too - either way they would need be quiet about it for very obvious reasons. Another clue would be Putin and Iran's support for Assad. I must also note that Israel at this point has little or nothing to be "scared" of. Quite the contrary, Islamic countries should be "scared" of Israel (and I don't doubt the governments are). The latter apparently has the ability and allowance to attack them at will, and with a military incomparably superior to all its neighbors put together.. To put it in above terms, everyone in the region down there is Israel's "bitch", not because they want to be - but because they really have no choice at all.
All Syrian factions would no doubt enjoy "sticking it" to Israel, but what it boils down to is military and financial support. The "Jihadists", so to speak, do not even enjoy what little support Russia and Iran are able to provide. Empty ideologizing aside, they are likely to be even more accommodating "bitches".
@Lothar. I'm not passing judgement, I'm just saying that the link doesn't really show anything. It only reinforces the already-known fact that the SNC and Israel are not publicly aligned. It does not mean that the SNC is or isn't actually enjoying Israeli support (WP:OR) - and mind you, I'm not proposing the infobox discuss the subject at all: a combatant divided by a line is not depicted as aligned with the above. All that shows is that Israel has engaged the other side (+ "limited involvement"/"air strikes").
I would not presume to speculate on such fine strategic details. Who really knows at this time what exactly was attacked and why.
Since the US foreign policy in the Middle East is to act in accordance with Israel's interests (as has actually been stated), I can hardly imagine how Israel could possibly deviate to "look after its own interests". Occam's razor suggests that the US has simply continued to act in accordance with Israeli interests, while Israel maintains a public façade of neutrality out of plain necessity (due to the obvious undesirable effect their open support would have). Even so, it appears they cannot keep themselves entirely from striking indirectly at Iran now and again. -- Director(talk)04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is all speculation and can never be entirely confirmed or reach consensus, clearly the Israeli attacks are related to the Civil War. The Turkish situation is explored in the article and below the main section of the infobox, as are the firefights with Jordanian forces, whose casualties are listed seperately. Therefore we should all be able to come to agreement that the Israeli interventions in Syria should be explained in detail either on the main page or an adjoining article and a thumbnail should be added on the infobox informing readers that: "Syrian and Israeli forces have come into conflict numerous times and several engagements and arial attacks have been carried out since the war began"; or something along those lines,along with a link. All this "Are Israel backing the rebels?, aren't Israel backing rebels?" is intriguing, but would be best left to newspaper opinion pages and not the Wiki. -MrDjango (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough; It is not an international reaction, it is a military attack. The correct location is in the infobox just like every other military engagement in this war. -MrDjango (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should make a note, underneath the Kurdish note, that says "for international incidents (Jordan, Turkey, lebanon, israel) see" ect. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@"The infobox is suppose to present the main events of the war." Where does it say that? How is, say, support from Qatar a "main event of this war"?
Fellas, Israel has engaged in this conflict more than most countries mentioned in the infobox - with actual military force. I did not and do not propose we speculate whether Israel supports the rebels or not, but we must depict the state of affairs neutrally. The only way to that is to include Israel in the right-hand column. The entry should of course be separated from the rebels, indicating no affiliation whatsoever, and with a note along lines of "air strikes" or "limited involvement". All such a representation would indicate is that Israel has engaged Assad forces with air strikes (or in a "limited" way, depending on the exact note).
From where I stand, reading the sources, there's no question Israel should be entered in the infobox in a standard manner. The only issue that I can perceive is the exact nature of the accompanying clarification alongside said entry. -- Director(talk)01:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely 100% not. This is a civil war. 2 soldiers killed means absolutely nothing. Turkey killed 12 soldiers, and Syria SHOT DOWN a Turkish plane Yet Turkey is NOT a belligerant. This is a civil war. Israel is not a belligerent in any shape way or form, as neither side have declared war on eachother.Sopher99 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1 military strike doesn't make Israel a belligerent. Neither does two or three or four or five. Only Active fighting between both sides. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And even if there was active fighting on both sides we still would not put Israel in the infobox, because it would be an international war and not part of the Syrian civil war. In the same way Russia's assault on Germany during world war 1 was not part of the Russian civil war despite both happened concurrently. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing we include Israel as a full belligerent, I'm proposing we include it exactly as Turkey (but separated and with a note, like I said). And its not "1 raid", I propose you read-up on that.
As for the rest, as I said in my initial post [7], I fully expected an emotional response like that from folks inclined towards the SNC, as having Israel up there looks very bad. I'm sure you have a whole host of excuses why Israel should "NEVER EVER EVER" be included, but empty talk and strong phrases will not make Israel's military involvement in this conflict any less real and significant. And personally, I believe partisan POV already steers the course of this article to an unacceptable level. Let us all recall that it is only aggressive edit-warring that keeps the Kurdish faction depicted the way it is, supposedly not in conflict with the SNC as well as Assad (which is, of course, contrary to the facts). I myself backed away then; I'm not going to do it now without bringing such POV-pushing up for review by the community.
Generally speaking, its not up to you to decide what the bounds of this conflict are, nor whether there should be an additional article if other nations actively join a civil war [8]. Its the sources that define the scope of this article, and the common term they use is the term we refer to it by (whether that be "civil war" or anything else). -- Director(talk)02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East politics and international relations at the LSE, has said: "Assad will certainly try to milk the attack – it allows him to present himself as a defender of the nation ."
What happened anyhow? Syrian state claims that the strike hit the Jamraya military research facility near Damascus, killing two people. "This version has been questioned, particularly as state television has not shown footage of damage to the site." Western sources claim the convoy was attacked en route to Lebanon, implying the weapons were intended for Hezbollah"Sayerslle (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yah, both sides' propaganda will certainly try to milk the attack. As we've seen above, the rebels are depicting it as an example of Assad's weakness against Israel, whereas the government is no doubt trying to make himself look like the "defender" against Israel. So far that I've seen, all sources pretty much agree Israel has been hitting Assad. As for whether or not the attacked government convoy was "headed for Lebanon", what does that matter? Is Syria not allowed to have convoys headed for Lebanon on its sovereign territory? -- Director(talk)08:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Israeli strikes are not directly connected to the civil war - these are ostensibly to prevent missiles from reaching their adversaries Hizbollah to protect Israel. While no friend of the Assad regime, these strikes seem to be aimed at stopping terrorism, from what news reports I've read. I consider this unrelated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to respond to that. Israel bombing one side in a civil war isn't related to the civil war? Its completely irrelevant what exactly the Israelis (say they) were bombing and why. An attack, even if completely justified - is no less an attack. The above's just a non-sequitur. And I kinda think I ought to be appalled at the implication that one country arbitrarily bombing another, while at peace(!), somehow doesn't matter because it "seems to be aimed at stopping terrorism". -- Director(talk)14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't bomb "one side" - they hit a truck convoy. Surgical strike, so far not followed up with others. On another note - I'm glad your long ban is over, but you are getting into serious FORUM territory here on this talk page with throwing in personal views instead of staying on-topic - "appalled" "sovereign rights" and so on - the question under consideration is if Israel is a combatant or not. Let's correct that, please? I think you bring good things to the table, generally, especially on Balkan issues - but this stuff can easily be piled on by those who would like to see you out again. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The attack adds a potentially flammable new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.
It was the latest salvo in Israel's long-running effort to disrupt the Shiite militia's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force and spreading destruction inside the Jewish state." that seems to be the general tone of RS reports. partisan pro Syrian regime sources want to portray it as 'proof' Israel is behind the elements against ASsad -or summat - that is a partisan pov and to let it hijack the article would be a mistake imo.Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say that everything that happens within the borders of Syria is a significant event in Syria, and that its up to other users to prove that it isn't.
The rules are the opposite. You have to "prove" that an event is significant enough to put here. Usually through the source. We already determined that the Turkish shelling and downing of a plane does not qualify them as belligerents. When syrian soldiers shot and killed a Jordanian soldier, that did not qualify them as belligerent in the war. Over a dozen people in Lebanon thus far have been killed by the Syrian army's shelling. Doesn't mean Lebanon is a belligerent. Active fighting between both sides is what qualifies belligerents. The civil war page is about the civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@"You can't just say that everything that happens within the borders of Syria is a significant event in Syria, and that its up to other users to prove that it isn't." - and that has been done, in excess. I suppose you're the one who's subjective criteria of "significance" we must satisfy? No dice. As you yourself said, Turkey's involvement is similar to that of Israel, and therefore warrants inclusion along similar lines. Not as a full belligerent, of course, kindly stop using that straw man - but as a peripheral participant. Similar perhaps to Turkey.
If Jordan and the Lebanon started bombing Syria, we'd have to include them too, yes.
And yes, non-native participants are also relevant for inclusion in a civil war [9][10]. In addition, to repeat what I said above: its not up to you to decide what the bounds of this conflict are. The name of this conflict, and what arbitrary "decisions" you declare from said name, are not what defines the scope. The scope is defined by the sources.
@Sayerslle. That Israel and the US have a common policy in the Middle East is a matter of public record, and so is intense hostility between Israel and Assad's ally, Iran - but my comments on that subject were just personal opinions, which I would not in my wildest dreams suggest be included in the article. The point here is that Israel is bombing the Assad faction in the ongoing civil war (and not just some convoys either), and that this fact should be properly represented in a neutral infobox.
The question of Israel's intentions and purpose, declared or actual, is irrelevant and is not the subject of discussion here. It is completely absurd to say "they're engaging Assad for completely different reasons than the SNC, and therefore they're not really engaging Assad". The Kurds are basically fighting for Kurdistan, autonomy, and secession, and could not care less whether Assad stays or goes in what remains of Syria.. does that mean they're not part of this war either? -- Director(talk)16:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying RS seem to be saying something like its a 'new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.' that is different to what you seem to want to do which is kind of wanting to see Israel listed as part of the anti-Assad faction in the Civil War - imo that is not what the RS are saying. so, looking at the title of this thread , funkmonk says 'israel joins' - RS say 'Israel (worries) add new element to tensions heightened by Syrias civil war' Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, calling the right-hand column the "anti-Assad faction" isn't really accurate. In the military conflict infobox, placement in opposing columns only indicates that these participants have engaged each-other. I think the fact that the Kurds are listed in the right-hand column should illustrate vividly that this is not a "faction" that we have there. In fact, individual factions in a column are usually delineated by means of a horizontal line. What we'd have, is Israel depicted as an independent element in the conflict, a faction of its own. All the proposed entry would indicate is "Israel; engaging Assad; with air strikes". -- Director(talk)18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets make a separate info box, and put it in the international reactions section. It would be titled border incidents, and it would include brief info about the Turkish, Jordanian, Israeli, and Lebanon border strikes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never saw anything like that.. sounds manufactured. (+ So far as I know, Lebanon and Jordan have not been identified by anyone as participants in this conflict. The existing Assad/SNC conflict has "spilled-over" a couple times, briefly, onto the territory of those two conutries - but that does not mean those countries are actual participants as such. To suggest something like that would imo be very misleading.) -- Director(talk)21:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is jonathan steele , who i believe is himself pretty pro-Assad - about the incident he states - "It was related to Israel's long war with Hezbollah in Lebanon rather than any desire to intervene in the fighting in Syria." imo this is really the conventional wisdom as it stands in english language RS. if you think israel is a participant in the civil war that is up to you , but RS sources in english dont portray it how you want imo Sayerslle (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the whole international reactions need an overhall in any case: Last time I checked China wasn't included, Russia's fierce criticism of the opposition wasn't included, the Non Alligned Summit statements were not included, Syrias allies in Latin America were not included. The whole section is biased and non NPOV as it is. Funny how the current layout of the infobox has been acceptable for months upon months, but as soon as Israel is involved, certain editors here seem to get very, very upset. If it's good enough for the Turkey, Jordan conflicts, it's good enough for the Israeli attacks, there is NO difference. -MrDjango (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact this is a civil war? Anyway, those sections are Summaries. This is a 207,000 byte page. The appropriate limit is 200,000. If anything we must cut down on expanding the article. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then divide the page into more articles, I'm more interested in getting as much factual info on the wiki as possible, than in your silly bytes ;). The infobox should contain a summary of the military interventions by Israel, just as it does the engagements by Jordan and Turkey, any military interloper must be listed on the infobox. MrDjango (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sopher99. WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Do you intend to keep repeating that fallacious "its a civil war" argument? For the fourth time: there are many conflicts referred to as civil wars that also include very substantial and active foreign involvement ([11][12][13][14][15]etc). In fact, probably most civil wars in modern times actually include foreign involvement. This one is no exception - with Turkey vigorously supporting the rebels. And yes, believe it or not, we do still cover them all in one article and generally avoid creating nonsense WP:POVFORKS. We also include the foreign participants in the infobox as well, no matter how peripheral (e.g. Serbia in the Russian Civil War).
And generally speaking: it is not up to you or I to decide what the bounds of this conflict are. The name of this conflict, and what arbitrary "decisions" you declare from said name, are not what defines the scope.
@MrDjango, well of course we're not about to start creating POVFORKS for the sake of Sopher99's taking care of SNC's image :).
@Sayerslle. Another icanthearyou? As I said twice, the pretext for Israeli bombings is entirely irrelevant for this subject. What matters is that they're bombing Assad's faction in this civil war. Whether they're bombing to "fight terrorism", "make the world safe for democracy", "defend themselves", etc. has no bearing on the fact that they are, in fact, bombing Assad. Whether they're bombing Assad to weaken Hezbollah, whether or not their bombing Assad is 100% justified, none of that constitutes a reason to exclude Israel as a peripheral participant in this conflict. -- Director(talk)01:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its not up to you to decide it either. The Scope is not infinity, stop acting like it is. None of those links you gave showed foreign intervention in the form of singular one time airstrike. They all showed countries with foreign troops on the ground. Like Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DIREKTOR -what happened is disputed anyhow - just give some links then to english language RS that say 'Israel is bombing Assad's faction in this civil war' and I'll hear that wont I Sayerslle (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposedly "deciding"? There are cited sources, you know. "Infinity scope?" What? :)
Feel free to include Israel's raids in the international reactions sub-article, but they certainly need to be included here in the main article as well. Even though I doubt military action is what is meant by "international reactions" (never mind though). Not only is it not a "singular one time airstrike" we're talking about here (will you stop repeating those sort of misleading statements?), but the very idea that I'm now supposed to look for some incident of one air strike is just laughable.
This is getting absurd, Sopher. I'm getting tired of picking apart these convoluted "retorts". Its taking far more effort than its worth. I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make much sense at this point, and its reasonably clear you're not about to agree on anything you interpret as depicting the SNC in a negative light. No matter what may be. (Also kindly do not edit my posts by inserting your replies piecemeal.)
And now no doubt come arbitrary, ridiculously high standards for sourcing and demands for exact specific phrases - that basically allow you to dismiss anything. I've played this game before, many times. There is no need for any further sourcing:
Israel has bombed Syrian military targets, i.e. Syrian government targets (Associated Press, e.g.). That is not a disputed point. They did not bomb the rebels, that much is clear, and we need no more as far as the infobox is concerned.
Israel's actions impact the Syrian civil war and are related to this conflict (e.g. "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict — a civil war that has already deepened the region's divides as its powers have taken sides with arms and funding. It also marked a challenge to Iran, which has backed and financed Hezbollah.", Wall Street Journal). That also is not a disputable point.
As a faction that has engaged the Syrian army with military action, Israel needs to be added to the right-hand column in this conflict. As a peripheral participant(!), clearly separated from other factions listed therein. Its that simple. It should be an obvious, routine addition - if it were not for the POV-pushing. -- Director(talk)02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
Israel is not a belligerent. So we can't put it in a belligerent side in particular. What we can do is either
a) create a new infobox at the international reaction section, that would depict the brief Turkish and Israeli conflict.
b) Add Israel as a note form.
In reference to b), scroll down to below the casualties section. You will see a bar that says "2 Turkish Phantom F4 Pilots killed". You will then see a bar below that one that says "1 jordanian soldier killed".
This is the format that is best. We place a third bar down there that reads "2 Syrian soldiers killed by an Isreali strike targeting a weapons convoy being sent to Hezbollah".
As you like to say: absolutely not. Both "a)" and "b)" - are just nonsense. Its a cockamamie subversion of the template layout and the standard entry of participant factions, obviously designed specifically to visually distance the Syrian National Coalition entry from any mention of Israel. You're actually trying to mix casualty entries with factions themselves. Its just POV-pushing bordering on plain old propaganda.
1- Israeli is not a civil war combatant. Active fighting between both sides is what makes up combatants
2- Adding isreal is undue weight. Israel did 1 operation in the entirety of the 21 month conflict. 2 dead soldiers compared to 60,000+ dead civilians and combatants is clear undue weight. If your rebuttal to this is simply "you don't get to decide what is undue weight or part of the conflict" you are pretty much telling me "you don't get to decide what is clearly obvious in both logic and the reliable media".
3- The FSA and Mujihideen identify themselves as direct enemies with Israel. So you can't even remotely put Israel in the same column. rebels and mujihideen are not direct enemies with the Kurds, as they oftne make peace, and the majority of them don't want to be enemies with eachother. Israel its the opposite.
4-The strike is simply not notable enough to be put in the infobox, going back to the undue weight part. The overwhelming majority of RS sources do not identify Israel as a combatant of the civil war.
5- Israel is currently not engaged in war with Syria. If its not engaged in war, its not part of the war.
6- You are the POV pushing one, trying to get a single incident to equal weight with the conflict as a whole. You accuse me of "trying to defend the SNC", but it goes both ways. You can't defend adding blatant "notability violations" by saying "I'm not trying to make it look like their on the same side"
Goodnight. Sopher99 (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1- I could not care less about your definitions of "belligerent" or "active combatant". Israel has participated in this conflict - that's what matters with regard to including it.
2- Adding Israel as one of the main factions would be undue weight, but that is not what is proposed. Clearly, as Qatar is in there, a faction that has engaged here with its military forces more than justifies inclusion. And yes, both Qatar and Israel do. Also, for the fifth time, its not one attack.
3- A horizontal line in combatant columns is usued to indicate non-affiliation. I.e. it is completely irrelevant what the FSA and Mujihideen identify themselves as. But thank you for proving me right with regard to your motivations here.
4- The issue is not about the inclusion of an "air strike", its about including a participant in the conflict. And since obviously anything that shows Israel in close proximity to the SNC wouldn't be "notable" by your personal standards, you'll forgive me if I don't pay them much heed. I'll just keep to the sources.
5- Nonsense. Neither is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, or most of the countries listed in there, actually. Though, as a matter of fact, Israel and Syria are technically at war, and have been since 1967.
6- No comment :). Have you not heard, for example, of Israel and the Syrian military exchanging artillery fire last November?
Few points: A) elements of the rebels (mujahideen) openly fight the Kurds, but they're still thrown in the same column B) Israel shelled the Syrian Golan after munitions were shot into the Israeli occupation zone from Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A) Indeed, and as I recall, that blatant infobox error is also thanks primarily to Sopher. You see, I bet it "looks better" to imply that the Kurds are also somehow aligned with the rebels. Just as it wouldn't look good to have Israel there. I can see a clear pattern, myself. B) Yes, that's what happened if I recall (I amended the statement). But the point isn't who shot first, for our considerations here it suffices to note that the two sides have engaged in combat at that time as well. -- Director(talk)04:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given how Israel is ramping up security in the occupied Golan for the express purpose of defending itself from Islamist rebels, it wouldn't look right to have them in the same column. Makes sense, given how Nusra is basically Hamas 2.0, and will probably turn its sights westwards in the (unlikely) event of Assad's overthrow. Again, I still disagree with your contention that Israel supports any side in the conflict, however tacitly. They'd rather Syria bleed itself out to rid themselves of a hostile neighbour. The airstrike seems more of a "controlled burn" tactic by which Israel at once damages Assad (with whom they were on the road to peace with only just before the uprising broke out) and denies rebel groups (who count among them a large number of characters even more dangerous to Israel than toothless, old Bashar) the chance to get at whatever was struck—which, according to that article, included SAMs, which the rebels would love to get their hands on, but for which the government has no real use at this point in the war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again we're asked to enter into the ethereal plain of wishes and intentions. The link esentially provides quotations of a primary source - which should simply be quoted, not used to extrapolate conclusions (WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"). Primary: "Israel says they're building up for defense against Nusra"; conclusion: "Israel really is defending against Nusra". In other words, what Israel or Assad or whomever claim, must not be taken as fact (when found in primary form). I mean who knows?
The point is that thus far they've only been in conflict with government forces (i.e. the Syrian military). And, so far that I know (am I wrong?), Syrian Golan is actually deep within Assadland. Either way, if we're including Israel, there's no question as to where the neutral category is. You can't put them in a third column - they've not fought the rebels in any significant way. -- Director(talk)09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the Syrian Golan is a nice little strip of rebel territory—and we're talking spooky Islamist ones at that [18]. The army has largely backed off from the area because it's scared shitless of accidentally provoking an Israeli response. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its not 'the ethereal plain of wishes and intentions', its the relentless drift of informed commentary in RS about what happened. a lot of that RS 'interpretation of primary source material' describes Israel as ultra-nervous of a rebel victory - your wish to jettison all the nuances of interpretation that inform RS commentary of events for an undue pov reason is an echo here of what Fawaz Gerges said "Assad will certainly try to milk the attack" - thats all this is. like gaddafi said it was all al qaida in 2011- a destruction of all nuance is wanted for pov reasons. so Associated Press's ,'the latest salvo in Israel's long-running effort to disrupt the Shiite militia's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force' will become 'engaging Assad' (FunkMOnk/DIREKTOR) -but wp should follow english language RS representing events. Israel has said it attacked a convoy now - who to believe? Its a complicated, world - i personally hugely distrust those who want to shatter all the nuance - and are sure that 'neutrality' demands we put Israel as pro-rebel. Sayerslle (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... again. Such "nuances" do not matter when discussing just bare inclusion in the infobox. There is no difference one way or the other. For this discussion, it does not matter why Israel has engaged the Syrian military. It does not matter whether or not they were justified to do it. It does not matter at all whether Assad is "milking the attack" or whatever - unless you're here to "thwart" Assad, that is.
All of that is pointless, unrelated drivel as far as this issue is concerned. Naturally, feel free to elaborate on it in the article - but the issue of bare inclusion in the infobox does not go beyond the simple fact that Israel and the Syrian army were in military conflict. That is all people are trying to convey, and therefore that's all we need to discuss. (e.g. NBC headlines: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border") -- Director(talk)14:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just 'bare inclusion' in the infobox is undue at this stage imo. i know your ugh desperate about this. drawn into Syria conflict, like a 'new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.' is fine , but the infobox is ill suited for this info imo. 'thats al we need to discuss' is a bit totalitarian sounding to me - russia is neutral, israel is pro-rebel, the rebels are salafist - its all so ugh clear. if it said in infobox , 'Israel - new element -'widely believed, hit missiles bound for hezbollah' that would be english language RS - 'bombed Assad' would be using OR language imo- never heard that phrase of the attack, -i dont know how its reported in MOscow/Serbia/TEhran , thats true enough. Sayerslle (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox does not contain participants in the conflict. It contains combatants in the conflict, and non-commerce arm suppliers. Israel had no intention to go to war with Syria. Therefore it doesn't go into the infobox. If a Russian missile killed Al nusra while they tried to storm the chem weapons factory, for the sake of stopping al nusra from getting chem weapons only, we would not include Russia in the infobox, because that would be undue weight. Russia would have no intention of being a combatant in the war, and would still not be a belligerent. Put 2 and 2 together now and think what we would do for Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, Sopher, I'm not going to mince words with you. I could not care less about your own personal definitions of "belligerent", "combatant", "active participant" or whatever else you think of next. Over the past months Israeli territory has been sporadically shelled by Assad's military. In November the two sides exchanged artillery fire in the Golan, and now either one or two(!) air strikes have been launched against Syrian Army targets [19]. Sources report Israel has been "drawn into the conflict":
@"Israel had no intention to go to war with Syria. Therefore it doesn't go into the infobox." Wow. Since you're obviously not reading my posts, let me point out again that Israel actually is at war with Syria. They can hardly declare war on each-other again. Also, sources report that Israel is likely considering further air strikes:
With Qatar and Saudi Arabia in there, the fact that Israel has engaged in actual military action more than justifies inclusion in the infobox. Not as a main combatant, obviously, but in a manner similar to Turkey, and as a faction of its own.
@Sayerslle: ugh#2. After discussing irrelevant questions of Israeli motivation, now you're discussing the irrelevant issue of phrasing - in a discussion about whether the word "Israel" should be entered into the infobox? Bah, humbug.. -- Director(talk)21:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well why are you claiming 'not as a main combatant, obviously' - Assad :"the Israeli aggression in one of the scientific research centers in the Jamraya area on the outskirts of Damascus exposes Israel's real role in cooperating with the hostile external forces and their aides on Syrian soil in an attempt to undermine Syria's stability, weaken it and cause it to abandon its national stances." this is crucial in our further understanding, surely, and Israel should perhaps be considered as a major player. did you mean 'dribble' earlier, by the way, when you were slagging me off. i wondered if you meant drivel. REUTERS : "State news agency SANA quoted Jalili as reaffirming Tehran's "full support for the Syrian people ... facing the Zionist aggression, and its continued coordination to confront the conspiracies and foreign projects". you may be cavalierly deciding Israel is 'not a major combatant' DIREKTOR - why are you determined to underplay the Isrraeli role? i think i'm seeing a pattern here.
Ugh #3. What in the world does any of this have to do with anything?? What is this post, just plain trolling? Of course Iran and Assad are going to "cry foul" and "milk" the attack as much as they can - that obviously doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I'm not being "cavalier", I'm being unbiased and objective. While Israel certainly has participated in this conflict, no sources claim its one of the main participants. Though they do say Israel may be planning to further escalate its involvement. (My heartfelt apologies for the spelling error, iOS auto-correct what can you do..) -- Director(talk)22:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"al-Assad accused Israel of seeking to “destabilize” Syria, state news agency SANA reported." That is a serious accusation is it not? it is not a small thing to be accused of seeking to destabilise a country. it may be clear to you that that is not saying Israel is a main participant but it is not absolutely clear to me. i hope clear heads and minds prevail anyhow , over the paranoid, insulting ones. thats me done on this. cheerio. Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have so called "personnel definitions" of participation or combatants. Fact is Fact. Participants is vague and doesn't go into the info box. Combatants and armaments supports go in the infobox. Israel is not a combatant. They don't anywhere remotely actively fight with the Syrian army. Putting Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon is undue weight. The end. Lambasting me for "personal definitions" and "obvious pro-snc bias" is not going to get you anywhere closer to the facts of the situation and how the infobox is formatted. Sopher99 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "participants", "combatants", "belligerents", etc. And there is nothing "vague" here. Its very simple and straightforward.
The "combatants=" parameters of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template are intended for (quote) "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Sources report that Israel has taken part in the conflict (e.g. "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"). Those are the facts. The rest is just POV-pushing.
The reason why I placed Israel above the Kurdish faction is that the Kurdish faction is separated with a double line. And should actually constitute "combatant3", being in conflict with the Free Syrian Army as well. If we keep them listed in the "combatant2" column, and use the double line to indicate confrontation, then I disagree that Israel should be separated with a double line as well - as, unlike the Kurds, they have not to date engaged the Free Syrian Army.
In addition, I followed the logic that the Kurds are no doubt more important than the Mujahideen as well as Israel - but are still placed below to more appropriately illustrate confrontation with the FSA. -- Director(talk)06:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there is only 3 users in agreement with your position, including yourself, as compared with 4 users, including my self, against position. 5 depending on how you want to interpret Lothar's response.
Secondly, I directly quote the infobox guide you linked " 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." This completely supports the resolution for undue weight. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Director's links to major media coverage describing Israel as "stepping into" or being "drawn into" the conflict are very strong. On the other hand, Lothar von Richthofen is probably correct to point out that while the Israeli government is an opponent of the Assad regime, and has now conducted military strikes against it within the context of this conflict, it'd be difficult to classify it as an ally of al-Nusra (which is not given sufficient weight as a participant here anyway). -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more time put between this incident and the final decision on Israel's placement, the better. The media have a tendency to sensationalise such developments, as it makes for good, fast-selling news—I recall similar media reactions when Turkey got fed up with stray shells and pummelled government artillery on the other side of the border, and that front's been pretty quiet for a while now. Given how Israel is getting yelled at by pretty much everyone for pulling this stunt, I think they'll think twice before trying it again (then again, you can never be too sure with a loose cannon like Israel). Two weeks is probably a good amount of time to let pass to determine just how much weight to award this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out again that listed factions separated by a horizontal line are not depicted as allied. @Lothar, you may think Israel is likely to back off, but as I've shown earlier, analysts disagree. -- Director(talk)18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, Israel is ever the wild card. While I hope they keep out, I realise that this may not occur. Nevertheless, international support for the bombing(s) has not really been forthcoming, with both the UN and NATO member Turkey criticising Israel for it. At any rate, I don't think that it's incorrect to characterise the media as having sensationalist tendencies, and I don't think that putting some time between this event and a final decision is disagreeable. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and we should take care not to get carried away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not at all certain Israel's inclusion is likely to become more acceptable to detractors like Sopher if we wait 2 weeks. I think we'll just end-up in the same place. Otherwise, I'm ok with the wait. -- Director(talk)18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to wait and see on both the real-world and Wikipedia fronts then, eh? As for "analysts", they've been predicting the imminent fall of Assad for a year now, with no such thing materialising. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because "fall of assad" is too vague. Before assad falls, Damascus has to be taken, or he has to be killed in a bombing. There are 54 bases in Rif Damascus alone, of which only 10 have been raided/taken by the FSA, (8 within the past 3 months). Then there are 8 military bases in Damascus proper, as well as 17 Visible intelligence and police branches, within the city. These total of 75+ bases and branches hold 20,000 troops (including republican guard, but not including shabiha). FSA and islamists groups have between 10,000-15,000 operative in Rif damascus and Damascus proper, but they are low on ammunition. In other words, a successful assault on Damascus requires saving up ammunition, or doubling of manpower. There is only 3km worth of land that separates "assad controlled syria" versus "Rebel controlled Syria" Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look past the headline, the analysis in that article reveals a muddier picture. Sopher is correct to note the obscene militarisation of the Damascus area, and the ammunition problems faced by the rebels. But even with enough ammo, the battle for Damascus won't be won in a day, a week, or even a month. The ammo would be better in the north or east of the country (esp. Aleppo, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor), where the rebels have had the upper hand for a while and are pretty well entrenched. The main problem areas for the rebels are in religiously-mixed Hama province and Homs (where they've been holed up for near on two years). Damascus is pretty much stalemated—fighting is still ongoing in Darayya despite government claims of its capture last month, rebels have now managed to push into the city proper (high water mark around the main train station in Qadam), and the army is still holding the airport. And while all this is happening, rebels are creeping slowly forward in Latakia province and are a mere 12km from Bashar's hometown [21]. Taking either it or Latakia proper will be a hell of a fight, sure, but honestly nobody has the upper hand now. And while Arab rebels (who are having increasing difficulty getting along [22]) and Kurds are duking it out in Ras al-Ayn, Kurds are kicking the army forcefully out of oil-rich areas in Hassakeh province [23]. Nobody is going anywhere, and now there seem to be some slow movements toward a diplomatic solution [24]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's basically what I'm saying: the war is not that clear-cut, and its only over when its over. I myself don't really care either way as long as the war's done with. I've been through a civil war and know how it feels to have your country set back 30 years or more. -- Director(talk)19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of countries being set back 30 years, I've outlined some concerns about the article four sections below which would be a more productive use of energy than continuing this thread much longer. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also Lebanese civil war. The Israelis mainly fought Palestinians there, yet are considered part of the war by all accounts. Israel is a belligerent here, attacking one side in this conflict. Any other claims are badly constructed propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what planet are you living that Israeli participation in the myriad of subconflicts that made up the Lebanese Civil War—up to and including full-scale ground invasions and nearly two decades of occupation of Lebanese soil—is remotely analogous to a couple of airstrikes on one day in this war? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first attack by Israel during this war, and it probably won't be the last. Why do you people keep forgetting the attack last year? FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow two whole attacks. Are you referring to when Israel got pissed that shells kept landing in the occupied Golan and laid the proverbial smackdown on the source of the shells? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course means that whether there was a civil war or not in Syria, all these sporadic back-and-forth military conflicts between Syria and Israel would be taking place, as well as Israel acting in what they view as their own security against missiles being sent to Lebanon, et al. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, thanks for your "analysis" as well, but I think I'll stick to the sources myself. The last incident between Syria and Israel before the war took place in 2007. Five years of no activity preceded the civil war. For future reference, your own OR "conclusions" concern noone but yourself, and while we've all indulged in some speculative forum-like discussion here, the very idea that OR (such as your own) should in any way influence encyclopedia content is just silly. -- Director(talk)16:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During those years of "no activity", Assad and Israel were working on a peace settlement. A quiet front militarily, but quite a bit happening on the secret diplomatic front. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously there will be diplomatic "activity" between Israel and Syria. Are there any neighbouring countries existing on earth with the absence of some form of diplomatic activity? The point is there has been no credible reason offered as to why Israel can be excluded from the infobox, when Jordan is included. Can someone, anyone, please explain how two successive bombing attacks by Israel fail to be mentioned in the infobox? -MrDjango (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd distinguish between routine diplomacy and talks involving Israel withdrawing from the Golan as part of a permanent peace deal. Not that it matters at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if anything, a technical state of war with peace talks, as opposed to just a state of war, seems to me an even more pacific situation. -- Director(talk)21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
syrian government did not disclosed the location of the research lab. And the bombing site would have been sealed off by the syrian army immediately after the bombing. So rebels were conveniently near a top secret syrian military research facility when israeli warplane bombed it? Monticores (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rebels present within view of a secret government facility? Whatever could they be doing there? :) Monticores, Assad's opponents are everywhere. If the demonstrations in Latakia, his HOME TOWN, were bad enough to warrant the use of warships, there is certainly no lack of anti-government people in the rest of the country. And if the government troops were any good at sealing things off, this war would never of happened in the first place.--197.170.28.93 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the source clearly associates it with the Syrian civil war: "in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front". I'm just dying to see how Sopher and Trilionaire explain away this one. Something to do with numbers? Twitter? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get it do you? This is just another border clash. We don't include Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq as combatants in the infobox simply because of a few minor border clashes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has now been involved in more "border clashes" than Jordan and Turkey together (at least four or five by now). And non-government actors from Iraq and Lebanon obviously don't count. And yes "I get it", we can not show Israeli/insurgent association by any circumstance, since it would be bad PR for the supposedly righteous rebels. Now the Israelis are even treating wounded Syrian men (most likely insurgents):[25] The humanity. While Palestinians are dying at Israeli checkpoints on the way to hospitals. Why the double standards? FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because israel probably has a secret alliance with Syria. Why do you think Syria allowed Israel to bomb it with warplanes twice, including once for 6 hours in Deir Ezzor? Why do you think Assad did not recognize the state of Palestine until 2011? Why do you think Assad never tried to take back the Golan? Why do you think assad never gave the Palestinians humanitarian aid, and instead onlyfunded hamas? Syria gets security from Israel and in return Israel gets stability from Syria, however Syria has successfully fooled Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Maybe because Syria knew their airforce would be completely destroyed if they retaliated? State actors have more to lose than non-state actors, but whatever, you're obviously grasping at straws. Why do you think the US now supports the People's Mujahedin of Iran, and don't directly attack Iran? Is it because of a "secret alliance"? Lulz. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't consider funding and arming anti-Israeli groups as "anti-Israeli", I guess you don't think Turkey is now "anti-Assad"? Are you kidding? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And no, Turkey fired mortars into syria 5 or 6 times, and killed over a dozens soldiers. So no, Israel does not exceed Turkey in border clashes. Sopher99 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey has attacked Syria just as many times as Israel, so you don't have a case. By your logic, Syria would have to attack Turkey in retaliation, yet they haven't done so. Does this mean there's a "secret alliance"? Sheesh. And remember, you should make more indents than me if you want to reply to my comments, otherwise we get annoying zigzagging comments. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its probably all Assad's idea! Ingenious! And when the Little Men from Mars arrive to take over, he'll have all the advantage he needs to take Aleppo...
Please do post as many of your personal "theories" as you can. You should demonstrate more often the unfathomable depths of your bias; its very obvious at this point that I was correct in estimating you'd simply never agree to adding Israel - regardless of the situation on the ground, and even so would try to sideline it as much as you could for the sake of the rebels (whom you're only here support). A poster-man for rebel propaganda.. which unfortunately couldn't convince anyone who isn't a barely-educated Syrian peasant.
What interests us on this project, however, is sourced military involvement in the conflict. Months now it has been significant enough for inclusion, but this is really the drop that spilled the glass. I feel the "reign of terror" of partisan POV-pushers such as yourself needs to be put an end to one way or the other. I will enter Israel into the appropriate place per guidelines at Template:Infobox military conflict, accompanied with more than enough sources. Since no form of DR has garnered a response fro months now, if you, Sopher99, wish to edit-war over this until we're both blocked - I'm game. -- Director(talk)17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it really doesnt matter who's side israel is on but they did attack syria and that should be noted unless the airstrike on syria was before the civil war therefore israel in the infobox is justified Baboon43 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2013
Indeed. In fact, the Syrian government and Israel are legally in a state of war. The air strikes (and all incidents in question) did not take place before this conflict.
Now now Direktor, big talk about green men from mars when you are the one who believes "mainstream" media is conspiring against Syria. And the attack on Syria I was referring to was the Kubair nuclear power facility in Deir Ezzor in 2006. Your slander of our points as "POV" is nonsense. Everything I and the other editors who happen to be against your position have been saying is entirely with the scope of both the wikipedia guidelines and general reason. Sopher99 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to my "theories and speculations" they were all direct responses to Funkmunks assertions. Please distinguish between my casual response to another human editor's political concerns and my contributions to the debate at hand. Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Even though I do believe the media in general are not 100% unbiased in their coverage of this conflict - I'm not the one advocating the exclusion of any sources, you are. It is precisely "mainstream" sources that have been used to cite additions in question. As for POV - you "happen to be against" any position which could be perceived as portraying the rebels in even a slightly more negative light. As for your "casual responses to other humans", they come directly from SNC-published war propaganda. -- Director(talk)18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not whether the israeli strike happened its whether israel belongs in the infobox. I don't follow the SNC news. Israel's strike on Syria in 2006 is public knowledge, as is everything else I just recently said. Sopher99 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if "the battle isn't going your way, switch the battlefield". I see Turkey has been quietly "swept aside" as a participant, in spite of its military involvement on the border - and I assume it was precisely because of the uncomfortable parallel with Israel. According to the relevant template guidelines, however, both should be included based on the involvement of their military forces, as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". There is nothing more to discuss or add to the reams of text already written on this. -- Director(talk)18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your wondering why Turkey is not trending in the military zone its because the Turkish border has been completely secured by rebels and Kurds. Now whose the conspiracy theorist? There forces have not took part in this civil war, ie this conflict. The scope defined repeatedly by everyday reliable sources simply does not include them. Sopher99 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. This is not a news site and the infobox does not depict the current state of affairs. Turkey is a participant by virtue of its previous military involvement in this conflict. -- Director(talk)18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what you call Pov pushing. Turkey is not a participant because it doesn't participate in the civil war. Saying that one incident transforms another is utter speculation. Sopher99 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not for you to define. Please keep your opinions to yourself and follow policy and guidelines. Across this project, this infobox template uses the same criteria for inclusion - those defined in its guide. Not "User:Sopher99". -- Director(talk)18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, someone on Twitter told Sopher that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are only posing against Israel to cover up the secret Shia-Jewish alliance. I've actually heard Muslim Brotherhood types make this claim to my face. And it was hard not to laugh. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not hard to see where that might come from. Aside from Hizbullah, the Axis of Resistance is built on empty rhetoric. Israel was quite comfortable with having the declawed, senile housecat that was the pre-war Assad state on their doorstep. Bibbi and Bashar were even negotiating themselves a nice peace deal when all hell broke loose. While a "Shi'a-Jewish alliance" is certainly laughable, it's about as funny as diehard Ba'athis who have deluded themselves into thinking that Assad is some great warrior and leader against The Great Zionist Threat as opposed to a lily-livered bootlicker. Four decades of occupation of most of Quneitra, and what did the Syrian state do? Oh, that's right. Allow the Israelis to violate their airspace and bomb them. So much for "resistance". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DIREKTOR, while disagree with the edit-warring from both parties. And make no mistake, you can cry 3rr and edit war but you are just as guilty Sopher of violating policy in the name of lack of consensus. Israel and Turkey should be listed as a combatants due to the militant nature of their involvement in the conflict - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not combats as they are not actively engaging in combat with Syria. Neither side describes themselves as in a state of fighting either. Border incidents are incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
as stated previously the info box is for military involvement and israel has been involved so i dont see what the deal is here. Baboon43 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Military involvement in the Syrian civil war. Tunisia and Libya occasionaly attacked eahcother during ther libuan civil war. world war 1 Germans attacked Russia during the russian civil war. There are no sources which define the Syrian civil war as having Israel Lebanon Jordan turkey ect as a member. Sopher99 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The big deal is that Israel, being hated in Syria, must not be associated with the rebels. Those here just to support the rebels must, therefore, avoid its inclusion at all costs and in spite of all sources.
if iran hezbollah are in the infobox then israel usa are active it doesnt take rocket science to figure that out..plus there's sources to confirm that israel has indeed played a very sneaky role in the conflict. Baboon43 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not put that line in there. Turkey Saudi and Qatar are there because they provide armaments. If you want me to remove that "including border clashes" line, I will. Sopher99 (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? Where did I say that? The point is that "countries whose forces took part in the conflict" need to be listed - and plainly, outside of any silly collapsible boxes. If their involvement consisted of border clashes, then add a useful note like that. -- Director(talk)18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sopher your recent addition blurs the lines..it puts israel on par with lebanon & turkey when none of these countries participated in airstrikes on syria. Baboon43 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then how did Turkey kill 12 soldiers? Besides syria shot down a turkish warplane and bombed lebanon. Thats the problem anyway, putting Israel on par with the members of this conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retaliating to stray (or purposeful) fire from inside syria does not make them combatants any more than Turkey, Iraq, or Lebanon are combatants, and they have all responded to fire from within syria on both sides. They are related incidents, but that does not mean they are full fledged combatants in the war. Jeancey (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agreeing with jeancey - these attacks are reported as ' a spillover of the syrian civil war' - REUTERS - thats what they are - you want to start an article on 'spillovers of the Syrian Civil WAr ' - this is about the Syrian Civil war - the reuters report said Israel didnt know who was responsible , rebels or regime, but they respondedSayerslle (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Director, if you put Supporting the SNC under the main combatants area, then Malta will need to be added, as they recently announced that they consider the SNC the sole legal representatives of syria, which is supporting the SNC. Jeancey (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
israel attacked syria it wasnt just a spillover or stray bullets etc..israel basically declared war on syria but syria didnt respond because they had bigger fish to fry. as this source clearly shows [27]Baboon43 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The most recent incident was a response to fire from within syria. By your logic, the US is currently at war with Yemen, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, and half a dozen other countries because it is conducting strikes in those nations. This isn't the case. A single incident, which was not followed by a declaration of war, or any other combat does not mean that israel declared war on syria. Besides, the Israeli government never acknowledged the incident, and, if I recall correctly, the Rebels took credit for it, saying it was a ground based attack, not an air strike. Jeancey (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jeancey. First of all air strikes and tank forays are not artillery retaliation. Secondly, lets not mince words: what are "full fledged combatants"? The only objective definition we have is the one stated in the template guidelines and being employed in practically every infobox of this type throughout the project - military involvement. They have only been involved in border clashes, true, and the infobox makes that very clear - but they have been involved.
@Sayerslle. What do you find ambiguous about "Israel steps into Syria conflict" (LA Times)? Or "Israel drawn into Syria conflict" (NBC)? Or "Israel enters the Syrian war", etc.. As for the Malta nonsense - there I wonder what you find ambiguous about the criteria being military conflict? -- Director(talk)19:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have no significant forces inside syria, thus they are not full fledged combatants. We have a supported by section in the infobox. That should suffice. Until they send troops into syria, they should not be considered combatants. Jeancey (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the criteria, its just something invented right here. They don't need to have forces in Syria right now - this isn't a news site, and what is the objective definition of "significant forces"? You are aware that the Golan is legally a Syrian territory and that Israel and Syria have been de iure at war for decades? Again, here are the sources:
@Sayerslle. There's no need for a dividing line between Turkey and the SNC, the two are not disassociated. And mind you - you're showing an alliance between Israel, Turkey and the Lebanon. -- Director(talk)19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They attacked what they believed to be a weapons shipment to a group they are already in a conflict with. All of the mention of being drawn into the conflict is speculation on the part of the authors of those articles, not on actual reliable sources. All this strike said to me was a continuation of their conflict with Hezbollah, not indications them fighting against assad. At least three of the articles you linked also have quotes from experts on the subject refuting the assumption that Israel is stepping in on the side of the rebels. Jeancey (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I was trying to point out is that the assumption that israel is now a part of the conflict didn't continue past the first sentence, and was, in several of the articles, actually disputed by quotes given later on. The speculation is on the part of the reader, not the author. Jeancey (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so they can attack assad and disrupt his weapons shipment and say that it was actually an attack on "hezbollah"..sorry that doesnt excuse the fact it was an attack on syria regardless of what "they say" was the motive.[28]Baboon43 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"On the part of" means what exactly? The titles speak for themselves, this is hardly interpretation by "the reader". The amount of tap-dancig to get around the issue here is getting ridiculous. Israel is pro-insurgent. Get over it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jeancey. I'm not getting into this. Are you seriously suggesting reputable sources be dismissed based on a personal assessment by yourself? Even if the above were true - the Hezbollah are also listed on this article as combatants in this conflict.
The Syrian government denies that the convoy to Hezbollah was the (only) target. It is not up to us to decide who's right or post Israeli military press statements as fact - that is the "speculation" here. Its up to secondary sources to do that. Mind that interpreting primary sources such as military press statements is OR. -- Director(talk)19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I am suggesting at all. The Israeli military DIDN'T comment on this. This is a direct quote from one of the articles you linked above "Other analysts disagreed that Israel was intending to undermine Assad, especially since any successor to the Syrian leader could prove to be even more hostile. Still, the Syria strike may signal a new willingness by Israel to intervene in the region's problems." The article wasn't actually saying that israel is pro-rebel. It was saying that SOME analysts are saying it is, and other analysts are saying it is not. What I was trying to point out is that the title of the articles wasn't accurately portraying the actual information in those articles. Also, the syrian government says one thing, the US and other western countries say another, and the articles specifically point out that, because Syria is closed to journalists, it is impossible to verify EITHER side's claims. We cannot pick and choose which sides claims we use. Also, the assumption that Israel attacked the convoy in its current conflict with hezbollah was not a idea I came up with. I read that in several of the articles you listed. I'm not stated my opinions at all here, I am merely using the opinions of the articles. Jeancey (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. The Isrealis didn't bother; it was US officials that "declared" the air strikes were against Hezbollah. No difference with regard to my argument: no original interpretations of such statements should be posted. Also as I said, the Hezbollah are also combatants here. Can we not ignore that?
And please don't misrepresent the refs. Noone is saying Israel is "pro-rebel", and neither are the sources - the depiction in the infobox also makes no such insinuation. What the sources ARE saying is that Israel has been militarily involved in the conflict. That's enough for inclusion in this template - just like in every other conflict article on this project. Then, in what should have been the final nail in the coffin of any discussion here, the sources explicitly interpret and describe it as Israel's entry into this conflict. That's the supposed "speculation" you're referring to, actually its synth in a secondary source. Analysts are arguing whether Israel's intention was to undermine Assad, not whether they did or did not attack Assad. -- Director(talk)20:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another quote. "In addition to taking out weapons that could be used by Hezbollah against Israeli warplanes in a future conflict, Israel sent what amounted to a message of warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran against attempting to transfer any chemical or biological weapons to Hezbollah". The articles are making the point that the israeli's were trying to prevent weapons from being used by Hezbollah against them. That is all the articles are saying. The titles say they have become involved in the conflict in syria, but the main body of the articles indicate that they are involved in a conflict with Hezbollah, and that conflict happened to have an incident within syria. The articles do not actually state that israel was attacking the regime itself, but rather the weapon transfer from the regime to Hezbollah. This is a separate conflict between israel and hezbollah, with hezbollah being supported by syria, and not part of the conflict within syria. That's what the majority of the articles are actually saying, if you read them entirely, and not just the titles. Jeancey (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I am going to take a break and go eat some food. I would just like to mention that I am not actually supporting either of the sides in this argument, and that my preferred display of the information is different from both of the suggested options. Also, I think that several editors (on both sides) have started to make comments of a personal nature, rather than trying to discuss the actual information. I would suggest that everyone take a hour break or so, and try to come back with a clear head. The article is protected, so neither side can change the information while the other side is taking a break. Let's just calm down and come back refreshed and clear headed. :) Jeancey (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having read through this morass and had a good laugh at some of the statements made, one by jeancey in particular, I have to say that DIREKTOR is entirely correct there and I support inclusion of Israel into the infobox. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jeancey's previous post. So you're saying Israeli attacks on the Syrian army were with not with the thought of undermining the Syrian army, but rather with the purpose of weakening an ally of the Syrian army in this conflict :). That's the first level on which the argument is flawed.
But lets assume we live in a parallel universe where the Hezbollah are not the allies of the Syrian government in this conflict. Are we supposed to say "well, its the thought that counts"? :) They did bomb the Syrian military, but you know they didn't really mean to weaken them... its all about the other guys. We should definitely just discount all the sources that describe the bombings as part of the Syrian civil war??
Again: military involvement is the criteria for inclusion here. That's it. The intention or "thought" behind the military involvement is irrelevant with regard to entry into the infobox. That's the second level of flaw. -- Director(talk)20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things Jeancey is saying is that the strikes are being defined by officials as precisely Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, not a Syrian conflict. For example, the Turkish bombings of PKK in Iraq does not constitute Turkey as a belligerent in the Iraq war. Sopher99 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PKK hardly played any role in that war. A better analogy would had been if Israel had attacked Saddam's forces. In that case, Israel would be in the Iraq war infobox by now. Nice try. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Reuters) - Israel said it fired into Syria on Sunday and destroyed a machinegun position in the Golan Heights from where shots had been fired at Israeli soldiers in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front.
It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible " this is the tenor of all the reports - direktor seems to say 'military involvement at time of syrian civil war' - is synonomous with 'military involvement in syrian civil war' - it is your side direktor that is imposing interpretation of motives imo. Sayerslle (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sayerslle you still deny that israel attacked syria you say above that it was rebels instead. if the article is titled civil war then shouldnt it focus on what happens during the civil war? Baboon43 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that he ignores all the other reliable sources that make the direct connection with the civil war. But well, at least we now know that this bunch will go all the way to spin bad news about their pet-rebels in a positive way, they're not even concerned about exposing their POV any more. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i noticed that. Editors previously were worried about it. I had commented that there's nothing wrong with expressing POV in a discussion as long as it does not affect the article so they are taking my advice. Baboon43 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sayerslle, you keep bringing this around in circles. Its not "military involvement at time of syrian civil war", its military conflict with the a faction in the Syrian civil war. And yes. That is the criteria. Even if we were to take everything you guys say as fact, then the Israelis attacked one faction in a civil war to weaken another (its ally). Even if this really were supposedly "part of some other conflict" (and its not - the attack was on the Syrian military not Hezbollah), it would still have to be listed here as well. These are not mutually exclusive, or-or categories. Yes, the involvement would obviously also have to take place "at time", but that's completely secondary and immaterial.
Re your above comment on FunkMonk's statements, it doesn't matter whether FunkMonk thinks Israel is "pro-rebel" - the point is he doesn't advocate making changes that would indicate that. A dividing line is to be in place. -- Director(talk)21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short there are no sources which define the civil war as having Israel as a military component. Sure there are four or five articles (out of thousands) with titles implying it but, none of those articles given any credence, or even state that israel is a combatant in this conflict, some of those articles provide information which refutes the "israel is combatant argument". There is nothing which mandates an air strike or a border clash to be full fledged war - particularly if its only an occasional occurrence. Sopher99 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. how can you even seriously write stuff like that? :) "Long story short" - you're grasping for straws, and the sources explicitly state Israel has entered this conflict. The very idea that they somehow "don't" is laughable POV-pushing that clearly demonstrates the futility of trying to reason here in any way. -- Director(talk)00:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever of you using Haraatz and Financial time articles which cannot be viewed by the average viewers. But that aside the WSJ does not say anywhere that israel is part of the conflict, the telegraph only says "israel considering"., and heres the direct quote from the LA times " With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" unrest that has destabilized its neighbors and left Israelis feeling more vulnerable than they have in decades." The only article thus is the NBC. One source does not override every other source in the world. Whose grasping for straws again? Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a genius like that. *facepalm* Sopher, I don't know where you're from - but I can view Haaretz perfectly fine. I didn't even log in or anything. Same goes for FT... -- Director(talk)01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal: link to a border incidents section
The inclusion of Lebanon and Israel in the infobox is a HUGE violation of undue weight. How can you even compare the level of involvement of the rebels and that of the Lebanon or Israel? I propose we create a section in the article specifically for border incidents (such as those that happened near Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Golan Heights), and leave a note in the infobox that links to that section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with removing Iran, because they don't have combatant role (mainly just building a militia). However, Hezbollah members are actually involved in the fighting, especially near the Lebanese border.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Iran and Hezbollah are fighting the war with troops on the ground. So no. But yes I would agree with Futuretrillionaire's solution too. Sopher99 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ill agree to removing iran. creating a section for israel and hezbollah and leave a note in the infobox that links to the corresponding sections. Baboon43 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this March 2013 BBC article, "Little evidence has emerged of any military involvement on Hezbollah's part". According to this ISW report, with the exception of an area in the Damascus suburb, Hezbollah's role is primarily logistical and training militias. I'm okay with removing all the "support" parties (including Iran and Hezbollah) from the infobox for the sake of neutrality.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree to remove iran, keeping hezbollah in the infobox (They have troops on the ground) and removing israel lebanon and Turkey and instead putting them to a different section for border clashes and international incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, disagree, disagree - on all points :). Noone is "comparing" anything here, can we stop with the wordplay please? The WWI infobox includes Portugal, for heaven's sake - you should go over there and chastise them for "comparing" the involvement of France and Britain with that of Portugal. That said, the non-consensus addition of Lebanon by Sopher99 really was a step too far imo (2 killed civilians??).
As I said before, I disagree utterly with the introduction of a silly border incidents "section" of some sort. Of the above countries you listed, only Turkey and Israel actually warrant inclusion, and that's just too few for a section. Furthermore, and more importantly, such a section would list countries that have nothing to do with each-other together as allies (that would look silly even if we only included Turkey and Israel).
Iran is included in a standard fashion by full consensus and according to sources, while Hezbollah is actually fighting on the ground. I can't agree to excluding either. People, please just follow the damn template guidelines, damn it...-- Director(talk)21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template guidelines don't support adding parties that are undue weight, which is definitely the case for Lebanon and Israel. I'm willing to compromise (as I've shown above with the Baboon's Iran and Hezbollah request).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, "undue weight" again. By who's estimate, yours? *facepalm* Just follow the guidelines. Lebanon is too much because it hasn't been militarily involved, but Israel most certainly has been, and its inclusion isn't "undue weight" by any standards (don't make me copy-paste the sources again.. "Israel steps into, enters, is drawn in" etc..). The thought is frankly laughable at this point. -- Director(talk)21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've added Iraq on the governments side for consistency of the current standards used here. We can not remove Iraq and Lebanon without removing Israel. Othewise is plain POV.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Futuretrillionaire. I am not familiar with the extent of the involvement of the Iraqi military, but it seems like a topic for thorough discussion. What I do know is you added it without consensus, which makes me think the Iraqi military didn't fire a shot (am I wrong?).
As for the Lebanon, we most certainly can remove it - and forthwith. How? By applying the same high standards of sourcing you yourself repeatedly demanded over the past months for Israel. Can you provide a source on the order of the LA Times stating "Lebanon enters the civil war in Syria" or something like that? A secondary interpretation of events that isn't original research? If not, kindly recognize the two are not equivalent - and stop making demands here, please ("if you get this, I want that" and so on).
@Baboon43. Geopolitical assumptions and speculation aside, we can really list them as allies if they're not allies. Or at least diplomatically aligned or associated on some level. -- Director(talk)22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm okay with the current format, in which Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq are all included for border clash and incidents. I still think including all these parties is silly, but I'm okay with it for the sake of compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have engaged in a rather silly addition of parties. I feel like reverting your additions until they're at least discussed. At least Jordan, which has only been shelled, but who's military did not engage in any kind of conflict (shelling somebody does not make him a combatant, him shelling you back - does). I also am a little uneasy about your addition of Iraq. Did that incident involve troops of the Iraqi army? -- Director(talk)22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The convoy bombing within Iraq did involve Iraqi soldiers. During the border clashes at Yaaribiyah, there were conflicting reports as to whether or not Iraqi troops got involved. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I myself believe so. Throughout this project the infobox in question includes (quote) "countries whose forces took part in the conflict" as combatants=, in accordance with its own guideline. This is a relatively simple conflict, one with about three or four participants on each of the two sides.
Many sources report Israeli forces taking part in the conflict with the Syrian military: repeated artillery exchanges, tank foray, and air strikes on Syrian army targets. Now once again, another shelling of Syrian positions. That alone, in my opinion, warrants Israeli inclusion in the infobox. However, in addition to this, several highly-reputable sources (among them even the Israeli Hareetz) explicitly state, in reviewing these events, that Israel has taken part in this conflict - an intends to continue doing so.
etc. The sources debate the motivation of Israeli involvement, but do not dispute that it is, in fact - military involvement. The proposal, I must stress, is to clearly delineate Isreal as unaffiliated with other combatants, and to indicate, with in-line note, that its military involvement is limited to border clashes and air strikes (as can be seen here). In my own personal estimation, the problem is that Israel is hated in Syria, and Wikipedia listing it in the infobox as a faction that has, in fact, engaged the Syrian military is highly controversial for those here to support the rebels. -- Director(talk)00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Haraatz and Financial time articles cannot be viewed by the average viewers, so we don't even know whats in them. But that aside the WSJ does not say anywhere that Israel is part of the conflict, the telegraph only says "Israel considering"., and heres the direct quote from the LA times " With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" unrest that has destabilized its neighbors and left Israelis feeling more vulnerable than they have in decades." The Reuters article doesn't say Israel is part of the conflict either. It even goes on to say "
It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible for what a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said had been a deliberate attack on Israeli patrols in the occupied territory. The only article thus is the NBC. One source does not override every other source in the world. Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short there are no sources which define the civil war as having Israel as a military component. Sure there are four or five articles (out of thousands) with titles implying it, but none of those articles give any credence, or even state that israel is a combatant in this conflict, some of those articles provide information which refutes the "israel is combatant argument". There is nothing which mandates an air strike or a border clash to be full fledged war - particularly if its only an occasional occurrence Sopher99 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To put it "bluntly", DIREKTOR believes that if there is something which hurts one side's image, particularly the opposition, then it must be brought at full weight with the basis of the conflict, no matter how minor it may be (such as a border clash). Sopher99 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost got away with it too, lucky you were there :). I'll not again fall into the trap of wasting my efforts replying to cockamamie retorts as those above - this RfC is to attract neutral input. Kindly do not delete my addition of a "Discussion" subsection again or I'll have to request admin action. -- Director(talk)00:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a good look at the "example" section. Do not put your point of view in the heading, or if you do, kindly remove the discussion section, as you have already began the discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sopher, this RfC is for neutral input. Kindly refrain from going off again.. I'll make it clear that the comment is my own personal opinion. -- Director(talk)00:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pretty simple: What matters is what the sources actually say, not what Sopher thinks they should say, or how he interprets them. They unambiguously state Israel has entered the war. No amount of tap-dancing can change that. And the "no access" excuse is a non-issue; a reliable source is a reliable source, if you want a copy paste or mirror of the articles, you can get them. There are no policies that state such sources can't be used. In fact, journal sources behind paywalls are overwhelmingly used on more scientific articles. The same can be said about books that everyone obviously don't have access too. Unless you can demonstrate Wiki policy advises against the use of such sources, your argument can be ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several reliable sources say that Israel has entered the fray (and this is certainly notable) so I support adding it to the template. That said, if there was a section for peripheral participants, Israel would be better placed there. Jschnur (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but these sort of templates just don't have sections. Factions are usually grouped according to their alignment. Naturally, though, Israel ought to be clearly separated from factions it has no association with, and the fact that its involvement is of low intensity should be clearly pointed out.. -- Director(talk)05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the PYD, Israel has never attacked the insurgents, so there is no reason to disassociate Israel more from the insurgents than the PYD is. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Recommend making a separate section for outside influence or another article with a link - This came up before with Russia, US, outside influence etc - (Which quite frankly an entire article could be written about it lol) - so I would recommend sectioning off all talk of outside influence either in its own section, or a new article altogether. I agree this is important information - it is just more of a question on where to package it, as a war is simply diplomacy by other means (Does not have to include fighting)Patriot1010 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Highly inappropriate change to the infobox
I see only 3 users involved in the designing of the "compromise" proposal at Jake Wartenberg's talk page. What's the rush? Please wait for the other editors (including me, Baboon, Jeancey, Sayerslle, and Darkness Shines) to respond to the proposal before implementing it. Until everyone has responded and there is a consensus to the proposal, the pre-edit war version needs to be restored, and I recommend the article to be locked until then.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're kinda turning turning out like a "part of the problem" there, Futuretrillionaire. You were invited to participate in consensus building (by myself among others), and you didn't say a thing. Now you're restating the issue all over again? By my count that's 4twenty42o, Baboon43, MrDjango, FunkMonk, Sopher99, DarknessShines, myself, and all the damn sources, vs. you, Sayerslle and maybe Jeancey (though he's apparently expressed some reservations towards supporting your position). The changes are highly appropriate, please move on for now. -- Director(talk)21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not respond because I had an important chemistry lab experiment to prepare for at my university. I have things to do in real life that prevents me from responding in less than 24 hours. What's the rush? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my plan worked perfectly did it not? But I suppose the jig is up now.. I admit: Jake and I were in cahoots to exploit your absence to serve our personal agenda. -- Director(talk)22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combatants - 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. Sopher99 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sopher99. Ugh, my ears! Pipe down please. I honestly never understood what the devil you see as relevant in that latter part, you just keep quoting it over and over again? That's for conflicts like the Iraq War, with two dozen factions all fighting each other. This template, with all possible additions, comes nowhere close in the number of combatants even to basic infoboxes such as WWI and WWII. There are no more than four or five real combatant authorities on either side. Noone "is misunderstanding" the infobox guide, thank you very much (probably wrote more conflict infoboxes on this project that all you fellas together). Drop this, please.
@Alanhaunty, see the sources. Bare in mind diplomatic support doesn't matter, that's the military conflict infobox. Participants are added according to their military involvement.
@Futuretrillionaire. Can you stop with the games? Again, participants did voice their opinions, and most numerous times. Or should we disregard user input if they don't repeat themselves at your demand? Great idea, that. Once more, by my count that's 4twenty42o, Baboon43, MrDjango, FunkMonk, Sopher99, DarknessShines, myself, and all the damn sources, vs. you, Sayerslle and maybe Jeancey. Is Sopher99 is reneging on his agreement by this post, I honestly don't know anymore... Either way, you're in the minority. And if you say "Wikipedia is not a democracy", I swear I'll copy-paste the sources here sixteen times. -- Director(talk)22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
lets just include arab league, UN etc then? & even some balkan states like kosovo while were at it..i dont see how israel deliberately attacking syrian weapon shipments as "border clash" Baboon43 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Futuretrillionaire is clearly displaying a double standard with regard to sourcing a faction's involvement. Israel had sources that explicitly stated the country had "entered" this conflict. That said, having read the Iraq source, it seems kind of ok to add it. Jordan on the other hand, has only been shelled - its military (as far as I know) has not been involved. Jordan should go. Lebanon is a similar matter. Getting shelled does not make you a combatant, but your military engaging in combat - does. -- Director(talk)22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, according to the source you added [29], the Jordanian army was involved - fighting against rebel insurgents. Would you care to move it to the left? -- Director(talk)22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The soldiers did not die against rebels, he died against people trying to join the rebels. Besides, I added a source for Syria shelling Jordan. And the infobox page clearly states it the infobox doesn't just have to be for countries whose forces took part. If you going to put such undue weight on Israel, then it will be done for Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq ect as well. Sopher99 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sopher99. Yes: "however, if there are huge numbers of combatants list only groups of combatants". That is not the case here, as I have demonstrated.
@Baboon43. I don't think they should be in there at all. But being shelled does not mean your army was involved, you cannot list a country just because its civilians were shelled. Had the Soviets not fought back when Germany attacked the USSR, we wouldn't be listing the latter as a combatant. Since the only conflicts involving the Jordanian and Lebanese military were against the rebels - if we're to include those countries, it should be on the left. I don't like that, though. Where are the Israel-like sources ("Jordan/Lebanon enter the war in Syria", etc..)? -- Director(talk)22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the template says the countries don't have to have their forces involved. Syria army however did have its forces involved with Jordan.
Jordanian army exchanged fire with the Syrian army for over an hour, no casualties [30]. And again 6 months later [31]. Jordanian army confirmed to have its forces involved, not to mention syrian army shelling and killing of Jordanians. Jordan stays. Sopher99 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. no. the template simply does not say that. :)
Look, in my opinion, neither Lebanon nor Jordan should be in there. Their involvement is just not sufficiently sourced. Iraq too I think. None of these countries have the kind of sources Israel and Turkey have, and I feel like they were only added to kind of "balance out" the addition of Israel (which, again, is fully sourced - while they are not).
Now, I don't want to copy-paste your own comments regarding consensus (from my talkpage and elsewhere), but Iraq and Jordan were added without any kind of agreement - or even proper discussion. -- Director(talk)23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of sources for lebanon shelling, and I just gave sources for Jordanian combat with syrian army, not to mention the Syrian army's shelling. So yes, its your opinion. Yes its true, the Jordanian and Iraq thing have not been agreed to put there. But I already have my one revert. Futuretrillionaire you can self revert please to be "fair" to Direktor. scratch that I can do it. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before we move on, though, we need to do something about Lebanon. Lebanon just can't stay in there as it is. As I said, the shelling your civilians alone - does not make your country involved. Had the Soviets not actually fought back when Germany attacked the USSR, we wouldn't be listing the latter as a combatant. Your military needs to be involved - and the only involvement by the Lebanese military that I know of was against the FSA. The choices are: #1 move Lebanon to the left, or #2 remove Lebanon, on the grounds of lacking sources of the same magnitude as Israel and Turkey (e.g. "Lebanon enters war in Syria" and the like). I favor the second option. -- Director(talk)23:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic we should remove israel, as syrian forces were not involved in fighting Israel. The closest thing that came to it was a machine gun turret which netayahu said was not clear from which side it came from, and Syrian government made no comment. Sopher99 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove Lebanon so long as we keep Jordan. Not only has the Syrian army fired shells into Lebanon, wounding/killing people, but I gave source detailing two separate times the Syrian army and Jordanian army went into firefights. Sopher99 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not get into that again. The criteria is military involvement, remember? The Israeli military was most certainly involved, against one of the major factions of the war. And please, keep the sources in mind.
Yes, and if I'm not mistaken, Jordan is against Assad on a diplomatic and logistical level as well. The Jordanian army only engaged militants that weren't rebels, but wanted to join the rebels in future. And with the firefights.. Yes, it fits, the addition sounds logical. Unless there's more? D'you know whether the Jordanian army ever fought the FSA or any of the rebel factions? -- Director(talk)23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only that incident with the islamist from within Jordan trying to enter Syria. Otherwise its a syrian army vs jordan army thing. Just this week syria accused jordan of aid to rebels. [32]Sopher99 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I take it we accept the lebanon thing to be flimsy to while Jordan more firm, prompting an agreement to drop lebanon but keep Jordan? Sopher99 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as sec, reading-up on Jordan. Its position is very much anti-Assad along the lines of Turkey, and its granting serious assistance to the rebels besides all that and the military clashes. What do you think about adding it up there? -- Director(talk)23:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox should be only for those states/organizations who have forces fighting on the ground inside Syria. Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel have responded to breaches of their borders, which they would do (and have done) even in 'peacetime'. It doesn't mean they're part of the civil war. Israel—as well as responding to cross-border fire—has carried out one airstrike on trucks ferrying Hezbollah weapons near the Lebanese border. This is also something it would do (and has done) even in 'peacetime'. In 2007, for example, it bombed a military site in Syria. The latest airstrike was part of the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Thus, I suggest we take Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel out of the infobox and replace them with a link to "border clashes and incidents". ~Asarlaí03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating the same mistake that others have made before you: Israel has attacked Syrian army targets at least four or five times throughout this conflict, not one. That amount of direct involvement is on par with Turkey's. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of me feels like this is a good idea or at least food for thought. Jordan, for instance, lost a soldier in a gunbattle with rebels trying to sneak into Syria. At the same time, Jordan has also engaged in firefights with the Syrian army, and seems to be willingly allowing thousands of fighters equipped with some nice Yugoslav surplus weaponry into Daraa Province, which is leading to some significant rebel gains. The most recent incident with Israel is unclear as well. Given the recent advances by rebels in the Golan area, I'm not sure if government troops are close enough to the border to be taking potshots at Israeli patrols. That's my own speculation, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
peace time or war time it doesnt matter..since this is a civil war the whole of syria is now monitored hence this article,..ill agree to your terms if hezbollah iran are also out of the info box. Baboon43 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll leave Czechoslovakia alone if you give me the Sudetenland, muahahaha! This isn't some diplomatic negotiating table where you can trade bargaining chips in order to slant content in every which direction that pleases the various factions of edit-mafiosi here. This is about adhering to site policies and guidelines, not wikipolitical manoeuvring. If you have concrete reasons for the removal of Hizbullah or Iran, that's an entirely different subject. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Asarlaí. Disagree with your arbitrary personal "definition". Conflicts are not defined by territorial boundaries - they take place where the fighting takes place. It is completely irrelevant whether the confrontations were or were not acts of "defending borders", that's practically every war since the dawn of time right there.
As far as Israel is concerned, their military did, in fact, engage in combat on Syrian soil. Even if we set aside the air strikes which you're attempting to marginalize, the entirety of the Golan peninsula is de iure Syrian territory; and the two countries have been in a state of war for decades. Military operations can be viewed as part of more than one context, none of which are mutually-exclusive. Israeli actions are certainly part of the wider Israeli-Syrian/Isreali-Hezbollah conflict, but they are also part of the Syrian civil war - precisely because they are taking place at the same time (so say the sources, not me).
You'll find that all across this project combatants are included in infoboxes even if the scale of their military involvement is marginal, negligible, or even virtually non-existent. This is because the goal is to make the infobox informative, not subjectively "streamlined" in accordance with someone's POV.
The bottom line, Asarlaí, is that there are objective, standard criteria for including combatants into military conflict infoboxes. Ones being used all over this project. And that sources unambiguously indicate Israel meets these criteria. Turkey and Jordan do as well (well, Turkey does certainly). Deviation from this, in an infobox, on such a sensitive issue - is practically POV by definition.
For those who keep repeating that there has only been one armed incident between Israel and Syria, here are three seperate incidents off the top of my head.[33][34][35] We even seem to have an article about some of these incidents (Golan Heights clashes (2012–present)), which suggests that Israel is a significant part of the conflict. Israel has not aatcked Jihadi rebels even once, though they fire mortars too, and the source of the hits are mostly unknown. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk - RS do not report any of that as Israel qua a civil war belligerent really do they? , -meanwhile - Russia - and its cluster bombs - [36]Sayerslle (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources term it as "spillover" and similar. As for Russia, what's your point? Israel uses American supplied weapons against its enemies, yet I don't see the US as a belligerent in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a third row for officially non-aligned parties that have still been involved in the conflict. This could include the PYD, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and the UN. Could solve some of our problems with implying alliances where there are none. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those two rows are overcrowded as it is. And it would make actual alliances much clearer. We could have one with the government and their direct supporters, one with the Syrian opposition and all of their direct supporters, and then one with everyone else, who don't fit into either. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in conflict with the government (and not the rebels or the kurds)
Here's the problem. By adding Turkey, Jordan or Israel into a third column, you'd be saying that they are fighting against both the rebels and the army - that isn't the case. I still do support a third column for the Kurds, but Turkey, Israel, Jordan and/or the Lebanon cannot be listed therein. If a third column for the PYD is added (and its still vehemently opposed), then the only solution I can think of is this: -- Director(talk)10:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am only willing to accept a horizontal column for Kurds. Adding a Third column tells readers that Kurds and other countries have the same weight as the rebel vs gov conflict, which is completely untrue. Making Kurds a third column has only become more difficult to argue since our last debate.
"same weight"—bullshit. I gave you a 4,000 character essay on why that's a garbage argument, and I heard not one peep from you in response [39]. Columns are not about weight. Weight comes into play when ordering within a column. Factual accuracy is the criterion for assigning columns. Please stop regurgitating the same nonsense over an over again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, here is the current vote:
Oppose including Israel and other parties' - FutrueTrillionaire, Jeancey, Sayerslle, Asarlaí, Alhanuty,EkoGraf
Support including Israel and other parties' - Baboon43, DIREKTOR, FunkMonk, Darkness Shines, 4twenty42o, MrDjango(?)
So you're saying "here are the votes, but remember: they're meaningless"? I agree with that, which is why its good the edit is based on sources and not votes. You misplaced Sopher, unless I'm much mistaken (moved).
Actually I am ambivalent so long as the same process is put for other countries (Lebanon Turkey Jordan) its just that we had to come to an agreement to remove Lebanon, which I am okay in abiding by. Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sopher, I'm not going to press the issue of the Kurd column, but I would like to see a note added below the Kurds' entry to the effect that they have been fighting the rebels as well. "(also fought rebels)" or something of the sort. Thoughts? Remember that Wiki isn't a news site and that the infobox represents the overall conflict, not just the current state of affairs. -- Director(talk)14:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose including Israel as a participant to the conflict. Unlike Turkey which is hosting rebel forces in border camps and providing them with logistics, Israel has only been involved in 2-3 incidents, only as a response, and has not come out in support of ether side. Not enough to warrant their inclusion in the infobox. If their border clashes escalate than we may consider including them in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has clearly expressed it is against one side, but not the other, both in word and deed. That speaks for itself. Also, it is working with Turkey on the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The level of involvement simply does not matter, there is no "limit" on how much shelling, tank forays, and air strikes you can do before being considered a combatant. Listing factions in this infobox in no way implies they are somehow equally involved - particularly when a note is in place stating otherwise. Portugal is right up there alongside the United Kingdom in the World War I infobox. Everyone please keep in mind this project is written in accordance with sources - Israel's actions have been sourced as constituting involvement in this conflict. -- Director(talk)20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And so the efforts at compromise and infobox improvement devolve once more to mass removal of sourced content, gaming the system in terms of an arbitrary "consensus", and Futuretrillionaire's exploitation of revert restrictions. Futuretrillionaire, you've violated 1RR [40][41], and I'll return the favor of your previous report if you don't revert yourself. I realize that's an unlikely scenario, but I hate bothering admins unless I'm sure its necessary. Lucky you're on a "break", I can only imagine what we'd see if you were to unleash your full power upon this article :). -- Director(talk)01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having only half of the participants supporting the inclusion of Israel is hardly a consensus. The second link was not a revert. If that counts as a revert, then you've broken 1RR too: [42][43]--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all interested in your fanciful "tally" nor your own definitions of "consensus". When the edits were introduced, the ratio was 7:2 (you and Sayerslle), they were introduced by as good a consensus as could possibly be expected on such an article. Now its 7:5 (kindly recognize Jeancey has not reaffirmed his stance since voicing reservations against your position, and that Sopher has agreed to the version you reverted). But I'm not here to count votes, the sources unambiguously support the version you just vandalized..
I deem your actions highlyWP:DISRUPTIVE and in violation of revert restrictions (in spite of your obvious attempt to WP:GAME said 1RR). I request that you please make it clear whether you intend to revert yourself. I'll leave it to the admins to decide who gets blocked. -- Director(talk)02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make your point eloquently.
If someone wold care to revert that vandalism so we can resume discussion? I'll see about requesting assistance with the disruption. -- Director(talk)02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in any case, what matters is not the opinion of editors, or even votes, but what the sources actually say. If we all agreed that Israel had not taken part in the war, it would be irrelevant, because the sources unambiguously say it has. FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of, Director, that fanciful vote as you put it is actually 6 to 6, not 7 to 5 in your favor as you put it. So consensus has in fact not been made. This discussion needs to continue until a proper solution is found. Also, I really didn't see on what basis you put Jordan in the column with the rebels since they engaged in border clashes with both the Army AND the rebels. In fact, the one Jordanian soldier that has died was killed by rebels trying to go over the border. Also, Jordan, unlike Turkey, has been trying to stop the flow of fighters and weapons over the border. If anything that sounds to me more like a pro-Assad than pro-rebel stance. But whatever the case, the facts are: Number 1 - nether Iraq or Jordan or Israel has expressed support for ether side (unlike Turkey which has expressed support and IS providing actual support); Number 2 - Jordan has engaged in conflict with both sides; Number 3 - there is no consensus on the issue so major changes are not allowed until a solution is found. Maybe, and I say this maybe, if the pro-addition editors are still insisting on this, the proper solution would be, in my opinion, the following. First, to add Iraq in the pro-government collapsible supported by column, just like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are on the rebel side, since, even though there has been no real factual evidence, Iraq is looking more and more likely to be providing the air-space for Iranian flights and pro-rebel Iraqi groups did killed Iraqi soldiers. Second, to add Israel on the rebel side, but separated with a double separation line, because they have not expressed support for the rebels, and are more than likely to engage in conflict with the extremist elements of Nusra if they gain more power. Third, Jordan, leave it out entirely, they haven'e expressed support for ether side, they engaged both sides, they declared neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"trying to stop the flow of fighters and weapons over the border"—yeah, that's why 2500 fresh rebel fighters armed to the teeth with Yugoslav surplus bought from Croatia with Saudi money under US guidance have poured into southern Daraa in the past few weeks. "Pro-Assad", indeed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.” May be unbalanced seems to be something of a slight under-statement. Also, given the article is now locked, how can information be added?
92.16.158.116 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EkoGraf, I usually ignore such unwieldy blocks of text, but I will here make an effort to somehow respond fully.
No, I'm afraid you're dead wrong there, EkoGraf. The actual "vote tally" is 4twenty42o, Baboon43, MrDjango, FunkMonk, Sopher99, DarknessShines and myself (7), against yourself, FutureTrillionaire, Sayerslle, Asarlaí, and Alhanuty (5). Sopher99, as far as I recall, has agreed to the introduction of Israel, and the subsequent edits were also introduced in cooperation with him - while Jeancey voiced reservations against supporting FutureTrillionaire's position. And then there's the IP user, which brings the actual tally to 8 vs. 5.
So that is, in fact, 8 vs. 5 here on talk. However, the edits were introduced while the only opposition was from FutureTrillionaire and Sayerslle, so it was added by as decent a consensus as could be expected (7 vs. 2), if we're going to start Wikilawyering here. WL aside, this project is written in accordance with sources - so you can add them as being against your position as well. The "proper" solution is one based on them, not on bullying, edit-warring, and silly fanciful ideas by random self-important internet users.
Moving on from the "dead wrong" matter. "Number 1" - I could not care less what those countries "expressed" or did not "express". This infobox depicts military conflict (its the Military conflict infobox, you know; you can read up on that). "Number 2" - provide sources for Jordan having engaged both sides. For the record, engaging insurgents in its own country prior to their being able to join the rebels is not an attack on the rebels. "Number 3" - That's just not true, as elaborated upon above. There is such a thing as WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM and misquoting policy to stonewall sourced modifications (supported by a majority of participants). That's essentially all FutureTrillionaire does here is cleverly riding the line and manipulating policy.
"First". The collapsible column is just ridiculous. If World War II can do without it, so can the Syrian civil war. Countries are NOT added under the "combatant" heading if they're not combatants. And if they are, they're added in a standard, non-absurd fashion. Re Iraq, if you actually read this discussion you will find sources aplenty for the direct involvement of the Iraqi military (provided by FutureTrillionaire).
"Second". Israel has not been added to the "rebel side", so lets just get rid of that straw man right there. Its been added to the column for combatants (primarily) engaging the government. It is separated from the rebels by a single horizontal dividing line - which throughout this project indicates non-association in this infobox. Double separation lines are another ridiculous invention created here for the sake of appeasing user POV. Would you "feel better" if you had a triple line? Quadruple line? One line will be perfectly sufficient.
"Third". Again, for our purposes, I couldn't care less what these countries "expressed" - unless its military action (or lack thereof). They can declare what they like, but if their military is involved in some fighting (as has been sourced!) we're certainly not going to exclude them on the basis of their diplomatic stance. Once more, this is the Military conflict infobox. Factions are added to the Military conflict infobox if their military has engaged in the fighting. That's what its guidelines are, and that's how its used everywhere. Period. Plain and simple. -- Director(talk)12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just now only came onboard with this discussion, have never actually met you Director and tried from the start to propose a compromise solution. So, I see no reason for your behavior towards me which, based on this reply, is uncompromising and inflammatory. You did not express even a thought of compromise. It seemed to me you don't care about the opinion of others unless they agree with you and you are rejecting sources that are contradictory to your own opinion. Also, you are almost in violation of Wikipedia's rule on civility by making borderline snide comments, not to mention you are not assuming any good faith from other editors, which is a prerequisite on Wikipedia. As far as I see it, its your way or no way. Which is not how Wikipedia works. Also, in regard to your comments on the collapsible list (which you are also making fun of), that collapsible list was agreed upon in a discussion by a large number of editors a year ago. As far as Jordan goes, source already provided in infobox confirming they also engaged the insurgents. But you say that if Jordan engaged the Syrian rebels on their side of the border and not on the Syrian side than their engagement does not count? That's simply, and now I am going to use your word because it really is, ridiculous and again an attempt to disregard what you feel is contradiction with your own opinion. Look up Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Fact is, Jordanian forces engaged Syrian opposition forces. If you are not going to engage in good faith compromise talk with other editors the only solution I see is that an arbiter be included in this discussion. Otherwise please include yourself here in some constructive discussion and tone down the inflammatory language. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Director's personal lack of constructive talk, I am still proposing as a compromise that - Iraq be included in the 'supported by list on the government side. Israel be put with separation lines on the rebel side. And since Jordan engaged both sides in clashes (regardless on which side of the border), has declared neutrality and closed the border to avoid a conflict, be excluded from any side altogether. Putting Jordan on the rebel side explicitly indicates their commitment to aiding the rebels. Which they have not done in any way, while Israel's air strike can be seen as some form of support to the rebels. If this is not acceptable than I support Future's proposal of providing a direct link to a border incidents section, thus excluding from the infobox all those that are not providing direct aid to ether side (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon) but have been involved in extremely limited clashes which don't count more than half a dozen at the most. EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Behavior. EkoGraf, for days now I've been giving my all to put together a version through compromise and achieve agreement - only to have Futuretrillionaire indiscriminately roll it all back with a bogus WP:GAME excuse. I hope you can understand some of my bitterness and profound annoyance (even so, I made an effort to respond fully to your post). The reverted version is the compromise version. If people compromise with Sopher, then compromise with Futuretrillionaire, then compromise with you - we'd end up with a more biased infobox than we started with.
I also find myself in a position where I must explain the workings of the infobox and repeat the same basic arguments over and over again to different users. In future, if you feel I have breached behavioral guidelines, I trust you know the proper venue for a report? (there's also my talkpage). Otherwise, please do not discuss the subject here as that can also be interpreted as a personal attack, indeed perhaps more so (it can also be seen trying to score points/gain the moral high ground in a discussion).
"Supported by". I oppose re-introduction of any "supported by" factions. The criteria for inclusion into the "combatants" parameter of the infobox is clear enough "factions whose forces took part in the conflict". Furthermore, the "supported by" stuff is unnecessary, as the vast majority of those countries have engaged in this conflict in a minor way, and thus warrant standard inclusion anyway.
Israel. A single line is no different than several lines, and demands for more are usually based on a misunderstanding as to what inclusion in that parameter actually means throughout this project. For umpteenth time: in this infobox all that means is that they engaged the other side (the Syrian army) - that is all. In every military conflict infobox a single line is used to indicate disassociation. Multiple lines are redundant and POV.
Iraq. Iraq is sourced as a combatant, as a country who's military engaged actual rebel troops on more than one occasion.
Jordan. Jordan did NOT engage Syrian rebels, but engaged Islamist militants attempting to join the rebels. That's what the source says - they were not under rebel command. As far as this conflict is concerned, its military only engaged Syrian army forces. Its diplomatic position is, once again - irrelevant for our considerations (you can stop mentioning it?). Adding Jordan does not "explicitly indicate their commitment to aiding the rebels", that's only your perception. All it means - is that they engaged the other side. Ok?
Re Jordan and Iraq, I can maybe agree to removing them from the infobox altogether (based on a lack of sources explicitly stating their involvement), but I cannot agree to re-instate any "supported by" factions. Once again, the parameter is for combatants. The infobox needs to cleared of all the clutter. Needless to say, I categorically reject Futuretrillionaire's "compromise", and actually find it pretty inflammatory when presented in such a capacity.
I will only make a comment about Jordan. The way you put it by saying that those militants were not under rebel command at the time so, in your personal opinion and perception (which does not count on Wikipedia), they were not part of the rebel movement than the clash is not regarded as a clash between Jordan and the opposition forces. Than let me ask you this, to which rebel command are you referring to? Since there doesn't in fact exist a unified rebel command. The FSA is playing its own game (with some factions of the FSA even not listening to its central command), Nusra is playing its game and the Kurds are playing their game, and there are at least another 3-4 other rebel groups which are independent of the others. So...rebel command? I think there are maybe 6-7 of them in Syria, all independent of eachother, and only cooperating on occasion. And Sopher...Supreme Military Command? There have already been numerous news articles talking about this. That the command was declared but most rebel groups/factions on the ground are not listening to it. Also, Director, do you even have a source which states that the militants with which the Jordanians clashed were still not part of the rebel movement? How are you so certain that they hadn't already been admitted to a rebel group beforehand and were being sent to join the others already fighting in Syria? In fact you are voicing your own opinion on the issue, which is not backed up by sources. As for the supported list. That one stays. It was discussed at length numerous times by editors in the past and it was agreed upon. Removing it would be against consensus. In any case, I voiced, not one, but two compromise solutions for the current situation. Which, have been already stated to be fair by one of your votes. So, ether add Iraq to the supported by list on the government side and Israel on the rebel side with a separation line (one...ok), or remove them both and add a link to a border incidents section like Future said (which in my opinion would be the best course of action. As for Jordan, its place is certainly not on ether side of the divide that much is certain. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At one point I saw that israel was listed on the rebel side, and Iraq was on the government side. It also showed that the FSA and the salafi jihadists were separated, as well as the PYG (kurds) being listed separately. This is most accurate, as the Kurdish militias have clashed with both FSA and SAA troops. its unfair to say that the Kurdish militia are supporting one side.
Also as the rebels capture territory, they have begun fighting between themselves, as the FSA fought with the Al Nusra front over disagreements regarding rule, support to the FSA comes from Turkey and NATO, while Al Nusra and other extreme Islamists are supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/26/syrian-rebel-infighting-islamists-clash-with-secularists/
For now, it is best to return the infobox to that set up regardless of director's personal opinion as having it that way is most valid to illustrate the complexity of the current situation. (Jumada (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Ah, I see my annoyance (and consequential overbearing attitude) have once again made my position hard for people to support :). I'm really not that kind of guy in person. After compromising with Sopher and the others, I suppose there's no choice but to start another "round" of compromising with EkoGraf. I just hope Futuretrillionaire won't simply roll it all back again when we're done. When I am able, I will restore the previous version, with two modifications: #1 the removal of Iraq and Jordan (as at the very least one must recognize they require further discussion), and #2 the more accurate representation of the Syrian rebels in accordance with this excellent scholarly source.
Namely, it appears as though there is no such combatant authority as the "Free Syrian Army", and that the Syrian National Coalition has no control or authority over the events in this conflict. The main opposition factions are those deferring to the "Supreme Military Command" for coordination. These consists of the #1Syrian Liberation Front (SLF), #2 the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), #3 the Al-Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra), and #4 a number of independent brigades. With the addendum that the Syrian Liberation Front (specifically Farouq Brigades) and the Al-Nusra Front have been fighting among themselves to some degree. -- Director(talk)23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would look a bit more carefully at what you are suggesting. The Supreme Military command is part of the Free Syrian Army [44][45] with Salim Idress the Supreme Military command chief of staff as the chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army. [46] So basically I would put Supreme Military Command of the Free Syrian Army as the overall heading. Also please don't remove Jordan without removing Israel simultaneously, we had a good-faith agreement to keep both. Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jumada's proposal
I think adding supported by factions plays a bigger role than we might think, lets imagine for a second that Turkey supported the Syrian government and not the rebels in this situation, I think the rebellion would have been suppressed rather quickly, and with no support from Turkey (weapons, aid, intelligence, training, funding, bases) the rebels would soon find themselves overwhelmed. Here is an infobox that includes 3 columns, with more details to the factions and their supporters. It also includes the houthi fighters. Israel was the only faction that had no place in the 3 columns.
While Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting the opposition as we seen recently by offering it the Arab league seat, it is widely semi-confirmed that those two states (or at least elements from within those states) are responsible for recruiting, funding, transporting and arming salafi rebels and extremists. I am unsure whether to put them alongside turkey or keep them under the Mujahideen; this needs further research as it is unclear; but many predict that the FSA and the islamists will eventually face off.
The FSA exists and takes its orders from the Syrian National Coalition, BUT its all on paper. In reality it does not account to anything except a show, so I agree with you on that.(Jumada (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I like your infobox alot, just except the third column of kurds. The conflict is not defined as a threeway battle, and recently the YPD and the FSA has been maintaining joint-checkpoints. [47]. Since the kurds are opting for rebellion against the goverment like the rebels, and have varying extents of direct military cooperation, it has to be kept it as 2 columns. Are you sure houthis are supposed to be there? Just cause they are shiite doesn't mean their fighting in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also like Sopher I also like Jumada's infobox. And I also agree with Sopher that the Kurds shouldn't have a third column. Jumada's proposal of an infobox gave me an idea. And I think this is my 3rd simultaneous compromise proposal. Kurds stay on rebel side, with a separation line as before, like the jihadists, but we add a sub-combatant list. Like Jumada put Israel in his infobox. And on that list will go combatants which have not expressed open support for ether side but have engaged in border incidents with both sides. And the list would include Iraq, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon (alphabetical order). I will make an example of that here so say what everybody thinks of it.
I second this. However I would change it from border clashes to border clashes and incidents, or border clashes and international incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, border clashes and international incidents it is then (air strike and Iraq convoy ambush happened away from the borders). EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Sopher "kurds are opting for rebellion against the goverment like the rebels": Really? Well how do you explain how nice and peaceful things are in Qamishli, where both YPG and government forces exercise joint control [48]? No "rebellion" there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still don't see any "rebellion" there. Just an organised withdrawal from the city, a changing of the guard like almost every interaction between YPG and the army (except Aleppo and the Rumeilan oilfields). I also see that the PYD does not want to see any FSA in Qamishli, either.
What's more, the PYD has been increasingly cracking down on Kurdish groups that are perceived as too sympathetic to the rebels [50][51][52].
There is a vast gulf of difference between "rebellion" and "autonomy". "Rebellion" is when "the people demand the overthrow of the regime" and act on it. "Autonomy" is simply carving out your own area and making sure nobody messes around with it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EkoGraf's proposal. The problems there are #1 it doesn't say with whom the "border clashes" are with,#2 it suggests the "border clashes" factions are allies, and #3 (perhaps most importantly), it again subverts the standard layout of the infobox for the sake of POV. A reader is left guessing what exactly does that thing down there mean. -- Director(talk)02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do too - i dont accept direktors second objection at all - i dont think it does what he says and his third objection is a strength if the alternative is him and baboon explaining what everything meansSayerslle (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Futuretrillionaire/Sayerslle. Wow, you fellas agree? What a surprise. I see EkoGraf was correct in claiming participants are slowly bending to his will.. :) Shocking stuff. Anyway, I'm sure we all knew from the outset that not listing Israel and other such combatants in a proper, standard manner for the sake of political POV is just not something I myself am about to buy. As well as others, I think, who'd just like to see this goddamn infobox brought up to standard with the rest of the project. Can we please move on from cockamamie subversions of the template layout? I'd like to avoid leaving the template in a worse state than from what we set out. At least now people can tell who fights who... -- Director(talk)02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@direktyou go on about sources - well Is there a RS that says 'Israels air strike can be seen as some form of support to the rebels' ? Not 'have inserted themseves into the midst of a civil war' - which is not the same thing - are there RS that reports directly the strike as showing Israel qua a rebel-partisan belligerent in the Civil War - and if you say 'drawn further in...' -that analysis that uses that language makes explicit it is a drawing in , not motivated by support for the rebels -but for its own agenda.(the wall strret journal article for example)- the obsession with a simplistic infobox that can help explain the meaning fr readers is disingenuous imo - and the claims that it is all in the name of neutral pov is a case of The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Sayerslle (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any MC Infobox
Part of Any Article on This Project
Location
Anyplace
Belligerents
combatants that fought all/one/several combatants in Column 2
combatants that fought all/one/several combatants in Column 1
Why must I repeat myself so often on this talkpage? For the twentieth time: columns do NOT necessarily indicate alliances or "support" in this infobox. If you place a faction into one column, ALL you are saying is that they fought someone in the other column. Here, look to the right, I'll illustrate it.
Following standard practice is not "simplistic" by any means. If anything it will provide for a more in-depth depiction of the conflict. Please take note that the infobox I've been restoring is more complex than the current one or any of the suggestions here - and its perfectly accurate. Below I'm trying to have the rebels depicted in more depth, again per template guidelines and standard practices. But appropriate complexity is not the only concern by any means. My main concern is showing the Wikipedia reader a familiar infobox that follows sources and template guidelines, which also happens to have a most important consequence: making the infobox neutral. Or in other words: neutrality comes from objectivity. Objectivity comes from outside rules and standards. The second you exclude a faction from this infobox that would be included everywhere else - you're giving the reader, who's been reading all those other standardized Wikipedia infoboxes - a false impression, making the infobox inevitably slanted to one side or another, in one way or another. The idea is to have consistency and neutrality.
You perceive the addition of Israel there as indicating Israel's support for the rebels. And that's something you wish to prevent. You don't really care whether that's actually indicated by Israel's placement, nor do you care much how these infoboxes are written elsewhere. You just know you see it as Israel favoring the rebels, and that's not good. Am I wrong? Well, I've had years of experience writing MC infoboxes, there's more than a few of them out there that are my work in great part. I came here to fix this one too (quickly, as I so fancifully imagined). I do not wish to suggest Israel supports the rebels - there are no source for anything like that. If I thought I was doing that, well, I wouldn't do it anymore. Its just that I'm not. -- Director(talk)13:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey
Is one border clash enough to list Turkey under Belligerents? Iraq had a couple border clashes but is not listed. I think it would be more appropriate to list as under support. Pug6666 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of adding in Iraq. In fact Iraq WAS added, but some user removed it. I would revert it, but I think done one revert today already. If you can revert Jumada and re-add iraq that would be great. Sopher99 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Both have killed less than Israel". It's a competition now? The winner gets a spot on the infobox? Iraq and Turkey killed less syrians than Israel directly, but indirectly they have killed far more people. Iraq has helped Iran to send weapons to Syria (weapons that killed thousands) and Turkey is one of the largest weapons suppliers to Syrian rebels (weapons that also killed thousands). There is a huge gap in Funkmonk's logic here. Coltsfan (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also it was implied that Israel was not listed at that point it was. So I don't know what Funkmunk is referring to. Also I was proposing we list turkey and Irag the way Suadi Arabia and Qatar are listed. Pug6666 20:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs)
"indirect killing" is hypothetical speculation, and uncitable. Not so with direct killing. Please, keep this useless mumbo jumbo out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Is mere speculation"? The guy who puts the gun in your hands, knowing your intentions, is just as guilty as you are. Imagine if nor Iraq nor Turkey were helping the government and the rebels, respectively. Do you still believe that the number of casualties in the war would have stayed the same? I'm no expert, but to fight a total war, you need weapons. Coltsfan (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is no way in hell you can determine how many people have ben "indirectly killed" by this. With Israel, it is an entirely different matter. The numbers are citable. We only report what sources say, not what you think. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citable? Most sources in this article are only speculative. Including those that says that "42 syrian soldiers died in the attack". The sources that support that also say that they can't verify the accuracy of those informations. All the numbers in this conflit are ALL speculative. And Turkey had an airplane shotdown, they retaliated by attacking targets of military importance, not bombing some research facility. And 14 Iraqi soldiers have died (problably many others) from direct gunfire in the borders. And they also send tons of weapons to Syria. They play a far bigger role in the conflict. But Iraq it's not listed as a combatant. Coltsfan (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has killed more Syrian soldiers than either Turkey or Jordan, more than both together even. Yet it is not in the infobox. So why should those two countries be? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to your own logic, if you kill someone you are then immediately aligning yourself with the opposite side. Or this logic is only valid with Israel? Coltsfan (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if you only attack one faction repeatedly, that is a pretty good indication that you are not against the opposite faction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please dont compare turkey with israel or any other country for that matter..has turkey saudi usa etc entered syrian airspace and bombarded syrian troops? thats a no!..petty border clashes need to be removed. Baboon43 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In retaliation of stuff that is not directly related to the civil war either (downing of Turkish jet that flew over Syrian teritory). That was your rationale for excluding Israel, no? FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! A fighter flying close to Syrian territory for purposes of espionage has nothing to do with the civil war in Syria. Sure. Coltsfan (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know more than everyone else. Who says the purpose was espionage? Please, keep the speculation for yourself. Israel attacked the interests of Syria and Hezbollah on Syrian ground, both are factions within the Syrian conflict. If they had attacked Hezbollah's interests in Lebanon, it would had been another matter. But all this is irrelevant: several reliable sources state Israel has entered the conflict. That is what you have to deal with. Your personal objections and speculations are beyond irrelevant. As for Turkey, their direct involvement is minimal in comparison. Yes, they harbour insurgents, but that is not actively fighting. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the Turkish reason, the plane didn't "accidentally" fly into syrian territory. Israel attacked syria a couple of times. Turkey has sent tons of weapons to the rebels, they are harboring almost the entire leadership of the political oposition, is training FSA rebels, Turkish intelligence is actively operating near syrian borders... it's minimal, for sure. Coltsfan (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we add Iraq to the infobox we might as well add Jordan, Russia, Libya, USA, UK, Sudan, and half the world since they are somehow directly or indirectly involed in the conflict.
Iraq didnt cross its borders and fight/attack inside Syrian territories like Turkey or Israel respectively. Both turkey and Israel attacked targets within Syria, Turkey harbors the rebels and they have confirmed this. Iraq was made to retake its part of the border checkpoint, as well as respond to attacks from FSA militiamen, Al qaeda and FSA sympathizers within Iraq. The Iraqis governemnt did not officially declare support to any side, they have stood as lebanon in this conficlt, in the same manner, Unlike Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah and Qatar whom have officially declared their support and allegiance to either side.
On another note, Jordan is even more involved in the Syrian conflict than Iraq, yet I dont see it in the infobox. This article is becoming one sided and misleading as the same people revert and edit as they wish Jumada (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that they should now be placed on the side of the opposition forces. They have bombed Syrian government positions.
Thank you.
add israel in the infobox they just attacked syria again! apparently israeli officials say its to prevent syria from transferring weapons to hezbollah but thats highly unlikely..the truth is israel wants assad defeated and al qaeda forces to take over syria. israel also used chemical weapons and blamed it on assad, according to a former u.s official [53]Baboon43 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no question that once Israel gets more involved against the Syrian government, it will have to be include don the opposition side. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there must be a criteria for when we decide to add another combatant. Can anyone point me to the appropriate policy? Or do we just need sufficient sources that start calling Israel a combatant? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be common media (not just 3 or 4 sources) recognizing that Israel enters the civil war as a true combatant, ie consistently fighting one side on a near-everyday basis. "stepping into the conflict" and "taking part of the conflict" are vague and are not evidence of belligerence. If Israel launches a long term operation, such as setting a goal to destroy all airbases or chem sites - and not just attacking chemical weapons and missile convoys to hezbollah - then we will definitely put Israel as a combatant. Similarly, if/when the United States decides to launch airstrikes as part of a set operation, we will include them as well. For now Israel stays out of the box. Sopher99 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - I just didn't put any links to Common Name or Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I did put a link to Infobox military conflict, which sets the provisions that lesser or occasional combatants (and Israel is even less than that) are advised to be kept out of the infobox and instead elaborated in the article (which Israel is). Sopher99 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounded like your own personal criteria (but I'm tempted to agree that we should simply go by what sources say). You now state you're going by policy, can you link to and quote from the policy you mention? Also, I see nothing prescriptive in the infobox link you gave earlier. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, if Israel was seen as entering the conflict, they could be added as a third column rather than under the Syrian opposition side. Hello32020 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Just as mujihideen and kurds don't share exact same interest with the FSA, there is an overall antagonism centered against the regime. So Israel would go in rebels side, in a separate row. Sopher99 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is not supporting the rebels. The attacks it carries out are not aimed to weaken the Syrian military, their aim is to prevent Syrian weapons from falling into Hezbollah hands. Israel is simply acting according to its own interests, so they should be in a separate column. - ☣TourbillonA ?10:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's a whole other discussion, why are the Kurds in the same column as the rebels then, when they are actively fighting the rebels (unlike Israel, which has even treated wounded rebels, and never ever attacked them)? Maybe you could chime in, Sopher has effectively prevented the creation of a third row for the last months. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, so if you have an official "agreement" with someone, but still fight them, you are somehow "allied", but if you don't have an official agreement with someone, and don't fight them, only their enemies, you are not on the same side? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about "sense", but about reflecting what the sources say, and make a neutral infobox. And I doubt you are in a position to school me on the complexities of Middle East conflicts. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the part preventing me from thinking that Israel should be added as a rebel ally - there's no certainty it hasn't attacked rebel troops. It's still not clear whether the Syrian targets hit during the border clashes a few months back weren't in fact rebels. It's very plausible considering rebel advances in the area and the silence on the part of Syrian state media - they would've made a propaganda statement out of it if SAA troops were hit. - ☣TourbillonA ?11:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an invalid point, no reliable sources have presented such baseless speculation, and it is therefore irrelevant here. You can be pretty damn sure the "rebels" would had bragged about it if Israel had attacked them Unfortunately for them, this hasn't happened. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not baseless speculation - there's no confirmation that the targets hit were actually of the SAA. Until there is, I see no point in believing it were so. Could you, on the other hand, provide a reliable source stating that Israel's airstrikes represent military support for the rebels ? - ☣TourbillonA ?12:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put this blame on me when many users, FutureTrillionaire, EkoGraf, Sayersville, ect are also againsgt it. The RFC did not provide any consensus and it even went through the dispute resolution and no consensus was given there either. Sopher99 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel belongs in the the same column. Just as mujihideen and kurds don't share exact same interest with the FSA, there is an overall antagonism centered against the regime. So Israel would go in rebels side, in a separate row. Sopher99 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, who is questioning that "Israel is acting on its interests"? Wouldn't the opposite be downright ridiculous? The point is, weakening the Syrian military is in Israel's best interest. Israel is only attacking the government, not the opposition, therefore they belong on the same side. After Iran, Israel fears no one in the Middle East more than Syrian and Hezbollah. Even Hamas has lost its teeth completely (after turning to Qatar, funnily enough). Salafists hate Shias more than they hate Jews. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this has nothing to do with the ongoing war, israel did the same on 2009, israel does not support FSA nor the Kurds. it's a separate conflect b/w israel and (syria/Iran/Hezbollah) axis. to put them on the same side they should work together or have the same goal 3bdulelah (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has exactly the same goal as the insurgents: To weaken the Syrian army, and thereby Hezbllah and Iran. Israel has even treated wounded rebels. The Kurds are allied with neither. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the New York Times: "Reports of the attack raised the possibility that Israel, even if merely intending to pursue its own national security goals, could end up providing a psychological and perhaps military assist to Syrian rebels, who over the last several weeks have faced losses in a series of government offensives around Damascus and the city of Homs to the north." and "The conflict has taken on an increasingly sectarian cast, and some opposition fighters have said that for the Sunni-led rebellion, the greatest enemy is not Israel but Iran and Hezbollah, which are dominated by Shiites and are the closest allies of Mr. Assad’s government. In recent weeks, the Sunni fighters have increased their criticism of Shiites and Alawites, a related sect to which Mr. Assad belongs." [54]FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which just highlights the issue, why are the Kurds not in a third column. They are for the French and German versions, while in the Spanish version, there is a division between the PKK which allies with Assad and Kurdish rebels. It is absurd to promote the belief that the Kurds are unified with the Islamists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
since editors dont understand the conflict let me make it more clear..israel has gathered the puppet wahabi sunnis to attack shia iran elements in the middle east. this will serve as a perlude to a possible dismantling of hezbollah and an attack on iran to finish off the pie. Baboon43 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its the opposite. Syria gathered Hezbollah to fight sunnis in Qusair and Homs, and are trying to ship advanced missile systems to Hezbolah like Fateh 110s, prompting Israeli response who do not want Hezbollah to have such long range missiles. Sopher99 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
syria did that after the rebels began revolting..israel didnt have a problem with syria until the 2006 lebanon war..israel realized they had suffered a setback because assad was helping hezbollah..so now their goal is to weaken syria by forming alliances with anybody they can find. Baboon43 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sopher seems to forget that the Syrian army is still heavily Sunni in composition. Rebel held areas just happen to be largely Sunni too, attacks on these are not motivated by sectarianism. Also, Israel has never liked a strong Syrian army, even prior to Assad domination. Or any Arab army that was not merely a western puppet, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel should not be in the infobox. It has not stated that it is in a state of war with Syria, and the strikes were directed at shipments from Iran to Hezbollah ([55][56]). To include Israel in the infobox is speculation. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit removing Israel as consensus was to post. Israel has now made major airstrikes on Damascus. On the contrary, it is rash to speculate what Israel's motivations regarding Hezbollah are in these latest airstrikes, particularly since targets were much more systemic than mere strikes on missiles headed to Hezbollah, and therefore are being directed against Assad's government. I welcome other thoughts on this issue, please discuss further. Hello32020 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make it clear that the edit Hello32020 reverted was not mine. Nevertheless, I maintain my position that Israel has not joined the conflict; the conflict being the fight between forces trying to overthrow Assad and those defending him. Until Israel starts attacking Syrian positions for the purpose of overthrowing Assad's regime, we cannot say that Israel has joined the conflict. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The airstrikes are not, according to any sources, directly related to the war between pro-Assad and anti-Assad forces (which is what this article is about). Therefore Israel should be removed from the infobox. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly Israel is not the Free Syrian Army or Assad's army. However, Kurdish forces are listed as combatants in the article and their objectives are separate from those of the general anti-Assad forces, hence they are listed in a separate section like Israel. As Israel is bombing Syrian government forces, not just missiles headed toward Hezbollah, they are fighting Assad forces and therefore should remain included in the article. Hello32020 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Kurdish forces are included in the same column as the FSA because they share the goal of overthrowing Assad with the FSA; they are separated by a line because there have been instances where the FSA and Kurds have not cooperated with each other or even (rarely) fought against each other. Israel is not, according to any sources, trying to overthrow Assad, unlike the FSA and the Kurds. Therefore, including Israel in the infobox is making an unsourced assumption that Israel is trying to overthrow Assad. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do all conflicts result in the overthrow of leaders or does every state involved in a conflict need to have this as their proximate goal? If they are engaged in combat, they are in a state of conflict, and therefore their actions support the anti-Assad goals of overthrowing Assad's regime. Hello32020 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all conflicts; but in this conflict the goal of the opposition is the overthrowing of Assad. Israel's actions cannot yet be considered part of the Syrian civil war (which this article is about); at this point Syria and Israel should be considered to be in a separate conflict. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Kurds do not have the same objectives as the rebels. The Kurds want autonomy in their own region, regardless of whether Assad rules the rest of Syria or not. The rebels want to overthrow Assad, and rule all of Syria, including Kurdish areas, which goes directly against Kurdish goals. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss with evidence on the talk page before making reverts. A consensus was formed to add Israel on this talk page, removing it from the article without discussing it here, as I and Philpill691 have done, and having a consensus to remove it is contrary to the editing process. If an administrator could restore the consensus to add Israel, please do so. Hello32020 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my point: just because a country takes an action against a country which happens to be engaged in a war doesn't automatically make said attacker part of said war. In this way, Israel cannot yet be considered to be a belligerent in the Syrian civil war. Therefore Israel does not, at this point, belong in the infobox. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have reached an impasse, as I believe the evidence shows that Israel's strikes against Syria constitutes an entrance as a separate party (hence in a different section than the Free Syrian Army, etc.) into the conflict. This is because it constitutes an attack against Assad's regime, with Israel's objective being for different reasons (like the Kurdish forces), but meriting inclusion into the article because of the attack being directed against Assad and the implications it has in the environment for the strategic benefit of the anti-Assad forces. I recommend other editors join the discussion so we can reach a stronger consensus, rather than editing the page unilaterally. Hello32020 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both me and Hello32020 have provided sources and suggested edits. We have simply been debating whether Israel should be included in the infobox. We are not engaged in a general discussion as you have implied. Nothing at WP:NOTFORUM applies to our discussion. Why don't you contribute to the discussion instead of criticizing the way we have been having it. --Philpill691 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it really doesnt matter if israel is just practicing shooting missiles into damascus or they really intend to overthrow assad..this is ridiculous you cant say a state had such and such motive so they are not technically in the war..lights camera action, any military activity within syrian territory is now part of the syrian civil war. Baboon43 (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philpill691, your position is that there should be no change to the infobox, as far as I can tell. I don't see anyone providing a concrete suggestion for an addition, just a forum-like discussion. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion is to add Israel in the opposition column, that should be pretty obvious by now. And if anyone objects since they are not "directly allied", then why are the Kurds there? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't put the spillovers and stuff like that in the infobox. The israeli action was for sure in the context of this war but it had very little efect on it and was not part of a larger action to help either side. It's not a intervention or anything of the sort. It's a unilateral action by Israel that serves only to their own interests. Simple as that. Coltsfan (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think weakening the Syrian government is in the interest of the Syrian rebels? Are you kidding? There are videos of them shouting "allahu akbhbar" during these bombings, I doubt that was in condemnation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weakening the syrian government? 42 syrian soldiers apparently died. 42 out of 200k. The weapons that were destroyed, they where going to Hezbollah, not to the syrian government. The base that was attacked had little importance overall. You can't even call it 'a simbolic action'. The bombing only served to Israel's interests. The rebels gain no military advantage or any leverage with that. It was a unilateral action, that only served Israel's purposes. Actually, this atack could go bad for the rebels as they can lose support of muslims because, well, they all hate Assad, but they hate Israel more. And they will not digest a israeli attack on arab soil that easy. Coltsfan (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the loss of military facilities and soldiers should not be a gain for the rebels is beyond laughable. And no one has yet proven these weapons were indeed intended for Hezbollah, that's just Israeli spin. And as for Israel being their biggest enemy: "The conflict has taken on an increasingly sectarian cast, and some opposition fighters have said that for the Sunni-led rebellion, the greatest enemy is not Israel but Iran and Hezbollah, which are dominated by Shiites and are the closest allies of Mr. Assad’s government. In recent weeks, the Sunni fighters have increased their criticism of Shiites and Alawites, a related sect to which Mr. Assad belongs."[59] Jews are considered people of the book, whereas Shias are merely mushrikoun. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any event I'm not sure if the rationale that they bombed a convoy matters: if Syria were to bomb a weapons convoy in Israel (or Turkey, or the United States, etc.) on its way to supply the rebels, that would be an act of war, and we'd see as much immediately. -Darouet (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there are so many rebel groups that we can be pretty sure one man isn't speaking for the entire opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC
As a sidenote, if Israel should be included on the rebel side because of its airstrikes and border clashes, the same should be done with Iraq, but on the government side. They assisted government troops in several occasions.
To be honest, there's much more evidence to include Iraq as a supporter of the government than Israel as an opponent to it. - ☣TourbillonA ?07:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, logistical support is hardly in the same range as, you know, actual attacks. Israel has attacked the Syrian government on Syrian ground. The same can't be said for Iraq and the rebels. And one opposition claim of the latter doesn't suffice. And heck, if logistical help counted, we would have most of the Gulf and the West on the side of the rebels. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Logistical support" ? The Iraqi troops openly clashed with rebels. Iraq has been involved much more actively than Saudi Arabia or Qatar, it merits mentioning in the infobox. - ☣TourbillonA ?13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi soldiers have been attacked by al-Qaeda rebels within Iraqi territory, so of course they clash there. What happens on Syrian territory is another matter, and is what's actually relevant here. That Iraqi soldiers should be fighting in Syria is unverified propaganda on behalf of the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the israeli attack is pretty much an isolated event. It's not part of a major set of actions to help the rebels. The attack did not have the objective of helping the opposition in any way. The attack did not help their cause in the long or short term. It's a isolated event, part of Israel fighting against Hezbollah and as part of a troublesome relationship between the two countries. Coltsfan (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Six attacks within the last year and a half is hardly "an isolated event". Israel has attacked parties of the conflict more times than any other state. And if the attacks didn't count for anything, you wouldn't have opposition figures praising the attacks ad nauseam these days. Military equipment and facilities are pretty hard to replace when you're sanctioned by the entire western world, so yes, any such loss is major. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clashing with the Syrian army does not necessarily make Israel a combatant in the Syrian civil war. There's a clear lack of logic reasoning here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is attacking a single faction in a civil war. It is therefore, by its actions, taking part in the conflict, and aligned with the other faction. Reliable sources are stating that much, so our musings and made up criteria are completely irrelevant. If it had attacked both, you might have had a point. And yes, Israel can be involved in the civil wars of other countries, see Lebanese civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any action against the syrian government helps the rebels, sure. But events such as these did not have that intent. At most, it's a spillover. It's more like part of a larger action against Hezbollah to prevent it from getting more deadly wepons to use againts Israel. The last israeli attack was 5 mounths ago. It's not like Iran who has 10k troops on the ground, or Turkey, that launched the first foreign attack on Syria and it's openly helping the rebels with wepons and money. I believe that everybody that it's in favor of putting Israel in that infobox has not shown any good information, backed by a reliable source, that this israeli action is part of a larger set of events that have the intent of helping either side. Coltsfan (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Israel's interferences in Lebanon with a few, isolated strikes, as FunkMonk is doing, pretty much demonstrates the lack of logical reasoning here. Attacking a few Syrian/Hezbollah targets is not the equivalent of actively taking sides in a civil war, as Israel did in Lebanon. This argument is outright ridiculous. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's see some headlines from reliable sources (compiled by Director after the last attack):
There are many more like these, probably more after the recent attacks. And just for the record: no one cares what you personally think is "illogical" or "ridiculous". All that matters is what reliable sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some newer sources. "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. "[61] "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war"[62] "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".[63]FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Israelis are able to strike much more protected military assets, and with far greater power. Vague speculation about their intentions is better replaced simply with facts: that they have carried out a series of major airstrikes clearly debilitating to the Syrian regime, and likely to hasten Assad's downfall. We might argue that Iran, and the United States, have overall supplied far more weapons and support than anything Israel has done for the rebels. But Israel has now intervened - directly, militarily, and on a spectacular scale - several times, and their animosity towards the Assad regime certainly predates this conflict.
Nobody here is questioning whether Israel is or isn't involved in the civil war. But to list them as a active combatant is inaccurate. Sure, they have taken the rebel's side in the conflict but they are not doing things on a daily bases to help the oppositions' cause. This could be the first step for a largest israeli military involvement in Syria, but right now it isn't. And by the way, the attack received widespread condemnation from almost all the factions involved in the war, including the oposition. Coltsfan (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no unified opposition, and therefore no spokesperson for the whole mess, some are condemning simply because they don't want to seem like stooges, but many others are cheering for Israel. And "daily basis" attacks are irrelevant, the Kurds are dormant most of the time, and are listed anyway. This is not about the amount of attacks, but the fact that such attacks occur. The sources decide, not me and you. And they have decided that Israel has entered this conflict. The criterion for inclusion in the infobox is significant armed participation, and this certainly applies to Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
israel is the reason there is a civil war and rebels are getting western backing & the whole conflict within a conflict fallacy doesnt fly..hezbollah is in the war according to the infobox so israel should also be in there..turkey usa rebels or saudi arabia can condemn israel all they want but the truth is they are its biggest allies. Baboon43 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk; My point is that Israel's actions has nothing to do with the internal strife in Syria, and could just as well have happened without there being a civil war. Israel is arguably involved, but not a combatant.
Baboon43; Hezbollah is participating with its own fighters on the side of the Syrian government. Israel has yet to effectively take a side in Syria, and is not likely to do so in any near future. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to repeat that your personal musings are irrelevant? The fact is that reliable sources are stating Israel has entered the conflict, as in the Syrian civil war, as a combatant, by actively attacking one faction on several occasions. Whether they are officially allied to the rebels or not is completely irrelevant, Israel is fighting one faction, but not the other, that's what matters. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonh; Again - Israel's actions has nothing to do with the internal strife in Syria, and can thus not be considered an interference in the civil war. A potential Syrian-Israeli war can in fact be completely unrelated to the Syrian civil war, even if they might happen simultaneously - and besides, a few strikes here and there does not qualify for being placed in the infobox, which would totally contradict the purpose of that template. I suggest we wait until the scope of the Israeli strikes becomes evident before debating whether or not Israel should be considered a combatant.
Hezbollah and Iran have troops on the ground fighting beside the government 24/7. They don't even try to deny or conceal. They fight with the sole objective of helping the regime to defeat the rebels. The isreali action it was completely different. It's a totaly differente geopolitical scenario. Coltsfan (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Where are these Iranian troops? If they really fight 24/7, they must be some hi-tech invisible, immortal bastards. Only one dead body within 2 years and it's still unknown what the guy was doing there.
Funkmonk and Baboon have advanced a whole series of sources stating that Israel has entered the conflict. Let's present some other sources - explicitly arguing the opposite - so that we can discuss them. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RS do not really ever describe Israel actions as motivated by pro-rebel stances do they. they seem to have been ok with 'hostile but quiescent' assad Syria. read RS. - you can read stuff like this - "Syria's deputy foreign minister said the Israeli strikes were an act of war, designed to help the "terrorists". The strikes do indeed only help Assad make the argument that the Syrian rebels are the pawns of a western-backed plot designed to undermine resistance to Israel" - its all very murky.Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their motivation is irrelevant, the Kurds are not "pro-rebel" either (they want autonomy in their region, not necessarily Assad's removal), yet they are on the same side. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That argument doesn't hold water at all. The Kurds does not need to have a "pro-rebel" stance - they are rebels themselves. As I've said before, the Israeli strikes has nothing to do with the Syrian civil war, and should thus not be considered a part of it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are still not on the same side. Kurds regularly attack rebels. Israel never does. So if anything, Israel is even more aligned with the rebels than the Kurds are. And I repeat, the threshold for inclusion is participation in the violence by attacking involved parties, not the motivations for doing so (otherwise, why does Israel have an entire section in the article?). That has been determined by reliable sources already, so please, no more personal observations/objections. We don't care how you think it should be. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel may be secretly aligned with the rebels, but this does not make them a combatant in the Syrian civil war. The recent attacks was about Hezbollah, not the internal strife in Syria. [65][66] --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you attack a faction within a conflict, you become part of the conflict. Otherwise we wouldn't have a section devoted to Israel's role, and reliable sources would not state Israel has entered the conflict. Case closed. The motives are irrelevant, the actions are what count. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well said FunkMonk, Israel and Turkey are clearly against the Government and have attacked government forces multiple times thus they should be listed on that side. case closed Jumada (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last isreali attack on Syria was 5 months ago and it was also a isolated event. If it was an intervention or a series of actions, the argument that is a combatant could hold. But, by many sources, this is NOT what happened. This is not part of a broad intervention. Besides this event, Israel is not taking part of the fighting AT ALL. The attacks did not have the objective of undermine the government or to directly assist the rebels in their cause. FunkMonk, besides this argument that "if you attack one faction, then you are inherently assisting the other", do you have any reliable source that shows that Israel is taking right now an active part in the fighting? Maybe with troops on the ground, daily bombings or anything of the sort? Coltsfan (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, home-made criteria for inclusion don't work. A belligerent is anyone who takes part in the fighting. Israel does that. And we have sources that state this. It doesn't have to be as part of a "broad intervention" or whatever you think. And how the hell are six attacks within a year an "isolated event"?FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about repeated, massive air-strikes? This is no border clash or "a simple attack" (have you been paying attention to the news?), this is carefully targeted destruction of one factions facilities and soldiers, at least six times within a year. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Massive air-strikes... one small base, with very little military value, partially destroyed, and some 42 soldiers allegedly killed (according only to SOHR, a London based group). Coltsfan (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your personal opinion is irrelevant (and hard to take seriously), and the reliable sources seem to disagree with you. So can we please quit this useless back and forth? Deal with the sources. And why are baseball fans infesting this page? I thought we had enough in Sayerslle. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "reliable sources" you are refering to based their research on SOHR and SANA sources, both extremely bias (not even you can deny this). No one can really tell 'what things are' in Syria. There is NO source that proves that Israel is actively participating in the war. And say that they are combatants is completaly humorous. Coltsfan (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk; I don't accept your logic. These attacks could just as well have happened without there being a civil war in Syria, and was all about Hezbollah - not the Syrian rebels. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will be the last time I repeat this: What you "accept" is irrelevant, go and argue with the reliable sources. This is Wikipedia, not your personal blog. What matters here is verifiability. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have supplied sources that clearly contradicts your claims. And besides, Israel has struck Syria before - nothing unusual. Israel has not intervened in Syria as a combatant as of right now. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My (and many sources') claim: "Israel has entered the conflict by attacking a faction." Your sources say: "Israel's attacks were not intended to help the rebels." Now, can you tell me how those two statements are mutually exclusive? I can help you: they aren't. The threshold for inclusion as a belligerent is not allegiance to a faction, but attack on one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to fight two separate conflicts at the same time. As of now, we need to distinguish between what's part of the internal conflict in Syria, and what's not. Israel's actions definitely falls within the last category unless anything else is proven, which won't happen very soon. It seems like some people are in a hurry to declare Israel as a combatant, but we should bury our biases and wait until the motives behind the attacks can be confirmed/disproved. Ok? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No we do not need to "distinguish" or "prove" anything. That's what the reliable sources are for. And they state Israel has joined the Syrian conflict. How many time do I have to repeat this core Wikipedia principle? What is it you don't understand? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RS say over and over that Israel is ambivalent about the civil war. "IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz warned on Monday that rebel terror groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad may target Israel next.Speaking at the Herzliya Conference 2013, Gantz said, “The situation in Syria has become unstable and incredibly dangerous. Although the likelihood of war with Syria is low, the terrorist organizations fighting against Assad may see us as their next challenge- " --Is 'entering in the conflict' identical with 'entering in the civil war' anyhow? I know the refrain is 'we mustn't think or concern ourselves with anything that RS say about these things' isn't that a bit mindless Sayerslle (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, see above. Whatever Israel "feels" or "thinks" doesn't negate the fact that they have attacked a party in the conflict, and that "reliable sources" state they have joined it. That is all that matters. Address the damn sources, and please cut out with these useless musings. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, some quickly compiled reliable sources, since you guys seem to have a short memory:
Some newer sources. "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. "[67] "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war"[68] "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".[69]FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel can't give orders to assad on who he gives his weapons to even if it is true that he is transferring weapons..infact hezbollah has yet to be on the terrorist list in the european union. (on benny gantz).Israel makes those statements so that they are not exposed as allies to the radical sunnis..if rebels are successful its a win-win for israel..rebels will proceed to attack minorities and sunnis who are not radical & they might also attack israel which in return israel might flatten the region..ofcourse the most popular outcome is that rebels proceed to destabilize shia in the region. so adding israel in the infobox is not an injustice Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, it's like one of your sources say: "Israel's goal was apparently to deny sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, and may not have been intended to stir the pot in Syria." And "Other analysts disagreed that Israel was intending to undermine Assad, especially since any successor to the Syrian leader could prove to be even more hostile." All the other sources tell the same story: "this may indicate" "could" "maybe"... they are all speculating as well. Just like you are. Coltsfan (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're yet again missing the points. The intentions are irrelevant for whether or not Israel is a belligerent, the actions aren't. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk - It is possible to fight two conflicts at the same time! If Syria and Israel goes to war (which has not happened yet), even that wouldn't necessarily make Israel a combatant in the Syrian civil war. Israel has declared its neutrality in this conflict, and your speculations regarding clandistine or "unofficial" support to the rebels are completely irrelevant. Even if there was total war between Syria and Israel right now, it would be outright misleading to add Israel to the infobox unless there is a clear connection. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we can make the same argument about the kurds..as you know the kurdish movement is widespread and they are looking for a kurdistan..one can say thats another dimension of a conflict which differs from the civil war..but nobody is going to waste their time and identify each belligerents motives and make separate articles accordingly now are we? the only way israel might be removed is if random countries start throwing missiles at syria and have their own separate motives..in that case we would have to remove it because its clogging up the infobox but i doubt any other country will attempt that Baboon43 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
israel is also a combatant..if killing syrian troops isnt fighting then what is? your personal analysis of the situation can't be used when RS is available. Baboon43 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutrality in the conflict"? Who are you trying to kid? In any other war, attacking one faction within it would kind of undermine ones neutrality. But I guess when it comes to Israel, all laws are bendable... FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to fight two conflicts at the same time, and unless Israel steps into the internal conflict in Syria, this is simply a separate conflict between Assad, Hezbollah and Israel. Please don't force me to repeat myself again. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pure original research to include Israel on one or other side in the infobox, as if they are fighting against one or other side, or supporting one or other side. They claim to be strikes on Hezbollah and those assisting them. The strikes were, according to them, on weapon transfers to Hezbollah, and not related to the civil war. Avaya1 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must have missed what "original research" means. If reliable sources state Israel has joined the conflict, then that's what the reliable sources say. Do you know what I mean? FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the infobox allows for three sides in the conflict. Israel could go there, addressing on Avaya1's objections. I had another thought, Israel does not appear in the Gulf War infobox either. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any third column should go to the PYD, who have maintained a substantive and important third position in northern Syria since last summer. This article, however, would argue strongly against adding Israel as a "supporter" of the rebels: [70] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding countries
Please discuss doing so on the talk page first so we don't have to deal with the arguments about Israeli involvement on such a large scale.Pug666622:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best way to solve the "problem" is simply to add Israel in the infobox. There's a reason why it keeps being added, and the reason is that yes, Israel has joined the conflict, as attested by multiple reliable sources. And no, I don't want to hear any home-made arguments. Sources, or keep it shut. The sooner we get Israel in the infobox, and the Kurds in a third column, the better. It will happen eventually, so let's just cut the crap. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These reliable sources you are referring to are often openly based on speculations, and have been countered by other reliable sources a number of times. I (again) suggest we leave it until Israel steps into the internal conflict in Syria, which it has yet to do. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, none have been "countered", you've provided sources that did not contradict anything, and you ignored the issue when I brought it up. Do we really have to resort to direct falsehoods now? Reliable sources say: "Israel joins Syrian conflict". You come up with sources that say "Israel is not officially aligned with rebels". And I repeat, these two claism are not mutually exclusive. And some more Israeli/Wahabi news: "In general, however, the Sunni-dominated Gulf States have moved closer to Israel in recent years in the shadow of the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Numerous media outlets have previously reported that the Gulf States would be all too happy were Israel to militarily neutralize Iran's nuclear program. Earlier this month, it was Qatar's prime minister who sought to breath new life into the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative on terms more friendly toward the Jewish state."[71] Aha... And now the Israelis are humanitarians: "Jerusalem native Moti Kahana heads a group of Israeli businessmen and American Jews who travel to the Syrian refugee camps to provide humanitarian aid to victims of one of the era's bloodiest conflicts. "We are Jews and Israelis and we can't sit still as women and children are being butchered nearby," he told Ynet."[72] Laughable.FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is called Syrian civil war, not Syrian conflict and we do have to pay attention to the way RS report the nature of Israelis desultory actions imo - trying to put Israel centre-stage so to speak, and scrabbling for significance of Israeli businessmen and American Jews in refugee camps looks propaganda -ish and fringe-y style verbiage. Sayerslle (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty obvious that "Syrian conflict/war/civil war/whatever" are synonyms in this case. And no one is trying to put Israel in "centre stage", only to add Israel, which has been warranted for quite some time now. But I guess that gets the knickers of the pro-insurgents here in a twist. You know, those types that think Assad is secretly allied with Israel, and that these attacks are merely intended to cover that up. Lawl. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bombing weapons designated to Hezbollah is not the same as stepping into the internal conflict in Syria, and none of your sources contradicts that Israel stepping into the Syrian civil war is more than merely speculations (and yes, I have provided sources that clearly state this was all about Hezbollah, not the Syrian conflict). Adding Israel is in the best case misleading and in the worst case counterfactual. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel should be added to the infobox alongside the FSA, Mujahideen, and the Kurds respectively separated on its own row. Jumada (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source would not need to use the exact words Sopher demands, he's the no1 pro-rebel watchdog on this talkpage. For quality sources that explicitly state Israel has entered this conflict, please see my previous lists of such references in above threads. I have no doubt many more could easily be found, especially after recent events. I'd copy them down myself and add others, were I at my home computer.
For the love of all things sensible, neutral and Wiki-like - add that country already. --Director
Some newer sources. "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. "[73] "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war"[74] "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".[75]FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources describe Israel as a combatant or a belligerent, or that they are fighters in the Syrian civil war or if they are a side against anyone in the conflict. All these sources say is that Israel is part of the news on Syria. They are just stating the obvious, that Israel ties into the conflict somehow to a degree. They are not combatants that go in a combatant section. Sopher99 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Articlea which carelessly title themselves with "drawn into the conflict" or that shallowly say "joins the conflict" are no where near the same as labeling them as combatants.
Indeed, if a party is a considered belligerent, you should have no trouble finding sources that call the party exactly that. There's no need to put the bar any lower. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There is no reason why sources, which clearly state the country has entered the Syrian civil war, must necessarily use the same words you folks invent here. The use of the precise word "belligerent" is not demanded anywhere on this project for inclusion in the relevant column. I wrote or thoroughly expanded dozens of such templates and never encountered any such requirement. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to satisfy your own criteria on this same article, e.g. for Turkey, the hezbollah, Jordan and perhaps even Iran, etc. Were we mad enough to take them seriously, we would probably need to thoroughly strip this template and many others of real, fighting combatants.
The bottom line is that the template guide describes a typical entry in the relevant category as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict", and makes no mention of any such absurdly specific and strict requirements. The rest is arbitrary raising of the bar. The sources are there, please modify the article in accordance with them - as per cardinal policy (or at least pause stonewalling other editors from doing so). --Director
The military infobox calls for combatants, not "participants". If an article noted Russia or America or Papua New Guinea as a participant of this conflict, it would still not warrant inclusion in the infobox. For example if a source says Russia "participates" in this conflict through sending military advisers, or docking warships on their Mediterranean base in Syria. Doesn't mean they go into the infobox. The guideline calls for combatants. Even then, the guideline recommends to keep lesser combatants out of the infobox and instead elaborate on them in the article itself. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to engage in another one of Sopher's absurd word-mincing exercises. Israel's military involvement is sourced by any standards, and the country fits perfectly the standard requirements for inclusion in the infobox in question. Factions with much less military involvement and refs to their name are in mc infoboxes all over this project - including this article as well.
And no, the template guide does not "recommend we keep lesser combatants in the text". In actual fact, the above referred-to misrepresented text from the infobox guidelines does not refer to lesser combatants as such, supposedly advising their exclusion, but rather specifically addresses a situation with large numbers of factions, such as conflicts with dozens of them per each column (e.g WWII, WWI, Italian wars, Iraq War etc) by encouraging us to group combatants together if possible ("Allies:", "Axis:"). By no means are we anywhere near that territory on this article, where we have a relatively simple conflict with maybe a dozen factions altogether.
P.S. I do apologize if my manner turned out rather rough, I'm afraid this issue has been a cause of some frustration lately. The matter has been complicated by the fact that Wikipedia including Israel in the infobox might adversely affect the popularity of the rebel cause. I sympathize, but Israel has repeatedly chosen to attack one of the participants in the conflict, and the only neutral thing to do in the current situation includes giving the rebels some bad pr. I strongly urge Israel be added and this issue be finally put to rest. --Director
I don't think this is infobox is actually describing policy. I suggest a WP:RFC, since those wishing to add Israel aren't able to meet the level of evidence others are requesting. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the infobox guidelines are indeed not "policy" (who said they were?), but they do describe standard criteria for inclusion - as opposed to arbitrary POV demands by random users.
Second, we already had 2 RfCs.
Third, "levels of evidence" are not determined by random internet users, but by Wikipedia policy. And those levels, as defined therein, have been met. If one is a pro-rebel lobbyist on this talk page one would probably feel inclined to continuously keep raising the bar and demanding higher "levels of evidence", which actually happened in this thread alone. Wikipedia is not quite so dysfunctional. It is, however, apparently dysfunctional enough as to have no remedy for this brand of blatant WP:STONEWALL (at least until I can find the time to bring all this up at WP:AE or something..)
Link to the two rfcs about Israel and infobox? Would you like to suggest another algorithm for determining if a country is added to the infobox? (Presumably, this would cause Israel to be added but not, for example, Lebanon.) TippyGoomba (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I'm on my phone so its rather difficult to link things. They're above, plus I think there was a DRN thread as well. No consensus was reached, though if I recall supporters of inclusion were the majority (for what that's worth). Sopher himself at one point agreed as well if memory serves.
Re Lebanon, I didn't do any research so I really can't say. Its inclusion may or may not be warranted, its an entirely separate issue. As far as general algorithms are concerned, I really see no reason (apart from POV) to deviate from standard wiki practice with regard to this template, as implemented all over the project and loosely defined in infobox guidelines. When countries are concerned its particularly easy: if a country's military engaged in the conflict, include the country. If not - don't: this is the Military Conflict Infobox. The bid for inclusion can then perhaps be further supported, if necessary, with sources explicitly stating the country's involvement in the conflict (as with Israel here). But even that can be considered superfluous if military involvement as such was already sourced. -- Director(talk)16:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel should probably have been added months ago right after the first one or two air strikes and artillery attacks, and that based only on sources confirming said military engagements as such. This what we have now is just overkill.. Even the Haaretz is reporting Israel has joined the war, and the incidents themselves are legion. -- Director(talk)16:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sopher99 provided links above with regard to the Lebanon question. Tell me if they meet the standard for inclusion under the algorithm you are thinking of. Tell me specifically what criteria you used to come to your conclusion(s). I'm still not clear on what your algorithm is. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its really very simple when countries are concerned. Include a country if its military engaged in the conflict. I.e. if engaged in fighting with one of the other factions in the conflict. If the country considered for inclusion is a minor combatant, then add a note indicating that - don't exclude it unless there are really dozens of combatants as in WWII or such huge complicated conflicts. (On the other hand, of course, if a country's military did not engage in combat - don't include it.)
I hope I've managed to be clearer this time around.
With the Lebanon.. I really ought to do proper research before voicing my opinion, and I cant do that right now. Again, though, if it meets the above standard criteria, I would include it. If not, I wouldn't. Regards -- Director(talk)11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanon has no involvement on the gorund in Syria. Lebanese soldiers have clashed with FSA soldiers who were illegally in Lebanon, but so have Jordan and Turkey. This is far from Israel's attacks on Syrian factions on Syrian territory. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting distinction. If the soldiers were not authorized by their government, that would seem to exclude them from being added based on a single skirmish. I withdraw my Lebanon objection on that basis. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk; Crossing the border on a few occasions does not qualify to being added in the infobox by a long shot. That Fox report adresses the danger represented by the possibility that Israel might get dragged in, not the danger of its already existing involvement. I again suggest we wait before drawing any conclusions regarding Israeli involvement. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way; Do you remember when Israel struck Khartoum last year? The Sudanese government was fighting rebels in Dharfur and South Kordofan at the same time. Is Israel now a combatant in that war too? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few points.
It makes no difference whether confrontations take place strictly within Syrian borders or not. The issue is military involvement with other factions in this war. Again Israel has been so involved and in a big way, it indubitably warrants inclusion; I couldn't say re Lebanon.
A note on legal history: technically Israeli troops have been on Syrian territory for decades, as the Golan is legally Syrian territory. Also, there exists a long-standing formal state of war between the Syrian government and Israel (which is all the more reason to include Israel)
Actions of a country's military force can be considered to have been actions of that country unless there is reason to think otherwise (such as a government condemning the actions).
@Mikrobogoevn. Yes, if the Israeli military attacked the city of Khartoum in some way, Israel should be mentioned in the relevant infobox, accompanied with a brief note explaining the marginal nature of their involvement. You generally do not appear to be informed with regard to the sources, please read the above discussion. Any country that has been militarily involved against factions in this conflict should be included (except when there are far too many such factions, which is by no means the case here). Not only has Israel been sourced as having repeatedly bombed and shelled Syrian Army forces and facilities, but reliable sources (including Israeli news) explicitly describe and interpret these events as Israel's entry/involvement in this war. There really appears to be no conceivable basis for excluding the country as a combatant (again, probably with some sort of note stating its limited involvement). -- Director(talk)13:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic makes no sense. Was Iraq a combatant in the first intifada because Saddam Hussein fired 39 Scud missiles on Israel at the same time? You fail to accommodate the fact that it's possible to fight two conflicts at the same time, and as of now, theories regarding secret Israeli motives are pure speculations. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non issue. Israel is involved but there are no official sources to support the wording which would allow it to be put into the infobox. Im sure with the new delivery of Anti-Ship missiles this week from Russia and there impending destruction by Israel will give plenty of reasonable and acceptable sources in due course. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel just wants Arabs to kill Arabs., Any ther claim is ridiculous. But in this case, they have attacked a single side within a conflict. Whatever their motives are, this makes them part of the conflict, and as long as they do not attack the rebels, an attack on the government puts them on the same side as the former. This would be logical in any other conflict, but when it comes to Israel, we apparently need exceptions. Yes, Israel doesn't want to seem as if it is on the same side as the jihadis, and the jihadis don't want iot to seem like they are on the same side as Israel. but the fact on the ground is that they are fighting the same enemy at the same time. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnsy. Israel's inclusion is indeed a non-issue - as there are more than enough high-quality sources that explicitly state Israel has entered this war. To demand that a ref explicitly use the word "belligerent" is absurd beyond belief, and is a criteria that the vast majority of combatants in mc infoboxes throughout this project would not meet - including most od those currently in this article's infobox. Gentlemen, please read the presented sources and the guidelines of this infobox. By the stringent criteria demanded for the inclusion of Israel, practically all combatants in this infobox should be removed.
@Mikrobolgeovn. Yes, an entry along the lines of "Iraq (missile attacks)" would indeed probably be warranted. Military conflict is included in the "military conflict" infobox, Mikro. I suggest you read the infobox guidelines at some point, lest we be forced to go through the entire history of the Middle East with these pointless examples. More importantly, you appear to believe conflicts are somehow "mutually exclusive", and that a military confrontation can only be within the scope of one conflict. I should not even have to point out the fact that arguments along those lines make no sense.
Again you fail to understand it's possible to fight two conflicts at the same time. The Israeli strike on Khartoum had nothing to do with the ongoing war in Kordofan, and the Iraqi missile strikes on Israel was not related to the intifada. I can point out a thousand similar examples. Your suggestions does not exactly help your cause here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) At this point I think it's not reasonably disputable that Israel should be added in; the discussion should fall to placement within the infobox. The Jewish State has affirmed that it would prefer to keep the Arab Republic around if the alternative is the jihadi-infested opposition [76], which would argue against classing Israel as a "supporter" of the rebels. Of course, this has not visibly influenced Israeli strategy on the ground, which seems to be more directed against targeting weapons sites to keep them from Hizbullah. But Hizbullah in turn is quite involved in this conflict, having many paramilitaries actively fighting in both Damascus (Sayyidah Zaynab) and Homs (Qusayr) provinces, so war with Hizbullah is not at all mutually exclusive with participation in this conflict. Given that Israel's few but notable attacks have uniformly targeted the Syrian government (to date, at least), the right column is probably the best place for them—but at the very bottom, with one or two separation bars to denote the fact that they are operating quite independently of the Syrian opposition.
Additionally, given that Nusra and ex-Ba'athi, pro-"FSA" settlers have proven themselves to be unable to keep from attacking the YPG in Hasakah Province [77][78], and that rebels in Aleppo (where collaboration between the rebels and PYD is ostensibly strongest) are similarly lacking in self-control [79][80], I still maintain that the third column is the most accurate presentation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lothar, I tend to agree on both points.
Mikrobølgeovn, you do not appear to be reading my posts.
@"Again you fail to understand it's possible to fight two conflicts at the same time."
On the contrary, I understand that quite well. Which is why I've twice been explaining that conflicts are not somehow "mutually exclusive". Regardless of whether or not, as you personally believe(!), the Israeli attacks are also a part of some other conflict, the sources indicate they are most certainly part of this one as well. And thus are up for inclusion. Again, I emphasize that references explicitly place the Israeli attacks in the context of this war ("Israel joins Syria conflict", etc..). -- Director(talk)07:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but I think you're taking it too far. Suggesting we add Iraq as a combatant in the first intifada just illustrates how misleading every single infobox on Wikipedia would be if we follow this line, and although conflicts are not "mutually exclusive", they are neither "mutually inclusive". Besides, the speculative words of a journalist does not count as much as the words of a military expert or a state leader by a long shot. Years ago, I can remember a popular Norwegian online newspaper claimed the United States had lost its credibility due to its "ill-fated" involvement in Iraq, and that its position in the world would be replaced by the EU. These are speculations on exactly the same level as those who claim Israel has "stepped into the Syrian conflict", and if we are going to take the word of every journalist as an undisputable truth, then we clearly have a reliability problem. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line, once again, is that reliable news sources state Israeli military actions are part of this conflict. This is more-than-sufficient sourcing with regard to the standards of the article, while the issue of whether or not these attacks also belong in some other conflict is entirely irrelevant with regard to this subject. Or, to put it in more depth:
Nowhere did anyone claim that conflicts are "mutually inclusive". That would mean that Israel, by virtue of being a participant in one war, would necessarily need to be considered part of another war. That entire "mutually inclusive" sentence above is so weird it doesn't even resemble a counter argument of some kind. And once again, yes, Iraq most certainly can be added in the first intifada infobox for launching dozens of missilies at factions in that conflict. It would need a standard note in clarification, but yes, definitely. Can we focus on this article, now, please?
Practically the entire article is written on the "speculating words of journalists". Raising the bar that high would necessitate the removal of the vast majority of article text as well as practically all infobox combatants. More to the point, news sources are acceptable by Wikipedia policy, and are about as reliable as can be expected for any source on this subject for a long time in the future (untill scholarly books and papers get published on the subject in significant numbers). Again, I see no counter argument here. Selective raising of the bar is the definition of POV.
The article must be based on facts, not speculations. When a city fall, that's a fact. When a massacre occur, that's a fact. However, when someone think Israeli actions against Hezbollah might possibly constitute clandestine support to the rebels, that's a speculation. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Even further: clandestine actions alone, even if established as fact, would probably not be sufficient basis for the inclusion of any country. That's a straw man, though. The basis for the inclusion of Israel are military confrontations, more specifically repeated bombings, shelling, tank forrays.. Those are facts too.
As I said before, such "facts" alone, when sourced, are sufficient basis for inclusion per infobox guidelines. The reliable news sources that explicitly describe these events as Israel's involvement in this war, those are just the "cherry on top". -- Director(talk)15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we aren't talking about "support to the rebels". We're talking about simple participation in the conflict. Not the same thing per se. Israel would be put in the right-hand column not by virtue of the fact that it "supports" the rebels (they would rather have Assad than the jihadi-saturated opposition [81]), but by virtue of the fact that it has not engaged in open hostilities with the rebels. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Director - claims made by journalists are not undisputable facts. While the journalists are only doing their job by making such allegations, I suggest we refrain from drawing any conclusions before Israel actually assumes the role of a combatant here. Our standards are (or should be) higher than that of journalists (and don't get me wrong). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Mikro, you're just repeating an argument that makes no sense.
News sources are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia, and particulatly in articles such as this.
This entire article, including ALL infobox combatants, are sourced almost entirely by news sources, and your shameless raising of the bar above that point is simply ridiculous, in that it would entail the removal of practically all of the text, and, again - virtually all infobox combatants.
On Wikipedia, Mikro, we determine who has "assumed the role of a combatant" based on what the sources tell us, not by whatever cockamamie definition you or any other user invent. By any relevant standards, Israel has been sourced as having "assumed the role of a combatant". -- Director(talk)|
For goodness' sake, people! Add that country already!
Countries are added into the Military Conflict Infobox when (quote) "their forces take part in the conflict", and some such may only be omitted when there are far too many to list (as in WWII e.g.).
Sources not only confirm numerous such confrontations involving Israel, but many reliable references also explicitly state that (quote) "Israel has joined the war in Syria" e.g. and directly interpret said attacks as Israel's involvement in this war. This includes mainstream Israeli media as well! (Haaretz)
Israel is also in a formal state of war with the Syrian government.
Regardless of whether Israel's numerous attacks are or are not also a part of some other conflict, they are most certainly part of this one as well - as reliable sources state explicitly. Conflicts are not in some way "mutually exclusive".
This issue is really turning ridiculous, what do they have to do? launch the A-bomb? What is there to discuss?? If this were any other country, or if the Islamist rebels didn't stand to get bad PR over this - Israel would've been added months ago. -- Director(talk)15:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's actions has at least got to have something to do with the internal conflict in Syria before we should even consider adding her to the infobox. Despite media claims that "Israel has stepped into the Syrian conflict", the Israeli strikes has been all about Hezbollah. This is just getting incredible. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel & the infobox
For goodness' sake, people! Lets add that country already! Just to bring everyone up to speed:
Countries are added into the Military Conflict Infobox when (quote) "their forces take part in the conflict", and some such may only be omitted when there are far too many to list (as in WWII e.g.).
Sources not only confirm numerous such confrontations involving Israel, but many reliable references also explicitly state that (quote) "Israel has joined the war in Syria" e.g. and directly interpret said attacks as Israel's involvement in this war. This includes mainstream Israeli media as well! (Haaretz)
And so on and so forth: "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. "[82] "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war"[83] "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".[84]... etc.
Regardless of whether Israel's numerous attacks are or are not also a part of some other conflict, they are most certainly part of this one as well - as reliable sources state explicitly. Conflicts are not in some way "mutually exclusive".
Israel is also in a formal state of war with the Syrian government.
This issue is really turning ridiculous, what do they have to do? launch the A-bomb? What is there to discuss?? If this were any other country, or if the Islamist rebels didn't stand to get bad PR over this - Israel would've been added months ago. -- Director(talk) 15:14, 24 Ma
I agree and I don't see any sensible opposition to such a move. The reliable sources are there. However, Israel should be listed in a third vertical column. They certainly don't support the rebels, nor is their intention to overthrow or help overthrow the government. This contrasts with situation of the Kurdish militias, the rebels and the jihadists who are all fighting for the same goal, even if there are some confrontations between them. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What leads you to say that the Kurdish militias are fighting for the same goal? If that were true, then we'd see YPG fighting in tandem with "FSA" across the country as opposed to keeping them at arms length (on good days) and forcibly barring them from Kurdish areas.
Israel should not get its own column because—unlike the PYD/YPG—it has not clashed with both rebels and the government, only with the government. The infobox shows the combat situation on the ground first and foremost. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one could say the Kurds are mostly in this fight for some form of autonomy or independence, but if that's the case, and if they are indeed engaged in battles with both the regime and the rebels, why are they listed on the vertical column with the rebels and the jihadists? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Syrian civil war[57] is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and those seeking to oust it." Unless Israel is considered a part of "those seeking to oust [the Syrian Ba'ath Party government]," we should not include Israel as a participant in this war. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do we classify Israel's bombardment of Damascus military bases and weapons storage facilities and the minor skirmishes between the Israeli and the Syrian armies in the Golan, including the cross-border shelling? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Israel is in a formal state of war with the Syrian government further confirms that info on Israel doesn't belong in this article, as it has to do with seperate and preceding conflict altogether. Sopher99 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil. Pointless semantics. I repeat that Israel is sourced as having joined this conflict. Their exact intent in doing so is irrelevant - and is not a place where this discussion should be dragged to.
@Sopher. I suggest that at some point you start reading and properly responding to posts by your fellow editors. Please see point #3 above. -- Director(talk)16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son Not as part of the Syrian civil war. Israel has not taken a definite position against either side; it says that it's concern is to prevent Syrian weapons from being sent to Hezbollah or rebel groups linked to Al-Qaeda. [85] And Director, please show me a source saying that Israel has joined the effort to overthrow Assad's government (that is the explicitly stated criteria to be a member of this conflict after all). --Philpill691 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read any of the previous threads to find myriad reliable sources to that effect. As for your insistence on Wikipedia "divining" Israel's intent in joining this war - I'm afraid I can find no such requirement in policy. Israel could bomb Damascus to the ground and still not warrant any mention by your standards. Again, silly pointless semantics.
Sources state Israel has joined the Syrian civil war. You don't really have contradicting sources unless you have contradicting sources.-- Director(talk)16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. And anyway, what these sources really do have to say (as opposed to what you interpret them as implying) - actually supports the case for inclusion. -- Director(talk)17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: I'm referring to their stating Israel intends to escalate its involvement even further. That in itself, without any interpretation, adds to the case for inclusion. I shan't insist, however. -- Director(talk)18:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Israel may intend to escalate its involvement, therefore warranting inclusion in the infobox is ludicrous. None of those sources say that Israel is currently a participant in the Syrian civil war. Therefore, Israel cannot currently be included in the infobox.--Philpill691 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah and so the convoluted arguments begin.. Only too happy to unravel:
Firstly, up there you have a pretty impressive straw man: Israel's obviously not to be included on the basis of those sources you yourself just brought up up there, but based on sources such as this, as clearly explained before.
Secondly, Wikipedia is not a news agency. Our goal is not to convey the current state of affairs, but the war as a whole. Should we scrap the WWII infobox because its not "current"? And this is provided you can find a source that says Israel left the Syria conflict it has clearly entered as per the previous source. So a faulty argument on 2 levels.
You yourself are guilty of a straw man here: By current I do not mean delete everything which is not in the present. Obviously events which happened in the past are distinct from speculation about the future. Accurate, up-to-date information, without speculation as to the future, does not make a "news agency." We can't be adding members to the war which haven't entered yet and may not. Wikipedia is meant to convey the current state of affairs, as well as the past, but not the future. And Israel has not "clearly" entered the conflict; please see FutureTrillionaire's source below for a source supporting the position that Israel has not entered the war in the first place. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My good man, what are you talking about here? Were there no sources for Israel already having entered the war I would not be arguing her inclusion. And you were pointed towards said sources. You keep talking about your own sources which talk about Israel's intention to escalate its involvement. Why?? Israel is not "going to" enter the war - it has entered the war. That is sourced. I don't have the intention to continue with you on this weird tangent.. -- Director(talk)19:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is also sourced that Israel is not a participant in the war. What we have here are conflicting sources. As that page encourages the use of all conflicting sources, I would support a compromise in which the article neutrally explains both sides of the issue of whether Israel has entered the conflict or not. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not sourced that Israel isn't a participant. No source I saw stated anything of the sort - as I said, that's your OR interpretation. By your own statement, you believe some refs "imply" Israel hasn't joined. You're entitled to your opinion, but as you probably know - we can't quote your synthesis. -- Director(talk)20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source which we have already discussed, and can be found below says "The most important notion to dispel is that Israel has decided to play an active role in the Syrian conflict." How you can blow that off as "my interpretation" is beyond me. Sounds like denial to me. Or just ignoring the facts to suit your own opinion. The fact is that two valid sources contradict each other. As such we should follow the policies related to contradictory sources, which are as follows: "If two reliable sources offer contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then an article should cite both." So as I have already said, we should neutrally explain both sides of the issue of whether Israel has entered the conflict or not. Please try to compromise. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not conflict. All that source indicates is 1) that Israel's target in entering the war is the Syrian government's ally; and 2) that Israel is only involved in a limited way. In effect it does state Israel is playing a role in the conflict, just not a big one. It does not actually deny that Israel is involved in this war.
But let me be clear: I in no way wish to imply that Israel is a particularly active or major participant here. I am open to compromise in agreeing to a have a note accompany Israel's entry to the effect that Israeli participation is limited. But let us not have an infobox that pretends it doesn't exist. -- Director(talk)20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Israel's airstrikes were intended to prevent Hezbollah from upgrading its arsenal, not to influence Syria's civil war" is completely contradictory to "Israel enters the civil war in Syria." To argue that these sources do not contradict is insane. Therefore this article cannot take a stance as to whether or not Israel has entered the civil war, but must explain both stances, which, like it or not, do exist. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're starting to shift to offensive language, and I don't know what more to say. One can become involved in a war with or without a specific desire to influence it overall, particularly if one is a marginal participant such as Israel.. More importantly, the intention behind the entry, whichever it might be, has no bearing on the question of whether or not the entry as such took place.
I have honestly seen no indication that you have anything but your own interpretations and WP:SYNTHESIS behind your claim of a "sources conflict". I would hope to discontinue this bizarre exchange at this point. -- Director(talk)21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was offensive? The word "insane"? I have not synthesized anything; the fact is that the two sources we have been discussing do not agree with each other. That doesn't mean that I want to combine their information to create a third argument, which is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think it would be a good idea to explain both sides of this issue, which is the definition of WP:NPOV, without taking an unsourced position, which you have implied I want to do. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can repeat your position however many times you like, as I explained just above: it simply is not so. None of the sources you listed contradict with the ones above on the crucial fact of Israel joining the war. I am, of course, willing to compromise, and, needless to say, represent all sources - but within the context of Israel finally receiving her long-overdue infobox entry. All that your source conveys is the marginal nature of the involvement, which is something that isn't disputed and should of course be made clear. -- Director(talk)23:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, Israel should be there. I would rather see it grouped with the opposition than having a separate column. Although Israelis probably don't want Assad to be gone, they hit government forces and are clearly opposed to Iran and Hezbollah. --Emesik (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so Israel has entered the Syrian civil war (as per the other news refs) even though its real target is actually Hezbollah (Syria's ally in that war). Fascinating. Even were one to concede that point, what does that have to do with the (sourced) fact alone that Israel has entered the Syrian civil war? Would anyone care for some sea food while we wait for the "case" to be "closed"?
Please see the third point in the first post here: conflicts are not mutually exclusive. Provided the latter claim is properly sourced as well, Israel's attacks can be viewed within the context of the Hezbollah conflict as well. That has no bearing whatsoever on this issue though. -- Director(talk)19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we had consensus and included israel in the infobox till these drive by editors set us back 100 years by removing it. France could make the same excuse, "we were at war with radical islamists not intending to invade mali"..nobody in their right mind would buy that unless they are pro POV and bias. clear israeli-syrian clashes im guessing it was for the love of hezbollah as well perhaps? [89]Baboon43 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, but keep in mind:
it doesn't matter whether Israel entered the Syrian civil war to fight the government or its allies (Hezbollah). All that matters is that it did, in fact, enter the war (as the sources indicate).
it also doesn't matter whether the Israeli attacks on government targets are or are not also a part of some other conflict like the Israeli-Hezbollah love affair. They're certainly a part of this war as well.
Director, can you fill in your bullet points at the top with references and links to policy? (Or restate them here with this information.) Is anyone suggesting a specific edit? I can't tell from the above. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the sources in the first post. The proposed edit is the introduction of "Israel (limited involvement)" into the infobox (the exact wording of the note can be modified to whatever we think is best, maybe "air strikes, border skirmishes" or something like that). The entry would, of course, be separated with a horizontal dividing line. -- Director(talk)11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to disagree per what Sopher99 said. The conflict between Israel and Syria is a separate conflict and must be treated as such. Pug666617:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also can we remove the Israeli Arab conflict tag. It is becoming problematic to only have one revert every 24 hours on an article like this. These two events are separate. That tag creates more problems than it solves anyway. Pug666601:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pug, apparently the Arab-Israeli arbitration tag was put 2 months ago in order to reduce sockpuppetry on the page and without any real relation to Arab-Israeli conflict (it was an arbitrary decision by an administrator). However the tag was put by an administrator, so i asked him to clear out this issue. For the future, i think there is a need to create "Syrian conflict arbitration" tool if needed, so there will be no confusion with other conflicts in the region.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fellas, that's a non-argument. Are conflicts mutually exclusive? Certainly the Israeli attacks can be viewed within the context of several conflicts in the extremely troubled region - but that does not mean we need to "pick one" for some reason. The confrontations can be seen as part of the Israeli-Syrian conflict, or the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, but, as the presented sources indicate - they are also a part of this conflict as well. Arguably more so, due to the latter being a larger and much more high-intensity war (if we were to compare, I dare say that view would actually find more sources to its name).
I am not of the opinion that this project should effectively ignore and sideline the position of reliable sources - for no real reason whatsoever. -- Director(talk)11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's position in this conflict is not neutral its quite clear they support rebels and their ally saudi arabia..even nethanyahu says the two countries have similar interests including regional politics [90]Baboon43 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has repeatedly attacked a single party in this conflict. Whatever their motivation is, is besides the point. They are a belligerent. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has to call this, I'll say I myself see significant support per WP:CONSENSUS, and no policy-relevant and/or source-based objections. WP:STONEWALLING aside, this should go through on any neutral article, as there is no coherent argument against including an active participant (whose participation is supported by references). On this article, however, content is usually controlled and censored through edit-warring, not reliable sources. Political interests however, pro-rebel or otherwise, have no place on this project. I'll say openly I intend to keep re-inserting the sourced addition unless confronted with policy-relevant arguments (i.e. contradicting refs) and a clear opposing consensus that might justify sidelining and disregarding published reliable references. I believe this is fundamentally in accordance with the intent of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Director(talk)13:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all conflicts are mutually exclusive, but this one is because the sources do not describe Israel as a combatant or a belligerent, regardless of who or where they strike. Being "involved" does not mean being a combatant. John McCain is officially "involved" in the conflict, doesn't mean the United States senate is added to the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such POV "demands" can and should be ignored as they are without basis in Wikipedia policy or infobox guidelines. To illustrate the overt bias and absurdity of your request, I once again point out that every combatant in this infobox would need to be removed if such ridiculous standards were taken seriously (not to speak of other conflict infoboxes). I seriously doubt you would be able to satisfy such demands even for the Syrian Army or the FSA [91]. In effect, you are arbitrarily raising standards of sourcing for one faction that you personally do not wish included, out of political (propagandist) concerns. Posts like the above only make clear one's bias and lack of objectivity.
Numerous sources unambiguously indicate Israel is involved in this war, and the country meets standards for inclusion described in the guide for Template:Infobox military conflict, i.e. its forces have (quote) "taken part in the conflict". Your own arbitrary, selective "standards" are absurd and are not worth serious consideration (or a single additional post on this talkpage). -- Director(talk)15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are sources that say Israel is involved in this conflict. But none say they are a combatant or a belligerent or a side in this conflict.
Even if Israel was a combatant - which it is not - we will still draw out this clause of wikipedia policy:
"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."
All you do, Sopher, is repeat these nonsense "arguments" over and over again - even though you yourself at one time admitted they are nonsense and agreed to the addition of Israel. You simply ignore counterarguments as per WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is a form of disruption.
Sources do not have to use the terms you dictate. The infobox guideline states that countries are added if their forces are sourced as having participated in the conflict. If we were to take your demands seriously, we would have to delete ALL other combatants from the infobox (and many other infoboxes). So only when you remove the others that are not called "belligerent" in sources, your position might actually begin to make sense. Talk to me then.
Your quote refers to situations where there are excessive numbers of participants, as in e.g.WWII and WWI which is not the case here. It is entirely without significance to this discussion or this article, yet you keep quoting it without reason over and over and over again - as if it somehow justifies your censoring sourced material.
Incredibly, you are able to ignore posts by other users even if they are right above your next post. I've not seen stuff like that in a while. -- Director(talk)15:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Sopher are not the only one who keeps "repeating" the same arguments over and over again, as this whole discussion has turned into a circle. As I've already pointed out a number of times, attacking Hezbollah or their Syrian allies is not the same as stepping into the internal conflict in Syria.
More precisely; attacking Hezbollah and weapons shipments is not the same thing as being a combatant or having their forces taking part in the Syrian civil war < notice the "civil war" in the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikrobølgeovn. Not only are you repeating one faulty false dichotomy argument over and over again - you also appear to be missing some pieces of the puzzle here. Puzzle Piece:
The Israeli military repeatedly bombed and otherwise attacked Syrian Army targets - not Hezbollah. They claim this is in order to weaken Hezbollah, yes - and that may even be true - but the point is that they are involved in the conflict because of attacks on the Syrian military, not someone else. I'm sure if they launched a nuclear bomb on Damascus it would also considerably "weaken Hezbollah" (Assad's ally in this war), yet that does not mean they should not be included - as it would also weaken the Syrian Army!
Further, even if they did only attack the Hezbollah and not the Syrian Army - they would still merit inclusion here as the Hezbollah are another participant in this war.
And even if they did nothing of the above, and the sources overwhelmingly stated they were involved (as is the case) - their inclusion would still be justified. This project is a tertiary source and is written in accordance with sources.
So a faulty argument on three separate levels. The false dichotomy in your argument is that a military confrontation can only be considered a part of one conflict, and that we must "choose" and delete it from mention in any other infobox. Which is manifestly absurd (as false dichotomies generally are).
@Sopher, I'm sorry, but at this point I really do not care what you yourself think ("not the same" and so forth). The sources say it is the same, and state Israel is a participant here. And your "combatant" word games are really below response-value. -- Director(talk)17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already made clear, attacking the Syrian Army is not the same as stepping into the Syrian civil war as long as it's all about Hezbollah. Your second point is merely a speculation, and your third point is anything but unchallenged. I think you might misunderstand the purposes of the infobox, which is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". A few Israeli air strikes is not a "key fact", and neither does it necessarily make Israel a combatant in this particular conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not up to you to make these sort of "decisions". Its up to the sources. The sources state Israel has entered this war. Whether or not its entry is "all about Hezbollah" or about Iran or Iceland - is entirely without relevance for this discussion (a red herring). The purpose of this infobox and its "combatants=" entry, as stated in the guide, is to represent "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Your arbitrary personal definitions of "key" facts concern no one but yourself.
All you've made clear, as far as I myself can see, is a disruptive attitude and an intense bias. Having shifted your argument several times already in pursuit of the same POV goal.. -- Director(talk)15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant, copy-pasted red herring. Your source indicates that Israel's goal in attacking one participant in this conflict (Syrian Army) is to damage another participant in this conflict (Hezbollah). And that's all. It in no way actually disputes that Israel has entered this conflict; in fact, if anything - it implies their involvement. Also apparently another false dichotomy: we do not need to "choose" a single conflict wherein to include Israel due to these attacks, and discard the other(s). (I don't even need to mention that your source is in a minority, as there is no real contradiction in sources.)
And, if you'll note, the first listed source in the article is a scholarly source by prof. Fawaz Gerges from the LSE. That's much better than "professional" (as in a government source from a country with a stated position with regard to this war) - its scholarly.-- Director(talk)17:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any speculations regarding any clandestine Israeli goals are just that - speculations. Right now, let's stick to the official version. Israel striking Syria is nothing new, and it's only random that a civil war is going on at the same time this time. This was all about Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is supported by Syria. Israel has not stepped into the internal conflict in Syria, and are thus not a combatant in this conflict (at least not yet). And by the way, I am still waiting for you to revert yourself. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@GabrielF. Granted. Be that as it may, however, its just a red herring regarding this issue - in that it discusses Israeli motivations in entering the conflict, not its entry as such. It does not contradict what other sources state with regard to Israel being involved in this war. Whichever Israeli goals and motivations may be, they make the country's involvement no less. Especially when one considers that the Hezbollah are also a participant in this conflict (ally of Assad) and not some third, neutral party.
@Mikrobølgeovn, "Israel striking Syria is nothing new, and it's only random that a civil war is going on at the same time this time." Possibly. But because the civil war is taking place, these attacks on Syria belong in its context as well - as the sources state. Its not my assessment - reliable sources explicitly state that the attacks are part of this war.
@"Israel has not stepped into the internal conflict in Syria, and are thus not a combatant in this conflict." Again, the sources say that they are, or I wouldn't be making any of these arguments in the first place. -- Director(talk)11:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear:
I grant that Israeli bombings in Syria can be viewed as part of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict and the general state of war between Syria and Israel, but, as numerous, numerous sources explicitly indicate - they are also a part of this war as well. Perhaps even more so. To argue a false necessity of choice between conflicts is a fallacy, a false dichotomy.
And I grant that Israeli motivations may well be the weakening of Hezbollah, and that the Hezbollah is possibly their main target. Such concerns regarding motivations, however, are an irrelevantred herring. Regardless of whether Israel entered this war to hurt Assad or the Hezbollah - they have entered the war in no less a measure. Note, for example the Haaretz source (Israel enters the civil war in Syria) which essentially explains that "Israel has entered the civil war in Syria" - in order to stop weapons shipments to the Hezbollah.
And I knew we'd see both the false dichotomy and the red herring used here. Which is why I included a cautionary note in the first post of this thread. Amazingly, a constant repetition of WP:ICANTHEARYOU followed even so. These are no kind of counter arguments to the addition of Israel in the infobox.
And in the end, people, what are we discussing here? Numerous sources have been listed stating Israel has entered the war: what do these OR opinions and declarations along above lines have to do with anything - when the sources say what they say? No Wikipedian with an understanding of policy should be trying to sideline what the sources explicitly support through some conclusions of his own. -- Director(talk)11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who likes to accuse others of the ICANTHEARYOU card, you sure do like to ignore answering the simple arguments.
We have no source that says Israel's forces participated in the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR. We have plenty of sources about "drawing into the conflict", but keep in mind the "conflict" includes everything from the UN to Richard Engel.
We have no sources what so ever that define Israel as a combatant who actively fights in this war.
Even if we somehow did we still won't include it in the infobox as it wouldn't be a major factor. Wiki policy clearly says that combatants can be left out and explained later in the article. You can't use world war two as an excuse, world war two was the biggest conflict to have ever took place. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? It is unbelievable that an editor as incredibly disruptive as you has still not been sanctioned. You do not read talkpage posts and then attack others for not responding to your repetitive arguments - when they have done so three times in this thread alone.
As I have said three times, your entire argument above is childish wordplay. Nobody here is required to cater to your demands regarding specific words and terms. The sources are in the article and unambiguously indicate Israel's involvement in this conflict, meeting the parameter criteria described at Template:Infobox military conflict. Thankfully, we have clear instructions on how to use the template, and do not need to care about what you think might or might not be a "major" factor.
Please go ahead and remove all the other participants from the infobox, because none of them have sources that use the word "combatant", or "belligerent", nor state that "[xy] is an active participant", or whatever arbitrary demand pops out of your mind.. When you do remove everyone else, then I'll take down Israel myself. -- Director(talk)15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All those source tell how those factions are fighters in the Syrian civil war. Your point is invalid. You can cry about "wordplay" and "disruptiveness" but that is just superficial excuses to the fact your arguments are not straightforward and are instead very ambiguous when it comes to wikipedia policy. Sopher99 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the reporter says 'the Israelis have been worried about the groups linked to al Q...' -so does that mean they've come back from a mission against those fighters? do you want Israel in the infobox on the assad side now? Sayerslle (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^ Lol, that must be your most far off "analysis" so far. I am worried about American actions in Afghanistan. Does that make me pro-Taliban? FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Israeli troops have been in Syria for decades as part of the illegal occupation of Quneitra aside, the video isn't really that helpful. "Evidence"? Evidence of what? That Israeli commandos have crossed the ceasefire line, sure, but not of anything else. Doesn't even mention who—if anyone—they were fighting. Lot of heat, not much light. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar has made part of the point I was going to make. As I have said before the Israel-Syria conflict predates the Syrian Civil war. Two armed conflicts that are completely separate can involve a country at the same time. Pug666619:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Yes. Do note that I support Israel's inclusion in the infobox—just not on the basis of non-evidence and propaganda drivel scraped up from the far corners of the web. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A video showing weapons with hebrew inscriptions onto it is not enough, it's that easy to put some few hebrew words on mortar. Why didn't they explode? Why Israel would use mortar?Propaganda is on both sidesKlinfran (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel
the infobox says
<!-- DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below)]], ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. !-->
Turkey is in the infobox. Lebanon is not a player in this conflict, at least officially. Some groups in Lebanon support Assad, others support the rebels. --Երևանցիtalk22:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not whether Israel "supports the rebels", but whether they have participated in the conflict. Striking anti-ship missiles outside Latakia has literally no strategic value for the rebels. Anti-ship missiles are only a problem if you have ships, which the rebels don't, and Latakia isn't exactly an easy or high-priority target for the rebels. As I've said before, Israel is not "supporting" any side, but is participating with limited interventions to serve its own interests; these latest strikes reinforce my position. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, then why don't we add Israel to the opposition column, under the Mujahideen, because it acts against the Syrian government and, as you said, in no support to the rebels/Mujahideen. My point is that Israel, the government of the State of Israel, takes active military role in the conflict, we don't know if they support anyone, but they certainly do act against the Syrian government at this point. I mean, how do you attack a sovereign country and avoid from being called a belligerent. --Երևանցիtalk01:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The fact that Israel attacked Syrian sovereign territory automatically makes it a belligerent. Or do we have different understandings of the term belligerent? --Երևանցիtalk05:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change the topic, we're talking about Israel's inclusion, not Iran. If you want to discuss Iran's inclusion, create a new topic and explain why the sources don't support inclusion. Please review WP:OR, if no sources call Israel a belligerent (or something analogous), we don't either. This is a very low bar, if the media is reporting that Israel has joined the war, it should be easy to satisfy. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee that you will know when I change the topic. I gave a very specific example/question, which you left unanswered. What you want the New York Times or BBC publish an article saying "Israel is a belligerent in the Syrian civil war"? None of the Iran sources do that.
Israel attacked the Syrian soil. (fact)
Belligerent: a nation or person engaged in war or conflict (fact)
I haven't made any argument. I've stated that I'm unconvinced by your argument. I also gave rather generous criteria for my mind to be changed. Your two facts are a textbook example of WP:OR. We don't deal in facts, we deal in sources. I didn't answer your Iran question because it's off-topic. I haven't reviewed the sources because no one has suggested removing them, I have no idea if Iran should be there. If you think Iran should be removed, start a discussion about it. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to read discussions from months ago. Also, why is Wikipedia so pro-Israeli? What you mean "Israel can't be added into the infobox". Don't you think "can't" is a very strong word? Israel attacked the Syrian territory and it's not a belligerenet? Then what is it? What is Israel's status in this conflict? Do I need to revise my knowledge of English? --Երևանցիtalk19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus was ever established either way in any previous thread, so discussion is still valid. Reading archives is still good to see what points have already been raised. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if israel is in the infobox the whole conflict will be exposed as a fraud..arab league will be looked upon as a tool for the west. Baboon43 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the whole world is waiting with baited breath to see what Wikipedia editors will do to the infobox next—I heard Ban Ki-Moon even has a special team monitoring the article 24/7, letting him know whenever so much as a comma is added. Get over yourself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to defend the Arab League. If some people feel like it's a tool for the West, let them. That's not a legitimate reason for exclusion of Israel from the infobox. Again, if it's not a belligerent, then please state what is its status is in this conflict. --Երևանցիtalk20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should spend your energy trying to find sources to support your case. See WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place for a general discussion about "what is its status is in this conflict". TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you should perhaps care about yourself? Ever thought about that, dear friend? If it's not a forum, then close the case, I have nothing else to add. I won't be surprised if after invading Damascus you guys would be saying that Israel is defending its own interest. Keep it up and good luck! --Երևանցիtalk03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, seems classic anti-gentile jewish censorship.in this case of wiki media. See C.A.M.E.R.A campaign on wiki. In short it should be added as consensus 77.53.219.2 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both the pro-Zionists and pro-rebels here are against adding it, so it won't be implemented in a million years, whatever happens on the ground.. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps
June 2013 consensus version for for Syrian maps - Israeli Golan is striped (Syria location map3.svg)
I would like to transfer here the discussion on Syrian Civil War maps legend - which has been low-level ongoing at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, dealing with how to color Israeli Golan Heights and whether Israel should be added as a belligerent on the Syrian war maps.
I would like to point out that on June 2013, a consensus was reached to color Israeli-controlled Western Golan as striped (territory claimed by Syria, but de-facto controlled by Israel since 1967), in order to differentiate Western Golan from the rest of Syria since Syrian War battles are ongoing on Eastern Golan (Quneitra Governorate).
May 2014 version of Syrian War maps - only Government, Opposition, ISIS and Syrian Kurdistan as belligerents (Western Golan is either external to war theather, or is slightly striped) It is also evident that the community has established that Israel is not a participant of the Syrian Civil War (so far), which is evident from discussions, archived at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and from WP:SCWGS-related motion (amendment of WP:ARBPIA on June 2013), which is specifically drawing the borderline between generally unrelated preceding Arab-Israeli conflict and the current Syrian Civil War; quote "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic."
On April-May 2014 several users began a new discussion at talk:Syrian Kurdistan, with some proposing to color Israeli Golan Heights as white or blue and adding Israel into belligerents' legend. Apparently most of them are not aware of community decisions prior to April 2014. The attempt to add Israeli forces on Golan Heights as part of Syrian belligerents was however shortly reverted [96].May 2014 proposal - Israeli Golan added to war map in blue (Syrian civil war 2.png)
On August 23-25 user:Supreme Deliciousness again attempted to change Syrian Civil War-related maps to reflect the opinion that Israeli forces on Western Golan should be presented as part of the Syrian Civil War.
I'm herewith asking for opinions whether a long-standing consensus should be changed and Syrian Civil War maps, which currently present 4 belligerents - Syrian Government / Syrian Opposition / ISIS / Syrian Kurdistan, should also be added with 5th belligerent Israel (add /do not add). Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, consensus can change, just like the facts on the ground can. Secondly, Sopher99, who featured aggressively in many discussions, has been indef banned, including his several sockpuppets, which "contributed" all over the place in relation to Syria, so who knows what the "community" would agree on today. Thirdly, Israel does not need to be in the infobox just because it features on a war map, and could qualify as "certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, but there should be a new consensus to change a previous consensus. Some people obviously challenge the previous consensus (4 belligerents on war maps), thus i open this thread.GreyShark (dibra) 08:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For that purpose we can stripe the Western Golan (as decided on June 2013) - which has already been implemented on Syrian Civil War map in the past [97] (January 2014 version); However, adding Israeli forces to map certainly implies it is a belligerent.GreyShark (dibra) 08:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we consider it a belligerent or not is irrelevant to the fact that Israel does physically interact with the undisputed belligerents in various ways. This is a fact, and if we keep Israel out of such a map, it will just be a ridiculous elephant in the room. And again, this has no bearing on whether Israel should be in the infobox as a belligerent or not, it is a separate issue. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one wants to put Israel in a map about Syria. The map shows the "current military situation in Syria", and we should point out that Israel is occupying part of Syria. We are not adding Israel as a belligerent. Greyshark has not presented this correctly. Please look at the map I added where the part of Syria that Israel is occupying is in white.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the proposal on the table, Greyshark is not presenting this issue in an accurate way. No one is adding Israel as a belligerent. The map shows the "current military situation in Syria" and it should be pointed out that Israel is occupying part of Syria, not that Israel is a belligerent. Please take a look at the map I added here where the Golan heights is in white and the text under it with the dotted line separating that part of Syria that Israel is occupying from the civil war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greyshark is not presenting this correctly: Greyshark talks about an "Israeli Golan Heights", no such thing exists. We are talking about an area that is in Syria. In this discussion: talk:Location map/data/Syria|thumbnail we talked about a location map of Syria and it was closed by a non-admin. The consensus there was that both a striped or non striped map could be used based on a case by case situation. Israel is not occupying stripes in Golan, so that kind of map shouldn't be used here. ·In this case the map shows the "Military situation in Syria", so not only active participants in the Syrian civil war. Look at the map to the right of this text. At Syrian Kurdistan talkpage we talked about this issue and it was consensus to have the Israeli-occupied Golan as white and it separated with a dotted line "(under Israeli occupation)": Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
INAPPROPRIATE CANVASSING: Greyshark has also went all over the place posting this: [98] which is clearly inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is NOT to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. The image is presented in articles as "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying part of Syria - before and during the Syrian civil war. It may not be a belligerent, but it is not presented as such in the map, only that it is occupying part of Syria. The Israeli-occupied part of Syria is specifically separated from the factions fighting each other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unbased accusations against other users in Wikipedia is punishable. This is the last time i advice you to remove this allegation on canvassing before i issue a complaint.GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is not involved in the civil war, therefore should not be shown. If any side where to invade Israeli occupied Golan Heights, only than should it be included, but at the current state, do not add Israel.—SPESH531Other02:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has bombed Syrian targets inside Syria plenty of times the last three years, and treated anti-Assad fighters in the Golan. So yes, Israel is involved, but not as a very active belligerent. And yet again, that is irrelevant to this map. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Syria bombed Lebanon multiple times (targets of insurgents), Hezbollah of Lebanon (part of Lebanese government) occupies significant parts of Qalamun mountains on the Syrian side, Syria occupies several sectors on the Lebanese border since 1976. This is a mess, but Lebanon is still not on the map, neither is Hezbollah and neither should be Israel, which is so far the least involved.GreyShark (dibra) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Republic attacked inside Lebanon, Iraq and allegedly Turkey; Turkey and Jordan attacked inside what used to be Syria and Israel never admitted attacking inside Syria except some border incidents. There is a clear mis-proportion in trying to put Israel on belligerents' list or map.GreyShark (dibra) 07:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Israel's role is hard to depict correctly here. They should not be considered a regular belligerent, as their military activity is extremely low comparing to other parties. They are also playing their own game, just using opportunities created by Syria's internal conflict. However, their support for rebels has been confirmed and I think they should be listed in the infobox as follows:
1. as supporters of the non-ISIS opposition,
2. with annotation of armed involvement, linking to a section explaining it further, which needs to be created
I agree with users Supreme Deliciousness, FunkMonk and Emesik that Israel is involved in the war, though at a lower level than the main players. It is to an extent using the situation to its own interest, pretty much like the Kurds, and intervening at least with strikes. For the map, I think it is fair to keep Israeli-occupied Golan as white and in the legend have it separated with a dotted line "(under Israeli occupation)", as Supreme Deliciousness suggested. Hezbollah is already mentioned under the belligerents, and is allied to government forces, so it does not need its own color. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colleagues, please don't title a discussion as "Discussion", that doesn't say anything, it's equivalent to not titling it at all. I can't react on a discussion without title. If this is still about '...Adding Israel...', then just remove the extra subsection-title 'Discussion'; if it's about something else then give it a real title (not as sub-section but as real section). --Corriebertus (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30/10/2013 military situation in the Syrian Civil War.
The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What was done in the past was make Golan Heights gray, being the same gray as Turkey, Israel, Iraq, etc. Then their was a second version of the map where Golan Heights was blue, and a third barely used version where it was white. It has never been green or red.—SPESH531Other04:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not situation in Syria, but in the Syrian Civil War (not that there is any difference now, when Syria doesn't exist as a whole de-facto country any more). Notice that the title of the file is "Syrian Civil War".GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sure would like to add some intelligent (?!??) remark of mine to this discussion. However, the subject of discussion is unclear (in other words: non-existent). The first editor on a discussion section should state clearly the dilemma he wants us to deliberate on. Unfortunately, our right honorable friend GreyShark neglected to do so. No wonder then that the discussion bleeds dead, because everyone chooses the 'subject of discussion' to be a different one. So, please, if any of you still wants us to discuss something focusedly and effectively, simply start a new section with a really clear discussion issue. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be a vote thing, where we decide on whether or not to add Israel, the vote (in my opinion) should be like that of the 2012 Puerto Rico referendum (odd example, for Syria, but I digress). Two questions, the first would be along the lines of, "Should Israeli control of the Golan Heights be colored, similar to the regime or IS?" and a second question, "If no, should the Golan Heights be represented as striped, solid gray (similar to that of other sovereign states), or a lighter gray?" I believe this would be a good idea to decide on what to do with Golan Heights.—SPESH531Other20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Israeli controlled areas the same gray as all surrounding states. If, and only if, a Syrian Civil War participant overruns the area should the area be colored as held by a Syrian Civil War participant. Coloring the area white, green, purple or anything else turns Israel into a Belligerent, which it is not. Israel has restricted it actions to border protection. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a note that someone branded the map boxes as "current military situation in Syria", whereas it actually refers to "military situation in the Syrian Civil War" (map is titled "Syrian Civil War"). The "Syria" thing on some boxes led some editors to argue to add Israel to the map, because "it occupies former parts of Syria", but by saying "current military situation in the Syrian Civil War", addition of Israel to map legend is completely unjustified. The only thing is perhaps to use the striped Golan version of the map, to show that the area is disputed between Israel and the Ba'athist Syrian Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you remove that it's under occupation and keep it as "Israeli Golan Heights", or "annexed" which you have done many times in different places. There is no such thing as it's recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That there is a civil war does not change that and it should be reflected. Maybe we could add that it's since 1967 to clarify that Israel isn't a party to the civil war but trying to not only remove the fact that it's occupied but also saying it's "Israeli" is unacceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iris, let's be clear: A. The status of the Golan is not the issue here (how it is marked is another issue, though the community consensus says striped); the question is whether Israel needs to be put in infobox and map legend - for now the consensus is no. B. It was not me who wrote "Israeli Golan Heights" on those maps, so please go and fight your POV wars with the proper person, and better check before you start such. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Spesh531: Your choice of brown stripes seems reasonable to me - it is the color of disputed areas during the war, so it may serve the purpose here to satisfy all those claiming that the map should include the Israeli-controlled/occupied/annexed/ruled/whatever Golan Heights, without going into adding Israel as one of belligerents in the legend.GreyShark (dibra) 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was very clear with that you removed it was occupied while keeping "Israeli Golan Heights". I didn't say you added it here, though you have done it on other instances or changed to "annexed". As I said, the Israeli occupation should be reflected as it's relevant and if it should be added to the infobox is another issue, as FunkMonk and others have said from the start. The map also separates it with a dotted line. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the original status quo of the infoboxes said status in the Syrian Civil War. In this war, Israel has little to do with it, and the occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel has nothing to do with the Civil War. If you were to have a specific shade for the Israeli military, you might as well fill in the rest of Israel, and half of West Bank.—SPESH531Other19:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a map that shows Syria. As Golan Heights is recognized as occupied territory, there is no "rest of Israel" to talk about. It's not meant to specifically show Israeli military but as they occupy one part, they are noted for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know Golan Heights is occupied. The original purpose of the map(s) were to show the situation in, strictly, the civil war. Israel is not involved in the war, just Syria as a whole (albeit to a minuscule extant). It is not a map that shows Syria, it is a map that shows the Syrian Civil War. Israel is not involved in the civil war. It just so happens that these series of conflicts are grouped together as the "Syrian Civil War" If any of the surrounding countries invaded Syria, and became a combatant of the war, than and only than you label the foreign country. What should be shown in color are the areas involved the civil war, which in this case, is Syria sans Golan Heights. The Golan Heights should not be colored in at all, colored the same as Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. They do not have a military involvement in the civil war, so they are gray.—SPESH531Other20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if Israel is involved or not (it actually is, limited airstrikes on Hezbollah). The map depicts the military situation in Syria, what is the point of not indicating to readers that the Golan Heights is occupied? It adds context, rather than not explaining all of Syria's territories. DylanLacey (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - current status of opinions regarding Supreme Deliciousness' wish to change the map box of 4 belligerents (Syrian Gov-t, Syrian opposition, ISIS, Kurds) in order to add Israel on the map of Syrian Civil War as 5th party:
I would like to point out that currently the Golan Heights are colored as disputed (brown), which may solve the issue with no need to add Israel into belligerents map legend (especially considering the notability or new direct war participants in recent coalition airstrikes).GreyShark (dibra) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the correct approach. If Israel is not going to be mentioned, then I don't think any colour like brown now should be used but rather gray as Lebanon, Israel etc. as Spesh531 mentioned above. It is also not either "disputed or unclear" who controls the Golan Heights and the status of it (occupied by Israel). --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this discussion is not about "adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps", as Greyshark inaccurately presented this discussion, its about adding that Israel occupies the Golan Heights in a map showing the "current military situation in Syria", who denies that Israel is occupying the GH? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Israeli occupation is part of the 'current military situation in Syria'. It's a fact, regardless of whether editors think it infers belligerence. DylanLacey (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make that six people who oppose the suggestion. Even though Israel is involved in the conflict its on a really low level (almost non-notable). EkoGraf (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said 25 September, it is still unclear what this section is discussing, and people are still quarreling about which question is really at stake in this section. Therefore, I still can't have an opinion in this vague discussion. Please start a new section and state very shortly and sharply your proposal--in that way no one can accuse you any longer of 'not rightly understanding which question is under discussion here'. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Israel again
This source clearly says that Israel has been arming opposition since they wrestled control over the border areas from the govt army. Before I add Israel to the supporters section in the infobox, I'd like to ask how big flame war will I cause over here? --Emesik (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, you mean: ‘Belligerents—Opposition(column)’ in the infobox. I cannot yet judge whether that claim is correct. But if you people decide that Israel has to be considered a belligerent opposition party, please first enlist them as such in our section 4.2, ‘Belligerents—Opposition parties’. Maps and infoboxes are illustrations of what the text of our articles describe in their sections and should not live lives on their own, independently or separately from the main text in the sections.[See also my posting 19 Oct.] --Corriebertus (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I believe—perhaps this is also what Legacypac means to say—that ‘belligerent’ in this article means, or must mean: actively taking part in acts of war (which no one suggests Israel to have already done). Just supporting some warring party, for example by arming them, would belong in section Syrian Civil War#Foreign involvement. That section directs to the main article Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, that indeed already has a section for: Israel supporting the opposition (which, by the way, looks horrible, and could use some clean-up and updating, etc.). Just add there whatever you’d want to add. So, in short: no reason yet to add Israel as belligerent in this article. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a clear supporter of the opposition. Unlike their other supporters, they have even acted with force against Assad. And I'm not sure what Corriebertus is on about, there is place for supporters in the infobox, and that's where Israel should be. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a part called "supporters" in the infobox--where do you see that? Nobody denies Israel to support opposition but I (and others) have explained that that doesn't seem to make Israel a belligerent (= warring party). If Israel "acted with force against Assad" as Funk claims, the situation changes. So, please be more specific on that allegation. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, I just found out also myself. I'm however not (yet) in favor of adding Israel to that list of "armed by", because: firstly: website Business Insider (read also their own page: Business Insider, ‘about us’) is probably obscure to the general public. Secondly: I’ve read most of that article now, about Israel’s possible or alleged meddling in the Syrian War etc., written by a Mr. Ehud Yaari, and it strikes me that he mentions no source at all for all his 'knowledge' and assumptions. That is unusual in (high) quality journalism and in scholarly publications, and makes for me personally that article and all its alleged ‘facts’, on that probably rather obscure website, unreliable. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- don't let funkmunkandemesicks obsessions with israel tilt the article into the domain of press Tv and RT and globalresearch territory for portrayal of the conflict -
'Daniel Levy director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
"Israel is trying not to have to prioritise which threat takes primacy over the other in the region in general. There’s Iran, the Palestinians, Hamas, the Iranian axis, ISIS and other extreme groups in Sinai and the Golan – one of these groups may assume the most attention at any given moment," he added.
According to DW News, Israel has hinted it is coordinating directly with Assad's forces but has avoided saying it outright. Marom suggested Israel had been working with the Syrian regime to coordinate air strikes on Quneitra, the newspaper said.
Senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, Andrew Tabler believes that although "Israel does not want the Assad regime to tactically win, along its frontier it [Israel] prefers [or] knows the Assad regime.”
- See more at: middleesasteyeSayerslle (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry gentlemen--are we still seriously discussing something here? I don't get that impression. Lastly, Sayerslle quoted some speech of some mr Levy, but what consequences must that all have for our article, mr Say? --Corriebertus (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because of user Greyshark going around to a variety of articles and forcing his map/pov into articles through edit warring without gathering any consensus or support, I went back to one of the old discussions to take a look and noticed that at the bottom here:[100] that user Greyshark had said that "Oppose to suggestion - 5 users (Greyshark, Kudzu, FT, Spesh, Legacy)" But in the discussion we can see that FutureTrillionaire says: "IMO, the Golan Heights should be stripped, not colored. However, ultimately, it really doesn't make much of a difference.", which is not an oppose vote against Syrian civil war 2.png and its text "(Under Israeli occupation)" and user Kudzu says: "I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria." which is exactly what Syrian civil war 2.png and the text "(under Israeli occupation)" does.
We can also see that User Vanamonde93 said: "The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me.", which is support for Syrian civil war 2.png. But Greyshark did not mention him at all in the "support votes". Therefore user Greyshark has severely misrepresented the outcome of the discussion and the support or neutral votes are even greater then what he claimed. And those who "opposed" is even smaller then he claimed. I'm seriously considering an enforcement request against user Greyshark if he continues with this behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, how reliable is Christian Science Monitor? i did read the website and it seems to lack any kind of auditing and board procedures; the second one Haaretz is an Israeli mainstream paper and they do have a reliability pattern (editorial board). Both articles however cite the same - UN claims that Israel "has links" with Syrian rebels. This is not a secret that Israelis are providing humanitarian assistance to the residents of Quneitra and Daraa governorates, most of whom come from rebel-held areas and even rebels themselves. However, "contacts" between IDF officers and Syrian rebel groups and Israeli humanitarian assistance to general population is a little away from "support" (military support that is). There is not much exceptional here, which has not been yet discussed at Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, they are both just quoting the UN, so it doesn't matter what you think about CSmonitor or whatever outlet that choses to report this. Israel is supporting Syrian rebels, and have been doing it for quite a while. Regular meetings and treatment of wounded al Qaeda members is pretty much clear, friendly coordination, at the very least. In any case, both these reliable source use the word support, so you'd have to find some reliable sources that contradict their claims, since the personal opinions of us editors are pretty much worthless anyhow. The more worrying part is what we don't know they're helping them with. But I guess time will tell. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, i said Ha'aretz is definitely reliable, but the reference didn't say anything on military support, but "links" and humanitarian assistance. That doesn't qualify as military support.GreyShark (dibra) 21:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't mention military support. Though it would be naive to think they're not arming them as well, which we will probably learn over time. So no, not fit for the infobox yet, but certainly in an article somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. That would be called "aiding terrorists" if it was done to Hamas fighters or some such. Even Gazan children wouldn't get that kind of treatment during war time. A documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G785kB8OKcU Note that pro-Israelis in the comment section also call it "humanitarian", I guess that's the semi-official spin/euphemism for "patch them up so they can go back and kill more Arabs for us". FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But no source will be good enough, as long as the Israelis don't confirm it themselves. That's the double standards of western media. Any half-baked rumour about Putin, Kim Jong Un or Assad are front page news, though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda take severals positions in south of Syria they shot down warplane too - Israel must be added in the Insurgent side --LogFTW (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"At least the Nusra Front". Not only is there no evidence for that, all available sources point to them cooridinating on an extremely limited basis with the moderate Free Syrian Army (medical aid, etc.). If you are just going to parrot POV garbage you should troll Twitter with Partisangirl, and not bother contributing to this subject on Wikipedia.Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but rendering medical aid to individuals who's alleged militant affiliations are unknown by the people rendering aid proves nothing. Nulla Taciti (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Said like a true IDF spokesman. So how do you know the Israelis, who are monitoring their border and everything that happens across it, knew less about the affiliations of people that they LET IN and interact with on a daily basis, than UN people who only observed them doing it? But well, I should just stop myself here, Israel can do no wrong. Assad is to blame, and Israelis are just benevolent angels who treat every wounded Arab they come across, as long as they are not Gazan children. FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the horse's mouth: "“Those Sunni elements who control some two-thirds to 90% of the border on the Golan aren't attacking Israel. This gives you some basis to think that they understand who is their real enemy - maybe it isn’t Israel,” Yadlin is quoted by The Wall Street Journal as saying."[103]FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen claims that the differing directions of shadows in the commonly circulated pictures show that they were doctored, and that Iran is trying to promote the idea of Syrian non-gov forces being Israeli-backed. No idea how true. Banak (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, shadows of what? Of the UN reports and Jerusalem Post articles? And former Israeli defence personnel quotes? I'm sure Iran forced them all. Please, let's keep this serious, and please read the comments. No one has posted photos or videos here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for slow response, forgot my own previous comment here. I meant this widespread picture and the shadows of the people in it, though they don't look fake to me. Though as to what this photo actually shows... Banak (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the numerous reliable sources that announce cooperation between Israel and insurgents based on UN reports are invalidated by a photo that the reports don't refer to? What's the point? FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding Israel to the infobox. There are multiple confirmed reports of direct and indirect Israeli support to rebels by targeting Syrian government and allies, providing intelligence and logistical support to rebels, etc. It's ridiculous North Korea is included in infobox but Israel not.--Kathovotalk09:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, reports =/= evidence. So far, Israel is retaliating for attacks on its territory and bombing weapons supplies sent to Hezbollah. Some people seems to forget, that Israel and Syria are still in the state of war. Besides if Israel really supported rebels, IAF would have turned lots of SAA positions to dust a long time ago. Rebell44 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So which attacks are the Israelis responding to? They've attacked Syria/Hezbollah positions many times the last few years without real provocation. They only stopped when Hezbollah blasted a bunch of IDF a few weeks ago. As for turning "SAA positions to dust", which other foreign state which supports the insurgents has done that? Your point is moot. The Israelis want the insurgents to weaken the SSA and Hezbollah, they don't have to do much other than patch them up and send them back, as well as act as their airforce once in a while. That'll keep Nusra and friends from their door. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
majority of incidents were IDF shelling SAA positions after SAA fired artilery shells hitting israeli territory + SAA troops shooting at IDF patrols. Airstrikes targeted weapons which were being sent to Hezbollah - who as a terrorist group are legitimate target, especially in the country with which Israel is at war. Israel treats every injured person that gets to their border - that hardly counts as military support for either side.Rebell44 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just like a true IDF spokesperson would explain it... No, "Israeli territory" has not been targeted, the Golan is Syrian according to international law. And even when it has been hit, the IDF has only attacked SSA forces, even when they did now know the source of fire. Israel has attacked Syrian targets many more times than Turkey has, which is the main backer of the terrorists. And Israel treats all wounded at the border? Are you joking? How many SSA and Hezbollah soldiers have they treated? Or Gazan children, for that matter? All they do is patch up al Qaeda insurgents so they can go back and kill more Arabs for them. Anyhow what you "hardly count" is irrelevant, all that matters is reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just like most previous discussions on this topic there is not much new in LogFTW's statement about Israeli so called "involvement", which relies on WP:SYNTH theories running around social networks - connecting various loosely related events, which are "rumored" to be related to Israel. Aside to that there is indeed a constant Israel-Hezbollah tension, as part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, which is not directly related with the Syrian Civil War (even if Israel was indeed behind some of the ascribed attacks, which is not so evident, as Syrian air and ground is full of foreign forces of various nature and loyalty). I do give a credit however to LogFTW for successfully showing a sectarian nature of the Middle East in one of the most conspiracy-style and in a way racist announcements "The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda"; spectacular!GreyShark (dibra) 17:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So which of the links above are synth theories from social networks? The UN reports? The Jerusalem Post article? Could we stick to discussing the reliable sources provided here instead of red herrings? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just look below - while you claim "Israel supports Al-Nusra", Emesik suggests that "Israel supports FSA" and brings a "proof" that Al-Nusra caught an FSA commander who "confessed of cooperating with Israel". Now i ask - what is going on here? Whom is Israel "supporting"?GreyShark (dibra) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just about anyone who is willing to fight Iran's allies. The UN states delegations from several groups, not just Nusra, have been meeting Israeli military. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough evidence to say that Israel has provided non-lethal support to rebels. This is clear, but if I understand it well, in the infobox we are including only those who provide armaments or direct support in military actions. These two sources claim that lethal support also has been provided:
There's no evidence that Israel is providing military aid to rebel groups (except maybe the Kurds), but they are definitely treating militants in Israeli hospitals. But with this in mind, lots of Syrians, mostly civillians, are treated in Israel so this can't be called support. --Monochrome_Monitor23:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how does that explain that they're meeting up with Nusra (al Qaeda) and other Islamist delegations, and letting them into their bases? Surely for humanitarian reasons? And who says they're treating "mostly civilians"? And if they're benevolent enough to treat al Qaeda terrorists, why not Hamas and Hezbollah members? You guessed it, because they're cosy with the former group. Furthermore, why have they not exchanged fire with Syrian Islamist insurgents even once? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows Israel prefers Sunni terrorists to Shia terrorists, that's no secret. They probably do have some sort of temporary truce, but they're definitely not allies. Right now both are more threatened by Assad/Iran than eachother. Once Assad goes, they will turn on eachother. Saying Israel is "cozy" with al Nursra is like saying that America was "cozy" with Stalin by fighting Hitler. Also, there's no evidence that Al Quaeda is meeting in IDF bases, where did you hear that? As for Israel treating Syrians, this is very[1] well[2] documented[3],[4] even in arabic media. The vast majority of those treated are civillians, though some are combatants. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they treat them too, albeit less often since the situation in Syria is much worse.[5] Here's more links on Israel treating Syrians: [6][7][8] As for exchanging fire with Islamists, it's foolish for them to open a new front, especially with the strongest military in the region. --Monochrome_Monitor01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas, and all Palestinians apart from a few Christians and Druze, are Sunnis, so I wouldn't be too sure about your first point. Israel just likes to play Arabs out against each other, they don't care what sect they belong to. They're just more afraid of Iran and Hezbollah than by al Qaeda and any Sunni state, but that is not because of their sects. They had fine relations with the Shah after all (so did the Saudis), and he was of course Shia. Same goes with their relations to Azerbaijan, a Shia state. As for cosy ties with al Qaeda, you do know that the Nusra Front is the official branch of al Qaeda in Syria, right? And again, I didn't ask whether Israel treats Syrians or not, but how you know that "most" of those they treat are civilians? FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have any ideological problem with Shia, they just see them as more of a threat because Shia militants are generally backed by Iran, and Iran is far more of a threat to Israel than the Gulf States. As for playing Arabs against eachother, what is the Syrian war about? It's sectarian. Arabs have been fighting Arabs since Muhammad died. What Syrians are worried about isn't Arab unity, its Assad, Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent ISIS. Also, you have yet to show me any concrete evidence that Israel supports al-Nusra beyond treating some of their fighters. As for whether the Syrians they treat are mostly civilians, its a numbers game. The number of militants they have reportedly treated is dwarfed by the total number of Syrians. [9][10][11][12].[13] Even articles about Israel treating militants admit that the majority are civilians.[14]--Monochrome_Monitor16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So which of the articles you linked states the majority of the Syrians treated were civilians? None, as far as I could see, they only state Israel once claimed they only treated civilians, which was obviously a lie. And if the Syrian civil war was merely sectarian, I wonder why Sunni Islamist groups fight each other and likewise Sunni Kurdish and tribal Arab groups as much as they fight Shia factions. Also, much of Syria's government and army is Sunni (secular Baathists). And yes, Israel is only afraid of Iran and its allies because all other states in the region are aligned with the US, not because they're Sunni or Shia. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has treated over 1500 Syrians on their dime, its pure speculation to say that the majority are combatants, speculation which is completely unsupported by evidence. You of course ignore all evidence that doesn't conform to your belief that Israel is inherently evil. --Monochrome_Monitor00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spare us the red herrings. You said "The vast majority of those treated are civillians". You haven't backed it up with anything. So who here is "speculating"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[15]"Most of the patients are believed to have been civilians, though Ziv Hospital staff say many of the men treated are rebel fighters. When I ask Yousef if he’s with the Free Syrian Army, he denies it, but one nurse says he has privately confided this fact to hospital staff." Almost all sources indicate that only a minority are combatants, with the exception maybe of Press TV. --Monochrome_Monitor15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Israel doesn't support Insurgents, Israel fights against Assad, and as result, it helps the Insurgents. Isael should be added to the infobox. Guyhaddad (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Monochrome, you say "almost all sources", then provide a single source that says nothing of the sort. All it says is that one of the "civilians" was lying, and that the hospital staff only "believe" most treated are civilians. So certainly not a very confident claim. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: This report [104] gives a comprehensive account of support Israel is giving to Nusra, with links to various reliable news sources who also corroborate this. One notable report is by UNDOF where their observers saw and I quote “Israeli soldiers ‘handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition’ from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side” on one occasion. Also, one other source notes “the remnants of bombs with labels in Hebrew were found” in the area of conflict. So, based on all of these reports, I also support adding Israel to the infobox in the supported by section (as most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Israel should be in the "non-lethal aid" column: "Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger. Israeli officials have previously balked at confirming on the record that the country has been helping forces that are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar"[105] It is not even controversial by now, yet some editors refuse to add it due to some outdated "consensus"[106] based on old sources from back when Israel still denied they were helping the rebels, and on the conclusion that bombing Syrian forces did not make them part of the civil war (which is irrelevant to the non-lethal aid). Facts have changed, so that "consensus" is utterly irrelevant now. Now we even have North Korea as a "supporter", fer Chrissake, yet Netanyahu's hands are all over the place. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do; that's what the "non-lethal aid" column is for. Israel is only supporting Syrian rebels, not army soldiers or Hezbollah members, so the tired "humanitarian" argument doesn't hold up either. You can't really move the goal post on this one. In any case, if you think North Korea has had more to do with this war than Israel, you may not have been following the mainstream news. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since infoboxes can now apparently have 5 columns (see Wars of the Three Kingdoms), should the columns be revised to 1.) The Syrian govt., 2.) The Free Syrian Army & allies, 3.) ISIS, 4.) The other Islamists & 5.) The Kurds, w/the foreign allies of each faction placed in the relevant columns? Unsigned comment by Blaylockjam10 at 10:13, 11 July 2015
I agree with FunkMonk. This was previously discussed and rejected. The FSA and the likes of Nusra may not be best friends, and there have been incidents of infighting, but they've cooperated more often than not, and there's a significant "grey area" of overlap between the Islamist rebels and the more secular/pro-Western rebels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the infobox, now foreign support is called "non.-combat aid", so Israel should definitely be included under FSA and friends. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing what? Are you saying the Israeli government is lying? Please, don't be more pro-Israeli than the Israelis themselves. The column is called "non-lethal aid". The Israeli themselves have confirmed they provide this to Syrian rebels, and so have countless other notable sources. Your argument about former consensus is utterly irrelevant now that the Israelis have admitted it themselves. Newer sources trump outdated ones. I sense a RFC in the distance... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Humanitarian aid is not listed under belligerents section. Israel has assisted Syrian population in rebel-held areas since 2012; nothing new. If we list all countries sending humanitarian aid to Syria, we should list half of UN.GreyShark (dibra) 04:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, humanitarian aid to civilians is not the same as specifically supporting one warring party and not others. You don't see Israel treating Syrian army soldiers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're talking about the non-combat column, it really should only be under the opposition column. The sources featured for them only cite non-combat aid being given to the Syrian opposition. The Kurds are getting support from the US-led coalition which consists of many of the same countries, so it's redundant. As for ISIS, they should have their own column for "alleged" backers. Charles Essie (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Mikrobølgeovn: your restructure of the infobox messes up the supporting parties; it is completely mess and looks like Libya is supporting the Kurds, US supporting al-Nusra ?!GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russia not confirming anything doesn't mean that they are not a belligerent, as per 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. On top of that, they haven't explicitly denied it. There are enough reliable sources from other parties to warrant inclusion in the article. The responsible user may also check the sources and choose to believe what they read accordingly.
Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground in Syria, its long-time ally in the Middle East. But Russia has declined to comment on the scale and scope of its military presence. Damascus denied Russians were involved in combat, but a Syrian official said the presence of experts had increased in the past year.
Dear FunkMonk, i was really wondering where is your once-a-month contribution on the topic of Israel-related conspiracies. I guess the blog-press was busy with real world events, rather than promoting the concept of Zionist entity's pact with the Baathist regime of Asad, or perhaps its secret support to the Opposition, or even to the [ Al-Nusra Front. I forgot to mention all that happening while the ISIL head (ISIL's head is funny huh?) is a Zionist agent named Simon something (whose photo is stolen from some innocent Jordanian guy btw). Anyway let me know when you locate Israeli navy base and airforce bases in Syria making 20 airstrikes per day thus equating it to Russia. Also i missed Israeli announcement on intervention and actual bombing in Syria (not some conspiracy "bombing" claims, denied by both Ba'athist regime and Israel altogether). Good luck.GreyShark (dibra) 18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, they are targeting what is just al Qaeda in Iraq, which is an old enemy. They're not fighting any other side (Nusra is also an AQI offshoot), and yes, they're helping the Kurds a bit, but the Israelis are helping Syrian rebels as well. There is no difference in their degree of participaing in "Syrian infighting". FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The US is actively supporting one or more parties in the infighting against one or more other parties. Israel's alleged "help" is miles away from belligerance, and its airstrikes are (as mentioned) related to either Hezbollah or crossborder fire. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Israelis are treating wounded Syrian rebels in their hospitals, and also meet with their delegates. This is help and coordination, just like the Americans do with the Kurds, plus the five rebels they trained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that this "coordination" remains merely speculation: Are you really comparing treating wounded fighters with pounding ISIS? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comparing pounding Syrian government forces with pounding any other force in the war, during the war. Even North Korea is in the infobox. That should put things in perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea should not be in the infobox, they are not fighting. At best they might be selling arms, but they have no money to support themselves, and for sure not a failing government on the other side of the globe. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to include Israel in the infobox
Netanyahu has recently acknowledged that Israel has carried out "dozens of airstrikes" in Syria.[109] There are also a number of mentions in the current article of other Israeli involvement, such as healing wounded rebels, always in support of the "opposition" side. I propose including Israel in the infobox under that column, perhaps under "support". Esn (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no he didn't. Faulty translation - he said "Israel stopped Hezbollah from receiving advanced weapons", but someone decided it means airstrikes. Netanyahu referred to activities of the navy and special forces in Mediterranean and Red Sea, arresting weapon smuggling from Iran, such as Francop Affair. A similar thing is also done by US navy concerning Iranian weapon supplies to Houthis in Yemen [110].GreyShark (dibra) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're partly right, the article I linked says that the type of strikes (whether air, naval, etc.) was not specified. However, according to the article he did say "in Syria", not "in international waters" (it would help if I could find an exact quote, though...). And also, there are already several other mentions in this article specifying Israeli involvement on the side of the "opposition". Esn (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - long overdue. Israel is supporting the rebels by own admission, while bombing the government and their allies inside Syria. They are clearly involved. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think a fair compromise would be to add Israel under rebel support whilst saying 'Against Hezbollah only', or 'airstrikes against/on Hezbollah only' alongside it. For example Israel (Against Hezbollah only)--PaulPGwiki (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true i suppose, we can both agree that Israel has attacked both the SAA and Hezbollah, but its wrong that Israel should be shown as supporting the rebels directly. Just because Israel attacked the SAA and Hezbollah doesn't mean that they suddenly support the rebels and their cause. It is part of the separate conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Syria and Iran too.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has both treated wounded rebels (under the guise of "humanitarianism", though they of course never treat wounded Syrian army or Hezbollah soldiers) and supplied them with material, see the links by Donenne above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors have argued that Israel's attacks are not part of this conflict, but a separate conflict with the Syrian Army and Hezbollah only, and is therefore not part of the Syrian civil war. But that seems preposterous, when they are at the same time supporting one side in the same civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The several alleged attacks have mostly been denied to even happening by the Syrian Baathist regime and Israeli Zionist regime alike. Even when something happened there were typically conflicting claims on responsibility and never Israeli confirmations. There are about 7 air forces operating in Syrian territories' skies - Baathist Syria, US, Russia, Turkey, Jordan (briefly), Canada (briefly), France (briefly). There have been around 100,000 air strikes made by those forces on the course of the war. The 5-10 incidents which are claimed to possibly involve Israel are ridiculously negligible and mostly not confirmed to be done by the Israelis. I don't mind you guys take this to DRN again, but come on - this is a tough case for you to win.GreyShark (dibra) 15:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Netanyahu himself admitted to dozens of attacks a few days ago.[111] If a complete non-belligerent like North Korea can be in the infobox as a supporter, so can Israel with their repeated attacks on one side of the war, easily. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulPGwiki: In any case, if you want to go forward including Israel on behalf of one of the parties (it has so far been claimed that Israel supports Assad, Opposition, Jabhat al-Nusra and even ISIS, but with no actual proofs regarding any of those) - you need to restart the DRN. I would be however surprised if anything is decided, especially considering the conflicting claims and stubborn Israeli denial of any involvement in the Syrian War. I suggest you first take a look at the history of such claims in Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose no way we add Israel. They have done humanitarian help to wounded and continue the fight against Hezzbolah but Israel has no reason to help the rebels as many of them would prefer to wipe Israel off the map. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Israel has been actively supporting terrorist groups in Syria as revealed by a VICE documentary and the incidents where an Israeli ambulance where stopped by locals in Majdal Shams carrying a terrorist. And also Israel is occupying a part of Syria and Israel is directly involved in the conflict, carrying out airstrikes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09:Oppose Thank you, that's exactly what i think and what i have always been trying to say. That's why ive always been against adding Israel to the infobox, for the reason you gave and a couple of others. In this particular discussion, I was just trying to get a balance between those that are in support or in opposition of adding them. That's why Israel should not be added to the infobox.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this point I still believe Israel is only verifiably fighting Hezbollah as part of the Iranian-Israeli proxy war. For me, a note to this effect is fine or saying vs Hezbollah. Banak (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Syrians officially deny events doesn't mean they don't happen (officially acknowledging Israel's involvement would mean they'd have to respond, and they may feel they have enough enemies to fight right now). Here are quotes featuring Israeli involvement that are currently in the article: "On 18 March [2014], Israel used artillery against a Syrian Army base, after four of its soldiers had been wounded by a roadside bomb while patrolling Golan Heights", "On 14 August [2014], the Free Syrian Army commander Sharif As-Safouri admitted working with Israel and receiving anti-tank weapons from Israel and FSA soldiers also received medical treatment inside Israel" (concerning weapons from Israel to the rebels, see also these recent articles from AMN: [112], [113].), "The same day [23 September 2014], Israel shot down a Syrian warplane after it entered the Golan area from Quneitra", "Israel has provided treatment to 750 Syrians in a field hospital located in Golan Heights. Rebels say that 250 of their fighters received medical treatment there.". Plus the above-mentioned newer stories (including Netanyahu himself speaking of "dozens of strikes" in Syria), which for some reason are not in the article yet. There are a few other mentions in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War.
What these quotes seem to point to is a history of infrequent but consistent support by Israel for the "rebels" and against Hezbollah and the SAA. It is plain that all sides of the conflict want to keep Israel's involvement secret for their own reasons, but enough stories have accumulated over the last few years (from many different places) that it would be disingenuous to keep pretending that there's no involvement. Esn (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article nowhere mentions that Israel has been supporting the Syrian opposition for years; with cash, humanitarian assistance, food deliveries and occasional military actions. The Wall Street Journal wrote about that in a lengthy and detailed article circa 2 weeks ago > [115]. Also, ISIS apologized to Israel for "mistaken" attack and vowed to never attack again > [116][117].
I agree it even needs to be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, but some editors think they have found a loophole by claiming Israel is not actually participating in this war, and that their clashes are part of some separate conflict only between Israel and the Syrian government/Hezbollah. Which is reaching quite a bit, especially given the direct help for the rebels and coordination. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the situation is that Israel is for anyone (Russian, American, or otherwise) who is fighting against the extremists, ISIS. Since Israel is not directly involved in this conflict, there is no reason to mention Israel, especially when those presenting Israel's case are often biased.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Israel doesn't give a damn about ISIS, it isn't a threat to them. The Israeli Defence minister has said "In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State".[118] They're only afraid of Iran and Hezbollah, that's why they support Syrian rebels and bomb the government side again and again. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Little do you know. I live in Israel, and there is nothing that concerns us more than Arab extremism/terrorism. Of course, Syria (an arch-rival and enemy of the Jewish State) has not, in recent history, instigated any wars against Israel, and now that they're pinned-down in this ongoing conflict, we can expect the situation to remain so for a long time to come. Of course, if given the choice between a war with Iran and a war with ISIS, ISIS would be the easier of the two. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what you or I think we know when the Israeli defence minister himself states he prefers ISIS over Iran and Hezbollah. And it doesn't change the fact that Israel is helping the very Islamic extremists in Syria that they are apparently so "concerned" about.[119][120]FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your Wall Street Journal reports that Israel has been, for years, carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces. So what's wrong with giving food, fuel and medical supplies to people on the border? Do you really believe this is tantamount to waging a war against the Syrian nation? You see, you've taken this editorial just a little bit too far. Of course, if Israel should feel threatened or is attacked, Israel will defend itself.Davidbena (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means Israel is both arming a side of the conflict and attacking the forces that side is fighting. That makes it a part of the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Israel never attacks an enemy, unless it first feels threatened or else it is being attacked. This does not make Israel a party in the current conflict (Civil War), but rather, Israel is doing what she has always done.Davidbena (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History speaks for itself. Besides, you have no consensus, not to mention any "reliable sources," to add here that Israel is a party to the current conflict.Davidbena (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I showed you reliable sources that state Israel provides weapons and money to Syrian rebel groups while attacking the Syrian government. What else does it take to be part of a conflict? FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You showed a source that equates Israel's defense posture (when threatened) with actual military involvement in the current conflict. By the dupes of words artfully framed, that article seeks to mislead the simple-minded and naive.Davidbena (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you then explain what action would make Israel part of the conflict in your view? Or is Israel just never able to do wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Israel does not really (in earnest) view ISIL as a threat, as they know very well who is behind it. Besides, we have already a perfectly islamic state, whose judicial practice is virtually the same as Daesh; that state has just bribed Us gov with a few $ hundred billion to keep every one involved happy... But that is indeed beside the point here, as FunkMonk has pointed up. The issue of how Israel should be treated for the purposes of this article is worth attention, as well as the US, BTW. I already sectioned out the US as a ″belligerent″, but not in the infobox -- am just a bit coy about editing these juggernauts. I think, we ought to look at things in the broad scheme of things, encyclopedically, to coin a phrase. Amnot an expert, but the basics, I suppose, are these: Syria and Israel have always been and are at war (Israel–Syria relations), in a legal/technical sense, in terms of international law, that is. Thus, Israel is indeed a belligerent in that sense. The question is whether this fact is relevant to the subject this article is about. If attacks continue and we have some formal statements on that from Israel, I think we need to adjust accordingly.Axxxion (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think this charade has gone on long enough. Even the Wall Street Journal is now reporting on lethal Israeli aid for five rebel groups, a few of them associated for the Free Syrian Army. I've added the info to the infobox. It's absolutely ridiculous to take the position that the Israeli support is somehow part of a "separate conflict" with some Syrian government-allied forces that's completely unrelated to the Syrian Civil War. Esn (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ report (who got its info from the rebels) is probably reliable. Syrians probably have an unfavorable view of Israel, so the Syrian rebels would not say that they are receiving help from Israel unless it's true.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ report doesn't indicate lethal support provided by Israel, but rather emphasizes provision of food, medicine, cash and fuel - all not lethal, but rather humanitarian assistance items. There is no "big news" here - Israelis provide humanitarian support for several years into rebel held areas, as many other countries. This is not belligerency.GreyShark (dibra) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand including Israel as an entity in the Civil War but I think claiming it as supporting the rebels is a bit misleading. It is clear that Israel is against the Syrian regime and has launched airstrikes against it but they have not done so in support of the Free Syrian Army or any other rebel group. They should at most be included as a co-belligerent of the rebels.72.90.157.229 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone completly removed Israel from the infobox despite the facts and sourced material. Clearly some people have an agenda to "prove" 'that Israel does nothing in Syria, whilst the country clearly supports the rebels and attacks military targets assosictaed with the legitimate Syrian government and its allies. Israel provides cash, aid, fuel, treats wounded rebels in hospitals, and attacks Syrian tanks/ armored vehicles whenever there's government offensive near the internationally recognized occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Israel does have a business in Syria and it does support the rebels associated with the FSA. IDF also crossed border with Syria on multiple occasions. Lie as much as you want, but nobody can deny the facts that Israel is an active participant in the conflict acting against the government in Damascus. If Israel is not a belligerent, then Iran isn't either. Iranian focres are not in Syria and there is no military support for either side. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is getting beyond ridiculous. The Israeli flag is not mentioned among the involved nations, while the flags of Netherland or Norway is? ROTFL! Huldra (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mossad is clearly trying to prevent wikipedia from adding their country to the war template for the Syrian Civil War on the FSA rebel side. AHC300 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to oppose the proposal.The oppose votes and esp. the counter-arguments seems to be more rationale-based than the arguments from the other side.Godric on Leave (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At the current, published, involvement level it is just the "usual" meddling/play that occurs between wars. Israel is definitely less involved than Turkey - even pre 2016 Turkey (Turkey more or less from the get go was heavily supporting Turkmen and Islamist forces, including movement and supply on Turkish soil). The current involvement level may barely be classified as support. This may change very quickly, but it has not yet. It is also less involved in supply than Saudi and Qatari material support for the Sunni forces, and they are not listed.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.this gets brought up every few months, it gets rejected and nothing has changed. Israel treats wounded fighters and as per their standard operating procedure long before the SCW bombs weapons headed to Lebenon they spot in Syria. None of that makes them a belligerent in the syrian civil war. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Israel supports Syrian rebels financially and medically while attacking pro-government forces every other week, these are indisputable facts. But it may be a good idea to wait for opinions for editors who are not either Israeli or Arabs (uninvolved). The votes so far are pretty predictable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support is different than direct involvement. Declared support is medical, RS speculation (probably true) is logistics, intel, and some material. However material support by other actors in the region has been much more significant. Fire is also far from every other week (during major rebel offensives - perhaps - for most of the past 2 years - no). The major Israeli air-force / long-range rocket attacks - are less than 10 throughout the entire conflict - and are supposedly limited to Hezbollah conveys carrying advanced arms to Lebanon. Beyond that - it is sporadic low-intensity fire - the Israeli military claims mortar/artillery rounds landed in Israel (and I will note that skeptic observers, in Israel as well, suspect some of these are fired "by request" by the Rebels into Israel to elicit a response - but it is confirmed by RS that at least several of these are true in the sense that rounds landed in Israel (who fired - more complex with the mess in Syria)) - and then fires back with artillery/rockets taking out 1-2 positions. This fire is limited to the area close border zone, and on a "hot" day is limited to a few events - and usually doesn't occur. To put things in perspective - in 2006 Lebanon War the IDF fired some 160,000 artillery rounds and 1,800 MLRS rounds. Throughout the entire 6 year Syrian civil war the IDF fired less than 100 short range rounds (some Spike (missile) NLOS, some others), and performed less than 10 long range strikes. I don't think this is an Israeli editor POV issue - it is really a question of what consists of involvement. The current level of fire - is one the level of low intensity border skirmishes - not even close to what the IDF would do if engaged "officially".Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk's insinuation that my opinion should be disgarded is incorrect. I'm not Israeli or Arab and have never even visited either Syria or Israel. many countries have provided humanitarian aid to Syria, but we don't list them as belligerents. Israel is not shy about going to War. If they wanted to insert themselves in the SCW they would be kicking Syrian/ISIL or someone's ass. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as mentioned above by Legacypac and Icewhiz, Israeli engagement in the Syrian War is humanitarian support, sporadic but minor border incidents (against Ba'athist troops, FSA and ISIL alike) and possible harassment of Hezbollah on Lebanese and Syrian territories as part of Iran-Israel proxy conflict. In first case - humanitarian support is not belligerency, in the second case this is too insignificant to justify listing of Israel as belligerent per WP:NOTABLE and WP:FALSEBALANCE and in third case this is largely denied by Israel and in fact mainly denied by Ba'athist Syria and Hezbollah (except several cases) which is not sufficient per WP:VERIFIABILITY. This discussion is by the way following a similar one at talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and numerous more archived at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 16:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link 1 is a user generated place to collect links. Not a Reliable Source and proves nothing.
Link 2 is the WSJ article. Giving a big of cash to make friends with the armed men right across the border is just good sense.
Link 3 is an opinion piece that nicely lays out the facts but jumps to a POV conclusion. It also says China should be listed with Iran amd Russia.
Link 4 key sentence "Israel allegedly attacked the Syrian Arab Army after a shell landed in the occupied Golan Heights." ie Israel responded to an attack on land they have long controlled. Zero to do with SCW. Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The discussion is not related to the "Belligerents" graph immediately (I suppose), but to "support". Overwhelming verifiable evidence to justify inclusion of Israel. Also, as i have noted before, Israel is at war with Syria in the most formal legal sense since 1973, or even before.Axxxion (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order not to clutter the RfC, I will start adding sources here, which indicate the Israeli involvement. Please feel free to add other sources. Huldra (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition" (quote from the Independent article)...that is cash from Israel to rebel fighter groups. Just when did ammunition become "humanitarian aid"? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off, these 2 sources (WSJ (and Independent's coverage of it) interviews with rebels, and JPOST UN's report (which really only brings up contacts and unspecified supplies) don't establish a fact - but speculate (well-founded speculation, and speculation I (and many others) believe - but still speculation)).... But more importantly - providing ammunition, intel, cash, material support, etc - does not make one into a a main belligerent. We more or less classify belligerents on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) - based on who is doing the shooting (and how much). A belligerent would have troops in the ground, air, or sea acting in a significant capacity - this is not what is alleged here. Even the supply alleged is fairly low (even though there is less well founded, but quite probable, speculation that it is greater than alleged (based on interviews) by WSJ - it still would be low). As you may see in Yom Kippur War (US and USSR not listed as belligerents - despite massive air-lifts supplying weapon systems and ammunition to Israel and Syria respectively). Using a true proxy force (and in this case - it seems more like liaising/supporting - but not actual control) - usually will not raise one to a belligerent. If you paint your own forces with other colors and give them other uniforms - and sent them in - e.g. Black September (Syrian troops as PLA) or Bay of Pigs Invasion (CIA, US Air force, etc. - which is more borderline in terms of classification) - then, if there is consensus that is the case (which often takes years to emerge - though if contested (as it was in War in Donbass) - it might be listed on-wiki as probable for quite some time) - then you'd be listed as a belligerent. In short - giving ammo, weapon systems, food, cash, etc. - does not raise one to belligerent status. If it did - we'd have to list a whole bunch of other states in the Syrian civil war and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, the whole quote is "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition.". So, maybe Israel is funding and maybe the rebels are using - those are clearly speculations per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:RSOPINION (same arguments as alleged North Korean involvement in Syrian War). What we do know with higher level of certainty is that Israelis provide certain humanitarian supplies to specific "moderate rebel" groups and to the pro-Asad Druze village of al-Hader [125] (via Druze community of Western Golan) in order to relieve local populations and they do treat wounded Syrians. I do not see such actions to become "solid" argument for "Israeli involvement", though in case border incidents do intensify to a point that Israelis invade into Syrian territories (whether held by Ba'ath, rebels, Nusra or ISIL) - this would be a valid point.GreyShark (dibra) 06:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GreyShark, why not cite the start of the independent article, which says "The Israeli authorities have provided significant amounts of cash, food, fuel and medical supplies to Sunni rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad’s government, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing "half a dozen rebels and three people familiar with Israel's thinking."" and "A special Israeli army unit was created to oversee the costly aid operation, the WSJ reported, which gives Fursan al-Joulan - Knights of the Golan - an estimated $5,000 (£3,900) a month. The group of around 400 fighters receives no direct support from Western rebel backers, and is not affiliated with the Free Syrian Army, the official rebel umbrella organisation."
So according to that, it Israel is for sure funding one armed opposition group, and might be funding 4 others.
Also, AFAIK, Israel is still nominally at war with Syria. If you believe that Israel only has a "humanitarian mission" in Syria, then I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. You might also want to meet my good friend, the Nigerian Prince X, who needs your help to get some millions out of Nigeria? Huldra (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what do you mean by "I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. You might also want to meet my good friend, the Nigerian Prince X, who needs your help to get some millions out of Nigeria?". Clearly you are off-topic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the source? The Druze villagers attacked because the people were Syrian fighters. Do you seriously think they would have attacked...sending themselves to Israeli jails for years...if they hadn't known that the wounded men in the Israeli ambulances were Syrian fighters? If you do, then I still have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell! Huldra (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Druze villagers lynching severely wounded Sunni fighters who were transferred by military ambulance to hospital - that is not a sign of involvement - that is humanitarian assistance (which angered Druze in the Golan and the Galilee (there was a failed lynching in the Galilee) - as the Sunnis were pressuring Hadar). I'll note that other RS (including I believe WSJ) have indicated that Israeli is also providing some assistance to Hadar (the Druze village on the Syrian side of the line) recently. All groups mentioned by WSJ are fairly small and local.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not "indicated that Israeli is also providing some assistance", it clearly says "The Israeli authorities have provided significant amounts of cash, food, fuel and medical supplies to Sunni rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad’s government." Why, oh why is it that suddenly people are not able to read English anymore? Huldra (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to read English. And I actually follow just about every media (and I'll not also less reputable, though often informative, social media), in English, Arabic, and Hebrew report on Syria, as part of my day job. The support indicated by WSJ is a very small cash contribution and some supplies. Less reputable sources (though I will note I am inclined to believe them) indicate a bit more. However this is far from belligerent status, which would entail at the very least significant Israeli fire at Syria. Most Israelis woild not have a problem in intervening in Syria if there were a clear gain from it, but this simply has not happend. All there is is a fairly low level of support, very minor cross border fire, and once in a blue moon an airstrike.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear the WSJ article (which relays information from interviews with half a dozen alleged rebel fighters - so interesting, but not a statement of fact) has a claim by a rebel leader that his small village group is receiving 5,000$ a month from Israel. This isn't even peanuts - it is crumbs. The Fursan al-Julan group has 400 fighters (per WSJ), and the four other groups referenced by WSJ have per WSJ 400 more fighters (so 800 total) - which is a very-very small local Syrian organization. This is not a level of significant support, and it is definitely not something that places Israel as a belligerent.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that in a war torn country, goods would at least as useful, or more useful, than money. So even if 5,000$ a month is a tiny sum (I agree), that only leaves significant amounts of food, fuel and medical supplies ..to quote the article. Not to mention the airstrikes (some mention below), which I assume do not come for free, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Significant to whom..... To Israel not. To the small amount of villagers remaining in war torn Syria (in the Syrian Golan which was sparse to begin with), where an ethnic cleansing campaign is undergoing against Sunnies, it is probably most significant (as stated by sources). It is even of some military significance - as the Syrian regime has been attempting to starve out some of these Sunni settlements (and has succeeded elsewhere). However - supplying food, or even arms, is support at most - and does not make one a belligerent. The airstrikes against Hezbollah conveys are a separate matter - and Israel has carried out airstrikes in Syria in the past, not during war time - e.g. Ain es Saheb airstrike or the 1960s water project bombings - and these are allegedly directed at targets not related to the war (arms buildup of Hezbollah). The current level of alleged support does not even raise to significant supports - all the credible RSes are alleging less than peanuts - crumbs. And even claims in non-RS do not rise so much beyond this (perhaps a covert involvement, but covert - is covert - not formal). Had Israel been formally involved - there would be a much more significant firing of projectiles - e.g. see the mass of fire in the various Gaza wars/operations or Lebanon 2006.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They might be insignificant to Israel, but they are clearly significant to the rebels! And there are lots more sources covering the Israeli involvement than say, the Dutch, or the Norwegian involvement. Still these two countries are listed as "Main belligerents", while Israel is not, LOL! Its articles like this which make Wikipedia appear like a joke..Huldra (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Significant only to minor Sunni very local rebel groups in the Syrian Golan adjacent to Israeli turf - and not the main rebel groups in more populated areas (e.g. eastern Damascus and elsewhere). The Dutch have comitted an F-16 squadron - which is quite a bit of firepower - for daily operations over Iraq and Syria (mainly vs. Islamic State) - this is quite a bit more firepower than Israel has used.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly referring to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict during the Syrian War. Most of the alleged incidents are not directly linked with Israel, but are suggested to be so. With 8 Air Force fleets operating in the skyes of Syria, it is a very long shot to claim which bombing was done by Israelis, while tens of thousands of airstrikes are performed by Ba'athist SAA, US, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser degree others, like Jordan, UK, UAE, Saudia.GreyShark (dibra) 12:14, 16 July 2017 (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.
Israel listed as supporting the opposition
This article is used to support Israel as supporting the opposition. I have looked around, and I cannot see any other outlets reporting or corroborating any of this, but the writer of the article [seems somewhat credible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rania_Khalek). However, I see an extraordinary claim here without much evidence provided in the article, so on one hand leaning towards removing it until this is confirmed by more sources. On the other hand, Alternet's credibility as a source doesn't seem to be challenged and the writer seems well-established, so what do you guys think? Eik Corell (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the writer/source. But the piece doesn't actually really provide anything terribly new - it states the local level low-level support to cross-border Sunni forces (Food, medical, some military to a limited extent) - which is well published. It then follows on with allegations, unsubstantiated, that Israel has attempted to kill Majed. How does Majed know that the drone strikes are Israeli? and not Jordanian? or American? or something else? Is Majed a RS? Are the NDF soldiers interviewed a RS for Israeli involvement (the source of air/artillery strikes)?Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is something i'm missing, this is typical case of a reliable source citing rumors ("Israel has been regularly supplying Syrian rebels near its border with cash as well as food, fuel and medical supplies for years, a secret engagement in the enemy country’s civil war aimed at carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces. The Israeli army is in regular communication with rebel groups and its assistance includes undisclosed payments to commanders that help pay salaries of fighters and buy ammunition and weapons, according to interviews with about half a dozen Syrian fighters...". WSJ clearly indicates a fact that Israel supplies humanitarian and medical aid, but when speaking of "buy ammunition and weapons", it discusses a rumor - it says "according to interviews with about half a dozen Syrian fighters". Rumors cited by reliable sources are still rumors and not facts.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might also find this interesting if you missed it - [132][133]. To a certain extent you are right - it is rumors (or what some of the rebels say) that the WSJ states with attribution (just Alternet does here). But even if the rumors are true - this is an extremely limited degree of support in a very limited geographical/organizational scope (these are all very local groups, a few hundred fighters along the border).Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The airstrikes thing caught me as well. The article even goes on to quote a rebel: "They killed two of our soldiers last year. They confuse us and the Syrian army with Hezbollah.". I'm seeing a lot of unsubstantiated reports like this, and it seems par for the course to blame Israel for all kinds of things from ISIS itself, to assisting ISIS or the FSA, etc. I'm still leaning towards removing it. Eik Corell (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They might just refer to the Israeli counterfire (by air or rocket) vs Syria each time a round lands in Israel. This is a low intensity sparodic cross border fire.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to trust AlterNet in this case. It's received journalistic awards from numerous organizations -- including NPR, which is a state media company of the USA, a crucial Israeli ally. Therefore, I would say it has boosted credibility as a source biased against including secret Israeli support covering it regardless. In addition, it's good to include AlterNet at least in addition to WSJ as it is not paywalled. Furthermore, they do have an editor leading them and a foundation backing them and therefore they would logically have internal policies, even if they aren't published. I do not see any provision of WP:RS condemning investigative journalism, and therefore believe that the article -- which pretty much is typical investigative journalism -- should be considered legitimate. Nuke (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One editor is exactly the opposite to the editorial board. Alternet in not WP:RS and it doesn't matter how much people may like it or not.GreyShark (dibra) 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter - as even if were to consider this reliable, it is relating the narrative of a Golan brigade commander (NDF). So if reliable we could state that Ahmad Kaboul said so and so - but not much beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS does not require that any news organization have an editorial board, but merely "editorial oversight". As AlterNet at least has an editor, we should assume that they have editorial oversight. Nuke (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Israel provided medical treatment to fighters from Nusra and currently does it to other rebels who go back to the frontlines. That much is admitted by Israeli official sources themselves. Medical treatment to fighters and tolerance for them to go back to frontline is limited support and not just some whim of humanitarian work. Sources like Jerusalem Post have reported it, basing on a report by Wall Street Journal. The former is a pro Israeli right wing news org and the later is pro US republican one. Haaretz, a left leaning Israeli organization, has also reported on it and they quote an officer that claims Israeli did give medical treatment to Nusra but stopped in doing so.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.666961CaliphoShah (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Medical treatment isn't enough to be listed on the infobox, based on current Wikipedia consensus, as it is "non-lethal" aid. In other words, Israel needs to supply ammunition or something else of that sort, or directly use weapons (but not troops on the ground) to attack the enemies of al-Nusra in battle, to be considered a combatant, and they are additionally granted an exception for any such military action as it relates to Hezbollah. Nuke (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
An awkward situation was created as RfC at Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War was closed in complete contrast with the Syrian Civil War main page community consensus (herewith "consensus") including the most recent above listed RfC concerning the alleged role of Israel in the Syrian Civil War. So far, we have a solid consensus not to count Israel as belligerent nor supporter at the Syrian Civil War page, but it appears that other Syrian Civil War related pages are becoming confused - one page claiming this and the other claiming that, with much lower editorial participation in decisions. This doesn't seem to be logical and consistent and hence I would like to ask editors whether the consensus achieved at RfC above (Israel is not a notable belligerent nor supporter) is to be applied to all other Syrian Civil War topic pages, including for instance Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Quneitra offensive (June 2017). GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
Please vote "Support" (consensus to be applied to all topic pages) or "Oppose" (decision should be made on each page individually) and provide with an explanation. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - you mean support exclusion of Israel from Foreign involvement article and propose to downgrade its notability in infobox in Quneitra offensive (June 2017); the question is however more broad - what to do when editors of other pages claim alternative consensus to include Israel as belligerent/supporter (like at talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War) which is inconsistent with current consensus at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and specifically denies inclusion of Israel in infobox as belligerent or supporter per above RfC; Israel can certainly be mentioned in the infobox (as in Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–14) article) in regard to confirmed spillover incidents, as long as it is not shown as supporting a certain side.GreyShark (dibra) 09:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is context dependent. Israel might merit mention in the infobox in an extremely local campaign (and smallish in scope/effect) along its border fence (and DMZ - including belligerents that are allegedly partially based in the DMZ beyond the border fence) in which there were cross-fire incidents during the campaign (alleged mortar first falling in Israel, Israel allegedly attacking targets of one of the belligerents in response to said alleged fire), and in which some of the belligerents are those very small local groups Israel has allegedly been in contact with. At the current level of involvement - Israel does not merit, in my opinion, a mention at the infobox level for the entire civil-war - as whatever the level of involvement is (we know what RS say, beyond is CRYSTALBALL of course) - we don't have sourcing for anything of wider strategic importance (setting aside the Hezbollah arm supplies - different conflict) for the campaign as a whole. We should be consistent - but there are exceptions (Quneitra would possibly be one of them. Incidents vs. Shuhada al-Yarmouk might be another) - but they are on an extremely local level (adjacent to Israel) - our position on Israel should be consistent between Syrian Civil War and non-adjacent campaigns - e.g. Aleppo, Deir Al-Zor, Idlib, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the long standing concensus on the parent page trumps local concensus on daughter pages some of us were not aware existed. This principle has been very clear on the ISIL naming debate for example. If RS discuss some Israeli action, by all means include, but don't turn them into a belligerent. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, that is if i correctly understand this vote. I do not believe the exclusion of Israel from a list of belligerents in this and some other articles should trigger exclusion of the relevant section in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War: Israel′s involvement (albeit not a belligerent) is beyond any doubt, if only as a neighbour of Syria: all Syria′s neighbour counries are involved some way or other; and if a neighbour is not involved, that would be most remarkable and notable in itself to merit a section in that particular article.Axxxion (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, to me, there seem to be different standard w.r.t. Israeli involvement , than with any other country. Is anyone really suggesting that, say Germany, or Norway, have larger involvement in the Syrian war than Israel? I thought not. And still, Germany, and Norway, are listed as parties to to the conflict, while Israel is not. This is a ridiculous double standard, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing your logic. Norway has troops doing advising (which often involves shooting) and running a border crossing taken from ISIL.[134]. When did Israel put troops in Syria? Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly you could cut out minor coalition members with token participation, however they are DECLARED conbatants. The air raids you are referring to are part of a long running Israel\Iran/Hezbollah conflict which is not (yet) part of the civil war. The degree of alleged published support for fence adjacent rebel groups is peanuts. Even less than peanuts.Icewhiz (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source yet to support your claim of "funding their ammunition"; the only confirmed deliveries from Israel into Syria are humanitarian aid items, including medicals, food, fuel (for water pumps) and very limited finance (for humanitarian needs only). Remarkably Israel supplies both rebel-controlled areas at the Golan and at least one pro-regime village.GreyShark (dibra) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thisarticle from The Independent clearly says "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition." How come that editors here cannot understand English anymore? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It has become "fashionable" to accuse Israel of things it has not done, or instigated. To the best of my knowledge, there is a coalition of western powers (including Jordan) working alongside the USA in the Syrian conflict. Israel is not one of these, to the best of my knowledge. Australia was even recently involved in air raids, until it pulled out its forces after a Russian fighter jet was downed and Russia had threatened to view all coalition military aircraft fighting without Syria's permission in Syria as valid targets. You see, Israel is NOT doing this, unless of course it wishes to preemptively strike at forces planning an attack on Israel. Strikes carried-out in self-defense cannot be construed for active involvement in the Civil War, since Israel has been defending itself since time immemorial - without any connection to the current Civil War.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The other pages are simply correct. Yet again, Israel is a belligerent in this war on the side of the Sunni Islamist rebels, in addition to supporting them financially[135] and medically[136]. Stating the opposite is simply special pleading. Israel is accused of "all sorts of things" because Israel does not shy away from doing "all sorts of things". At this point, I'm baffled pro-Israelis even care to contest this fact; the Israeli government isn't even trying to hide their allegiances in this war.[137] No one in the real world is fooled, but I predict this Wikipedia page will present a fantasy version of the Israeli role for years to come. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, if what you say is true, can you please cite your reliable Israeli government source where the Israeli government admits to being "involved" in the Syrian conflict? If you cannot do this, then what you say here is mere hearsay. When the former Israeli Defense Minister, Yaalon, said early last year that he would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria, it is a far cry from admitting to Israeli military intervention in the crisis. Perhaps you equate mere wishes with military action.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is not referring to the question - does the consensus of this page (above RfC) apply regarding the role of Israel apply to all Syrian Civil War topic pages. The above RfC (concerning Israeli involvement Yes/No) is already closed.GreyShark (dibra) 10:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be added to all articles that Israel supports Syrian rebels, if that is not possible, the current situation should be kept. Nochyyy (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel gives humanitarian aid to Syrians, this is not the same as military support. If you have proof that Israel supports rebels militarily in the current conflict, please provide it. I have not seen any. As for Israel's own stance, by the following recently published article, it is plain that Israel has heretofore not involved itself in the current conflict, other than what might be perceived as self-defense. See: Israel may act. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidbena Please read, eg. Thisarticle from The Independent clearly says "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition." Now, when did paying fighters and buying ammunition become "humanitarian aid"? Seriously....Huldra (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The words "may be funding" say it all; it's all speculative. Besides, I see no reason why Israel should get involved in this conflict.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a RS, citing "half a dozen rebels and three people familiar with Israel's thinking." Gosh, you really don't want to understand English anymore, do you? Lol. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Quneitra, Israel always hit Syrian army positions, it never attacked Syrian rebels. Also, its airplanes several times bombed Damascus and other positions of Syrian government. The reason is clear, Assad government is an ally of Iran and Hezbollah. Nochyyy (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't as clear as you put it out. The heavy airstrikes are purportedly against arm shipments to Hezbollah - so this is a different issue. Regarding counterifre in the Golan area, while I personally suspect the same (for many but not all of the counterfire incidents), the stated Israeli position is that it sees the Syrian government (and in relation to Lebanon and Gaza - there is/was a similar policy of responses) for all fire coming out of its territory - thus a response is directed towards the government from whose de-jure territory Israel was fired upon.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is factually not correct - Israelis have hit Ba'athist SAA and allied militant positions, FSA and pro-ISIL militants. But again - this is not the question of this RfC. The question is: should the consensus here (whatever it is) also apply to all Syrian Civil War topic pages.GreyShark (dibra) 11:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So as i understand User:Nochyyy - you do support the idea that the consensus here should apply to all topic pages, but you do not agree with the current consensus. Is that correct?GreyShark (dibra) 11:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Israeli involvement is in the gray zone, it is not so insignificant that we can ignore it and it is not that obvious (at least for some people) either. And I believe decisions should be made on each page individually. Nochyyy (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This should be decided for individual articles since Israel's involvement in this war varies widely from battle to battle. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Israel has been involved to a smaller or larger degree throughout the war, each article should have discussions if they want to modify Israel involvement. Sgisright (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Brought here by bot. A preponderance of sources (New York Times: Israel has repeatedly hit targets in Syria during the country’s six-year civil war[138] | Chicago Tribune: Israel is widely believed to have carried out airstrikes in recent years on advanced weapons systems in Syria[139], etc.) demonstrate Israel is a military intervener in Syria during the time period in which the Syrian Civil War is occurring and against known belligerents in that war. To the question of Israel's own belligerency (which would seem to demand its inclusion in the infobox), my copy of Kelsen's Principles of International Law says that a belligerent would be an entity which has (a) a military organization separate and independent of any other, (b) is engaged in activities that have the characteristics of warfighting, (c) the entity controls part of the territory in which the war occurs, or has part of its territory controlled. If someone could convince me that "c" applies to Israel - or has applied to Israel at some point during the SCW, I would change my !vote to Oppose.
(I do not support the idea that the GOI must confirm its military involvement as a precondition of inclusion as seems to have been suggested elsewhere; this would put the Government of Israel in the position of exercising a de facto veto over the content of Wikipedia articles. Reality exists independent of a state's decision to issue, or not issue, a press release.) Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the proposal refers to all forms of specifically mentioning Israel as belligerent or supporter in Syrian Civil War-related articles, whether in infobox, in titles or in text (perhaps with the exception of Iran-Israel proxy conflict article, which specifically deals with some aspects of this issue). There is of course no problem to say sourced statements that "X accuses Israel of supporting" or "X hinted on Israeli airstrike".GreyShark (dibra) 09:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC misreads the consensus from the prior RfC. I agreed that Israel is not a combatant. I, personally, did not rule out their involvement or support. I'm not going to !vote in an all-or-nothing proposal. Chris Troutman (talk)16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically say don't like the outcome of the RfC on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, so you basically start a new RfC which will invalidate it? And Israeli involvement is a heck of a lot more that "X accuses Israel of supporting" or "X hinted on Israeli airstrike", as I think we all know. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, are you making a trick here by first agreeing to move RfC from Foreign involvement to this page, but then making it with a slightly different wording here and now claiming the two RfCs are not linked? Instead of procedurally closing the older RfC at Foreign involvement article, some editor decided to close the intermediate result there in opposite to the long standing consensus on the topic and contrary to the successive RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 10:28, 23 August 2017 (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.
Israel as a combatant
Recently some edits of mine triggered a discussion started on the Quneitra offensive article involving yours truly and editors @EkoGraf and @Applodion. The dispute is over the listing of Israel in infobox as a co-belligerent of the rebels in the fighting (revision here), although separated from the main body of rebel groups by a dividing line. At the same time, the article makes clear that Israel claims this is in response to shelling crossing their border, so the dispute is limited to the infobox listing. User Ekograf pointed to this article to show that opposing forces can be listed on the same side in this manner, and that the aforementioned dividing line between them denotes that they are not not necessarily allies. I would leave it at that if it wasn't for these two niggling problems: Firstly, the article already makes use of some sources that are pushing the narrative of Israel as a puppetmaster/supplier of the rebels, albeit only quoting them for other, non-controversial info in the articles. Secondly, the narrative of Israel as mastermind of the rebels and ISIS, etc, is already in the ether, so even though it might be special pleading, I feel like an exception should be made here because even if unintentional, putting Israel and the rebels on the same side could contribute to the all-around confusion and propaganda that exists around Israel's position in the Syrian civil war. The best solution I can see to avoid this would be to list Israel as a completely separate combatant in the battle. Eik Corell (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, Israel is not listed as a co-beligerent (ally) of the rebels. Based on an established template that has been used for years in numerous articles such as Battle of al-Hasakah (2015)Northern Aleppo offensive (February 2016)Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)Palmyra offensive (2017), when there are two belligerents not fighting each-other and are instead clashing against the same (third) belligerent, but are still not allies or do not support each-other, then we place them in the same column but with a separation line dividing them. This has been done in cases where we had both the SAA and SDF clash against the rebels or ISIL at the same time, but not against each-other. Or, when we had both the SAA or the US-led Coalition clash against ISIL but not against each-other. Eik Corell proposed we place Israel in a third column in the infobox. This would be contrary to the established template and missleading since it would imply Israel clashed against the rebels as well during the offensive, which it did not. For the sake of compromise and to make Israel's position clearer, it has been proposed by me that we add (in addition to the separation line) beside Israel's name an asterix that links to a note that would say something like Air-strikes against Syrian Army only, unaligned with rebels. One other editor (Applodion) involved in the discussion has already agreed to the asterix compromise. As for Eik Corell's problem with the source that is being used in the article (Masdar), as per the agreed-to-policy after numerous discussions throughout Wikipedia, Masdar has been agreed to be verifiable enough to be used only for non-controversial issues (territorial changes, units involved, etc). Any statements made by Masdar for propaganda purposes are not translated/transferred into the article, keeping the neutrality of our articles intact. Any other personal feelings regarding Israel's involvement in this offensive should be put aside and we continue to edit based on verifiable sources. In any case, Israel should not have been removed from the infobox of the offensive since its involvement during the battle is already heavily sourced and highly notable and it should be reinstated in one form or another. EkoGraf (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS If Israel does end up in a third column of the offensive's infobox in the end, then it should be noted beside it's name, in brackets, that again the air-strikes were only against the Syrian Army, which has been factually verified. EkoGraf (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it was removed shows just how far behind the wave wikipedia is. If one relied on Wikipedia to get a grasp of the complex Syrian conflict it would be a poor understanding. I cant see a way around the hole wikipedia has got itself into with its reference censorship. SaintAviator22:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was for the main infobox on the Syrian civil war. And I myself am of the opinion that Israel's role during this war has not been notable enough to warrant including them in it, leading me to vote a couple of times against its inclusion in the main infobox. However, the discussion here is on the infobox of the June 2017 Quneitra offensive during which Israel was verifiably involved on almost half a dozen occasions in a notable manner. Occasions during which their actions (air-strikes) directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, affected the development of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, don't conflate articles with completely different scopes. There is no one size fits all, and trying to enforce it just looks tendentious. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the past five years about once a month on average there is an attempt to change the standing consensus and try to include Israel as belligerent with you being one of the most loud voices behind those repeating procedures. Do you want to talk about " enforce it just looks tendentious" in more detail?GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was I the one who repeatedly made those sections? No. Has my opinion changed since any of those sections were made? No. So what the heck are you complaining about, what can I do other than voice the same opinion when these sections are made, and I am pinged to comment about them? And there is no consensus to change because there is no clear consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Israel has been a major player in the middle East for 70 odd years. There is no way Israel is not deeply involved in the Syrian war. It has to be for its security. For example, creating Red Lines, treating Isis wounded, targeting Hezbollah and Syrian Military with armed drones and jets, arming rebels, providing intelligence to rebels, providing orders to Rebels and Isis. Yes. This is the reality. Israel is also very concerned Iran is now stronger in Syria and that Assad is winning. israels Isis gambit failed. But here in Wikipedia you grapple with things like an Info box mention. Its laughable. The problem here is the ridiculous reference Boycotts. It would be far far better to allow sites like Al Masdar by having filters on opinions and make a meaningful article not this watered down right wing opinion piece. SaintAviator20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Belligerents : Where is Israel !?
Side which is clearly involved in this war, with many aerial and artillery assaults on Syria, with many weapons from Israel , shot down jets, drones over Syria isnt presented here ? Israel is clearly helping ISIL and antigovernment forces on Golan Heights. I would add Israel on belligerents (Support) which are siding "Syrian opposition" and "ISIL". --PetarM (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear whom Israel, if at all, is supporting and to what extent. Israel has actually shot at ISIL forces in a firefight, and has arrested and tried Israeli Arabs who have attempted (or succeeded) in joining ISIL. The cross-border raids seem to be mainly spillovers and part of a long-going Hezbollah/Iran vs. Israel war between wars - unrelated to the Syrian Civil War. An RfC on the matter was run in August 2017 - [140] - things have not changed much since then. They might change in the near future, but that's WP:BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than clear Israel is against the Syrian government, bombing Damask often and nearby places. On Golan Heights they provided help to Al-Qaeda, also medical medical treatment to Al-Qaeda and ISIL. Thats is very clear. Its disturbing do we try to hide that ? Yestarday there was movie on Youtube with captured weapons, delivered straight from Israel to rebels. What do we need to add them on belligerents list... one more shot down jet, 2, 3... ?! --PetarM (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the Syrian government has finally shot back, and it has become more of a two-way affair, Israel should certainly be listed in the infobox. Added to their continuous attacks on the Syrian governent and support for Islamist insurgents near Golan, there is really nothing to discuss. The mental gymnastics and special pleading required to keep Israel out of the infobox is getting ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same intent. Hitting anmodern fighter jet with a SA5 (which has been fired a number of times at planes, including once last year when on of these was alegedly intercepted by an Arrow ABM) has a low probability for each shot - but fire enough and so,ething will go down.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the sources, not our personal POVs, or what we perceive to be the "intent" of the Syrian government or any other party in this conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Sources state Syria has fired SA5s before at Israeli jets, e.g. in October 2017[141] or March 2017[142] in which The Syrian military claimed it responded by shooting down one of the aircraft, but no evidence subsequently emerged to corroborate this claim.[143] - so nothing new in the Syrians firing at Israeli jets or claiming to have shot them down.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz how would you describe situation on the map ? ISIL and rebels are by Israel territory and they are surounded by Govenment forces ? Do you accept fact they side them, even in hospitals and sending them back into Syria ? With arms from Israael. --PetarM (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade / Khalid ibn al-Walid Army control a very small strip of territory and were involved in firefights with Israel. Their ISIS connection is somewhat tenuous (they weren't initially affiliated, they did declare allegiance when IS was stronger), and there aren't all that many credible reports tying Israel to them (though as usual with Islamic State - everyone's favorite bogeyman in Syria - there's quite a bit of propaganda - but not credible reporting). The more credible reports tie Israel, in a minor fashion, to South-Western Syrian rebel groups (which at the moment, in confirmed and credible reports, amount to humanitarian assistance as well as minor other assistance) are to other groups - either unaffiliated local groups (of which, like in all of Syria, there are many) or Al-Nusra Front / Tahrir al-Sham. Israel, however, has also directly threatened these groups when they approached the Druze village of Hader, Quneitra Governorate too much (In Rare Move, Israel Says Ready to Protect Syrian Druze Town Under Attack by Islamic Militants).I do not think much has changed since the last RfC - there is minor reported cross-border meddling and a campaign against Iran/Hezbollah. Most analysts would not be surprised if Israel chose (or were thrust into) greater open involvement - but this hasn't happened yet.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i checked some other Wikipedias. Which don't do just translate. Israel is on Belligerents list on Spanish, Russian, Portugese, Nederland, Polish Wikipedia...among some other maybe (i havent checked all). So i see no reason not to add Israel. --PetarM (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enwiki doesn't work that way, but it actually varies quite a bit. Notably, Israel is not included in the infobox in either the Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, or Persian Wikipedia (all languages are involved/neighbors in the war). In Russian, it is in the infobox but with a note limiting this to the described airstrikes. In a number of other Wikis it is off (e.g. Italian, Greek from a random sampling). In any event, not much has changed since the last RfC which was rather recent.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I advocated keeping Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War in the face of erstwhile fierce opposition. But I am inclined to think that listing them under "Main belligerents" heading here would be a bit far-fetched, and more importantly, inaccurate. Israel is formally at war with Syria, hence she is not so much involved in the civil conflict per se, rather striking Iranian and Iran-backed forces, which includes Syrian forces, in a direct way.Axxxion (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Israel vs Iran/Hezbollah is a long running conflict predating the SCW. Israel vs Syria is also a long running unresolved conflict not related to the SCW. If Israel wanted to get in the SCW they would do a lot more than the minimal actions against Hezbollah and firing back when so one fires at them. Israel has the capacity to do serious damage in Syria but does not use it. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac: While I agree with the first two of your sentences in the posting above that deal with the matter under discussion, I believe the rest of your text above is a blatant abuse of this Resource for political propaganda (in fact, you sound like a spokesman of israel′s gov making threats to neighbouring countries, sth I do not remember ever having read on Wiki). We have a relatively exhaustive list of Israeli strikes in the relevant article: none of them was in retaliation for a strike at any Israeli targets inside Israel in her internationally recognized borders. A plain fact.Axxxion (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's pretty insulting. I have no dog in the fight. I'm simply noting that Israel has significant military capacity, which is why they (and not Syria) show up on lists of the strongest militaries in the world [144].
That was not my point. But apropos armies rankings, these are all largely speculations based on theoretical analysis of a very limited range of parameters and technicalities. When a real war is fought between major powers (and this has not happened since 1945), "strength" of an army is but one of a slew of other salient circumstances, the primary ones being: a nation′s willingness to fight to the bitter end, depth of your territory and vulnerability of major hubs, resilience of civilian population and its readiness to sacrifice, etc. Apparently, neither Israel nor the U.S. would feature prominent on these. Most of the U.S. major targets, including the capital city (let alone Israel), can be easily destroyed by a first-strike submarine-based cruise-missile attack within a few minutes after the strike, due to their proximity to the sea (just one geographical fact to illustrate my point).Axxxion (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
none of them was in retaliation for a strike at any Israeli targets inside Israel in her internationally recognized borders. A plain fact.
No, they were in response to missiles landing in the Golan heights, which Israel considers part of itself (and has many Israeli citizens). Is it OK for Syria to shell areas of land because they're occupied (from a Syrian POV)? Because that's the logic behind Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. As for the military issue, granted, the last world war was in 1945. The last "classic" war between the two powers in question was the 1973 Yom Kippur war - which was itself a facet of the cold war. But modern wars aren't generally fought that way. Israel's capability in intelligence is a key asset in the region - hence the strikes on Hezbollah convoys. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss08:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Axxxion: my point being that talking about Israel's internationally recognized borders is a straw man argument. Consider, during an ongoing conflict, borders change (not internationally recognized, the war's been too short). Now, there's a ceasefire. A missile is fired into the occupied territory. Breach of the ceasefire or not? Because that's essentially the de facto situation r/e Israel/Syria, albeit over a much longer timescale. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss23:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellezzasolo:, you and me might have philosophical differences (from my observation of life for 50 odd years, it is obvious to me that once one has the ability to damage/remove/plunder one′s opponent/neighbour with relative impunity, one will always do so and create tangible arguments to demonstrate that it had been done justly, fairly, mercifully, and often obeying God′s will too), we agree on the subject matter of this thread: Israel obviously does not yet qualify to be listed in the graph in question.Axxxion (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add Israel to the list of the main belligerents
For months, Israel has been attacking Syrian cities with missile strikes, and yet it's not listed as a belligerent in the war? What if North Korea bombarded Seoul, or Russia attacked Kiev? I doubt it would make those countries neutral, and yet in this case, Wikipedia perceives Israrl as a third party?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Compassionate727 good joke. Lets say Israeli weapons all over Syria, with photos, movies, shot down jet, drones, helping rebels and ISIL at Golan heights, with ambulance and weapons. Rocket attacks - soem dozens of them. Etc. --PetarM (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
p.S. And latest Isreali attack on Syria 2 days ago with, probably F-35 and new kind of rocket.[reply]
@PetarM: Sure. But is Israel truly a belligerent in this conflict, interfering with objective of advancing some other participant's progress in the war? If reliable sources document this to be the case, adding this information to the infobox is simply a matter of procuring said reliable sources. If Israel's intervention is simply the introduction of another front in a war that is really the amalgamation of several separate wars, then adding them to the infobox becomes quite difficult. Really, this is the whole problem with infobox conflict in proxy wars: concisely displaying information comes at the expense of accuracy.
But perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about this than me thinks it would be appropriate to add it somewhere. I likely won't object, provided the changes made aren't completely foolish. —Compassionate727(T·C)12:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At present, Israel as a "main belligerent" requires WP:OR and WP:BALL. Beyond the unconfirmed nature of the alleged Israeli strikes, it is also unclear whether these alleged strikes serve a purpose in the context of the civil war as opposed to the wider conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@T Check Vietnam War, look, i didnt even know my country - Yugoslavia is listed on the list. But with some reference etc i suppose all OK. While here, country which is in "proxy war" or even stronger, isnt even listed. 9.000 km distance Yugoslavia-Vietnam, 50 years ago. I even have to check what was Yugoslavia doing. But this here is pharse. As i stated before, on other Wikis Israel in on the list. Who is preventing this here isnt Wiki any more, politics. Some person, reading this in year 2200, migt think Israel didnt thow some tons of bombs, wasnt connected at all. Tragic. --PetarM (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did Israel bomb "cities", though? Not just some airbases and military installations? You need some pretty solid sources to sustain your claim that the Israelis bombed civilian dwelling places, too. --Edelseider (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Israel sits snugly on the side of Salafist insurgents near Golan, bombing their enemies for them, taking care of their wounded, coordinating with them, and providing them with material. None of this is even controversial anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that this discussion exists is humurous "But did they really bomb cities?" come on, does Israel have to launch an all out nuclear assault before being listed? They are bombing Syria, they have been intermittently for years, no one disputes that. Countries get put in there just for supporting a side, while the Israelis support the Sunni rebels (just look at a damn map of the conflict, for crying out loud) launches missile strikes, fighter jets drop bombs oh, and, there's the small fact that they are STILL OCCUPYING PART OF SYRIA. It's all an absolute joke. If Wikipedia needs a damn newspaper to tell us that the Israelis are as involved as anyone, what's the point of Wikipedia? It's just some kind of propaganda outlet on these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.189.154 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We also have latest news, yestrerday bombing of Syrian army - Syrian Pantsir was destroyed by Isreal, video is available from Israeli side. Any comment here, talk, Compassionate727 Would you now add Israel ? --PetarM (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there has been no change in situation - alleged and seldom approved strikes by Israeli Air Force against Syrian targets or on Syrian Arab Republic territory against Iranian targets are still marginal (around 100 alleged and approved Israeli strikes vs. hundreds by each of Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve minor members, thousands of airstrikes by Turkey, tens of thousands of airstrikes by US and also tens of thousands of airstrikes by Russian Federation); the strikes are mainly against non-Syrian forces (Iran and Hezbollah); and there are no Israeli forces within Syrian territories yet to support the claim of change from Uti possidetis status. We mention this on foreign involvement page, but this is not yet a belligerency on the scale close to Turkish invasion or Russian intervention.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Israel in the infobox
Foreign policy has confirmed that Israel provided military support to at least 12 rebel groups:
Israel secretly armed and funded at least 12 rebel groups in southern Syria that helped prevent Iran-backed fighters and militants of the Islamic State from taking up positions near the Israeli border in recent years, according to more than two dozen commanders and rank-and-file members of these groups.
The military transfers, which ended in July of this year, included assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers and transport vehicles. Israeli security agencies delivered the weapons through three gates connecting the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to Syria—the same crossings Israel used to deliver humanitarian aid to residents of southern Syria suffering from years of civil war.
This is another article of mounting evidence that Israel supported the rebels, it should be added to the infobox of belligerents as supporter of the FSA. Sgisright (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter at this point, whatever amount of proof turns up, we'll always have a slew of editors claiming that as long as Netanyahu denies Israel is helping the rebels, it didn't happen. Or repeating the absurd claim that Israel's ongoing attacks on the Syrian army and their allies in Syria are not part of the Syrian war. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post reported the same news two days ago, but the article was retracted and the link now dead. However, the article is currenctly archived at [145]. According to RT it was pulled on request by the IDF [146]. - 151.8.36.3 (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Israel just bombed the beep out of Syria, and during their attacks Russian plane was shot down due to friendly fire...? Do we need Israel to drop a nuke on Damascus to add them to the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by
31.217.23.98 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the displayed single source by Foreign Policy (used by other presented sources as original) claims Israeli support to Fursan al-Julan - which is not a part of the FSA or related with it. Using this source to add Israel to infobox as supporter of FSA, who denied all ties with Israel, is against Wikipedia policies per WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the support to certain factions in Quneitra is acknowledged by Israeli as humanitarian aid; claiming "Israel supported rebels with 5000$" is ridiculous and even if it was redirected by rebels for weapons it is truly undue weight compared with billions of Dollars put into this war by other countries like Iran, US, Russia, Saudia etc. There should be something better than a single journalist claim this year (who is this E. Tsurkov by the way?) or another article one year ago by Independent [147]. I don't see anything substantially relevant here - some Syrian rebel commanders of small sideline groups (mainly Fursan al-Julan) claim in discrete interviews that they used Israeli money to buy weapons. Not buying it - give something better, like this academic review [148] or this one Israel's imagined role in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox shows supporters of the "Syrian opposition" not the Free Syrian Army, and the groups that the sources claim were supported by the Israeli government are considered rebel group because they are opposed to the Syrian regime, You might be right about the reason why Israel supports these groups but the fact of the mater is that they are fighting the Syrian government and should be considered opposition.Underneaththesun (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, instead of putting Israel as supporter of the Opposition (which is very problematic as mentioned before), an argument of putting Israel as a standalone belligerent can have a better chance to stand up to Wikipedia guidelines. Israelis recently did admit in making 200 air strikes against Iran and Hezbollah on Syrian territories during the war - though it is still marginal compares with other actors in the war (Syrian Air Force with nearly 100,000 strikes, US with 16,000 strikes, Russia with over 20,000 strikes, Turkey with several thousand strikes), we can surely discuss this.GreyShark (dibra) 11:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding Israel as a standalone belligerent. But by that I mean in the opposition column and separated by a four-dash line. A parenthesized explanation along the lines of "primarily against Iran and its proxies" could also work. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page for Fursan al-Joulan states that it is a faction of the Free Syrian Army, but if you have a source to contradict this please provide it. Given this information, I think the best thing to do would be to add Fursan al-Joulan to the infobox under "Syrian opposition" and then list Israel as a supporter of Fursan al-Joulan by itself and not of the entire Free Syrian Army. Simply mentioning that support was given by another country doesn't necessarily reflect that the amount of support was large or small, it simply states that there was support. Also, your link to the Rubin center comes up with an error, is there another way to view it? Underneaththesun (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source, and there are no sources i've seen on that page to link FJ with FSA. Moreover, half of the sources look like blog entries and should be removed. In any case, Israelis admitted of providing humanitarian assistance to Fursan, not anything related with ammunition. Finally, Fursan al-Julan was a 300 members militia... it is not notable to be mentioned in the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 11:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Jordan has long provided military support to rebels in al-Tanaf area [149], but it is not mentioned as supporter in the infobox. I guess the discussion on inclusion of Israel should first touch the issue of Jordan which was much more notable as Syrian rebels were even officially trained in Jordan by US in 2014.GreyShark (dibra) 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did Jordan carry out strikes on government or Iranian/Hezbollah targets? I actually believe that only countries that have been involved militarily against the government (either independently or in support of the opposition) should be included in the box. And that means removing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. This should be standard practice whenever using this template throughout Wikipedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any of the non-ISIL ones? I assume that's what you're getting at. And in that case you're probably the first person that I've ever seen refer to ISIL as such. Not even the Syrian Interim Government is acting like a functional government. Only the SAR and DFNS are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't pretend like you didn't know which "government" I was referring to, which is also the one that sources overwhelmingly refer to as "Syrian government" while referring to the other "governments" you mentioned by the names of their respective military wings (and for a good reason). And, while that's not even the point, did Jordan (which is already in the infobox) carry out strikes on either of those? The only faction that was notably targeted by the Jordanians was ISIL, which is why I mentioned them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While at present the weight of the Baathist government is large, previously this was not the case - e.g. in 2014 there were a number of competing governments in Syria with fairly equal weight, and the Baathist government's position was arguable not the strongest of the bunch - so a criteria based on the target being the Baath led government is clearly irrelevant. We should weigh whether the involvement of parties has been significant and whether that involvement was engaged to change the outcome of the Syrian war (to support one Syrian faction over another) as opposed to activities that has little effect on the civil war but were part of a different conflict. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding whose involvement is more "significant" than the other is a good way to go, but it also (unavoidably) tends to be arbitrary and OR-ish, unless we have reliable sources explicitly making such distinctions between the various factions involved. I tried doing something similar a while ago (see here) and managed to make the infobox look like this instead of this. But what do you mean exactly by "different conflict"? It is not uncommon for modern civil wars to involve different regional rivalries. A close example is Lebanon's civil war, which involved the Arab-Israeli conflict (and its sub-conflicts), the early phase of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, and at some points the rivalry between Ba'athist Syria and Ba'athist Iraq, and even the struggle between Syria and Revolutionary Iran for influence among Lebanon's Shiites. The same can be said about the Syrian civil war. I have no strong opinion about Israel's inclusion in the infobox, but excluding it because it is supposedly involved in a "different conflict" is not a valid argument IMO. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, the question in this discussion is whether Israel supports the rebels, not whether it is fighting Ba'athist Syria. There is no notable Israeli support to the FSA, or other mainstream opposition organizations. The question of whether Israel should be put as supporter of another party in the conflict is a different issue. The last time Israel was discussed users were split in opinion concerning whom Israel supports or not - some claimed the opposition, other claimed al-Qaida, some even ISIL and i have to remind you that opposition sources claimed that Israeli support the Ba'athist rule of al-Assad.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, when I said earlier that I would support Israel's inclusion, I only had the strikes on government/Hezbollah/Iranian positions in mind. Its support for the rebels should only serve as an indicator to which column it can be added to. What the opposition suggested before about Israeli support (or "preference") for Assad sounds like a primary source to me, unlike what we have here. And, again, I think infoboxes should only include countries that are involved militarily. That means Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be probably kept out of the opposition's column (but that's a discussion for another day, I guess). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You see Fitz, that is the problem - many users proposed to include Israel in the infobox, but some (like the initiator of this discussion) asked to put it as supporters of the opposition, others wanted Israel to appear as supporter of al-Qaeda and you and few others suggest it should be put as belligerent within the opposition column. In my opinion, when putting Israel as belligerent it can only be logicial as standalone belligerent in the same column as US. You are welcome to make a poll, but i'm afraid that there would be no consensus once again.GreyShark (dibra) 12:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with whichever column, as long as we have sufficient RS saying that Israel is coordinating with the YPG/SDF and the US-led coalition. It's not up to us to decide what's "logical" and what isn't. This should be determined by the sources and which side they are leaning towards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli support for opposition, attacks on Syrian allies
As this Haaretz article (with a same-context Middle East Monitor article referring to this paywalled The Times article) makes clear, it's no longer a secret that Israel provided arms to rebel factions in Syria, more specifically in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Besides, several notable people said that the Israeli government made an error with the "recent break in ambiguity" on Israel's involvement in the Syrian Civil War after the admission that it carried out "hundreds of airstrikes" against allies of the Syrian government. I think we should accordingly update the [[File:SyrianCivilWarMap.png]] (map of countries surrounding Syria with military involvement) and the list of opposition-supporting belligerents in the infobox. Wakari07 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Israel have helped anti Assad rebels in many episodes during the war, especially in Golan. I already added a source to Israeli Suport for Syrian "Moderate" rebels. A promient Israeli official have just recognised in Israeli Media.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You added Israel as supporter of Turkey and Syrian Interim Government, which is completely a synthesis - there is absolutely no connection between Syrian Interim Government and Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are sources provided above. The primary sources are Gadi Eizenkot interviewed by the Sunday Times and the fighters interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. The opinion provided in the tertiary Haaretz source is that it was wrong, but the educated Israeli journalist acknowledges the obvious fact: Israel is involved in Syria on the side against Assad. Maybe in a fifth column, a side of its own? Wakari07 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qatar
Israel
Lebanon
Iraq (missile attacks)" would indeed probably be warranted. Military conflict is included in the "military conflict" infobox, Mikro. I suggest you read the infobox guidelines at some point, lest we be forced to go through the entire history of the Middle East with these pointless examples.
Israel (limited involvement)" into the infobox (the exact wording of the note can be modified to whatever we think is best, maybe "air strikes, border skirmishes" or something like that). The entry would, of course, be separated with a horizontal dividing line. -- Director (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
). The purpose of this infobox and its "combatants=" entry, as stated in the guide, is to represent "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Your arbitrary personal definitions of "key" facts concern no one but yourself.
Wakari07 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
![[97]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/88/20140128024523%21Syrian_civil_war.png){kind=link}
