Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 33

message: I've shortened this section - it is only supposed to be a summary of the sub article it belongs to, but as time goes by, people keep addding more and more to it. I've tried to keep the balance as much as possible, but if anyone thinks it is too unblanced, please fix it, and try not to lengthen it too much. Iorek85 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some relevant parts got lost (e.g. every mention of "war crimes"), but I have not looked into that in detail. And please take care that those passages actually *are* in the subarticles before deleting on a grand scale. The main article is not a subset of the subarticles combined. Kosmopolis (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of war crimes added, and as far as I can tell everything that I removed is still in the subarticle. Iorek85 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because I added it. Kosmopolis (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks on civilians section

message: i was reading about how the israeli tanks were damaged in the conflict, wanted to know how many tanks does israel have? is the loss of all those tanks significant to their over all strength? or is it like %0.1 of their force and doesn't really bother them? i looked around but couldn't find any info on their total strength.Anon-o-man 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These losses are insignificant. Israel has over 4,000 MBTs, so 16 tanks destroyed is less than 1%. Isarig 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some info I saw talked about ~5 tanks completely destroyed, and something like 40-50 damaged to a certain degree but repairable. As for the total number of tanks available to Israel, most of them weren't involved. I'm not sure of the exact number in Lebanon, but it was a few hundreds, according to the same report (TV). ehudshapira 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Israeli tank losses 

message: I should point out the bias in the title 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Firstly, the conflict was between Israel and the Islamofascist group Hezbollah, not between Israel and Lebanon. Secondly, the Islamofascists were the ones who started the whole thing by kidnapping innocent Israelis, so the word "Hezbollah" should come before "Israel". I propose the title be changed to "2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict". Cerebral Warrior 08:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CW - Note that renaming the page is a hot topic - you can see the straw polls on the issue at the top of this talk page.  Just FYI.Valtam 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change. 

message: 74 dead confirmed by Hezbollah [5]... we shouldn't even cite it, it's Nasrallah Bob. According to Saddam no Iraqis were killed in the Gulf war and according to Egypt, Tel Aviv was in ruins in six day war and yom kippur. if we do cite it, then not as first... it's obviously false. Amoruso 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When all sides are likely to lie, it's best just to cite all the sources. I'd put trust in Independent > Israeli > Hezbollah. Iorek85 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hum.. as we include that accident into this conflict, the figures should countNielswik(talk) 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hizballah confirmed

message: http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh08152006.html
A team of Israeli lawyers is now suing the Lebanese government for starting the war. The case, to be filed in US civil court, will sue for compensation and damages incurred by Israeli residents and businesses as a result of the war. Attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger and Nitzah Libai claim the Lebanese government violated international law because it didn't stop Hezbollah's casus belli cross-border raid against Israel.
Israel's justification for its 'self-defense' attack on Lebanon, and the placement of the original "provocation" will take on new legal significance in coming months. Who infiltrated whom, and on what territory did the initial capture of the IDF soldiers occur? Differing press accounts stating that the capture occurred in Lebanon- not Israel- are now widely known: most frequently cited are AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet. Others reflect changes of direction in the recording of basic facts.
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."
By July 13, the story out of MSNBC.com's Jerusalem bureau was different. In a piece titled "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals- Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah", Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Gutkin wrote: "Kidnappings changed everything: All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other soldiers in the ensuing fighting."
AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."
At 7:09 AM, Panossian had altered his report: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."
By late afternoon, at 4:13 PM, AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."
Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."
Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."
Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."
In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31.
A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."
A Lebanese government official told this writer that the first information about the soldiers' capture in southern Lebanon came from the Lebanese Army Police, a source also quoted in many media accounts. "At the beginning the Lebanese Army said it was on the Lebanese side," the official told me. The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."
Lebanon's Ambassador to the US, Farid Abboud discussed the events publicly on July 12, 2006. Because of his stance to CNN Abboud was reprimanded, and recalled to Lebanon._
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN International: "You say that you don't want any escalations, but ...
FARID ABBOUD: No, we don't.
HOLMES: ... but crossing over the border into Israel, killing and--seizing soldiers, what did you think would happen?
ABBOUD: I'm not sure where the location of the attack took place. I understand that there was another battle, also, where during which the Israelis crossed Lebanese soil and that the casualties that fell then were inside Lebanon territory ... We do not want any escalation, and I don't think we have ever attacked Israel. I mean, Israel has always occupied our territory, and we have always defended ourselves. Our position has always been very reactive, defensive.
This writer then spoke to the chief of the Lebanese Defense Cabinet General Edmond Fadel in Beirut for clarification. He said he was not authorized to speak on Hezbollah's position.
Hezbollah's position had been cited in the Jerusalem Post of July 12 : "Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the timing of the capture of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Wednesday would boost the position of Palestinians in Gaza."
It was a view Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi had reiterated to me on July 16 by phone. He insisted that the crisis occurred on the Lebanese side of the border "in front of the village of Ayt Al Shaab" adjacent to a military post.
On August 2, I discussed the kidnapping issue again with Hezbollah's Mousawi in Beirut.
Q: We spoke earlier on July 16, 2006 about this issue and I would like to make it official. The Lebanese Army has claimed that the Israeli soldiers captured on July 12, 2006 were captured in Lebanon, not Israel as we hear in the US. Were they caught inside Israel or Lebanon?
MOUSAWI: How can you possibly say Israel? This is an occupied land, occupied Palestine.
Q: Alright. Was it in occupied Palestine or Lebanon?
MOUSAWI: It was in Lebanon, on the border.
Q: On the border- What town? Where was it near?
MOUSAWI: There is no town. It was a military post.
Q: Did Hezbollah cross over into Israel?
MOUSAWI: This has never been claimed by Hezbollah- only on the border. And don't say Israel- its occupied Palestine.
Q: The IDF soldiers in the tank who hit the mine and were killed?
MOUSAWI: It was all in the Lebanese lands when they wanted to penetrate- to go after the resistance.... No one believes anymore that this is about the two soldiers, not with the destruction of the infrastructure. Besides, Hezbollah got information that this Israeli aggression was scheduled to take place this September or October...
According to Attorney Yehudah Talmon, Israelis will also sue to collect money from Lebanese assets and property in the United States. "No group associated in any way, shape or form to Hizbullah is immune to these claims." Never mind if the claims are based on shifting boundaries.
A team of Israeli lawyers is now suing the Lebanese government for starting the war. The case, to be filed in US civil court, will sue for compensation and damages incurred by Israeli residents and businesses as a result of the war. Attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger and Nitzah Libai claim the Lebanese government violated international law because it didn't stop Hezbollah's casus belli cross-border raid against Israel.
Israel's justification for its 'self-defense' attack on Lebanon, and the placement of the original "provocation" will take on new legal significance in coming months. Who infiltrated whom, and on what territory did the initial capture of the IDF soldiers occur? Differing press accounts stating that the capture occurred in Lebanon- not Israel- are now widely known: most frequently cited are AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet. Others reflect changes of direction in the recording of basic facts.
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."
By July 13, the story out of MSNBC.com's Jerusalem bureau was different. In a piece titled "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals- Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah", Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Gutkin wrote: "Kidnappings changed everything: All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other soldiers in the ensuing fighting."
AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."
At 7:09 AM, Panossian had altered his report: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."
By late afternoon, at 4:13 PM, AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."
Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."
Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."
Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."
In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31.
A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."
A Lebanese government official told this writer that the first information about the soldiers' capture in southern Lebanon came from the Lebanese Army Police, a source also quoted in many media accounts. "At the beginning the Lebanese Army said it was on the Lebanese side," the official told me. The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."
Jacob Peters
:Can someone move this into the archive?  It's pretty big... Valtam 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want that, you'll need to name more than one current source that says it was in Lebanon. I'd not oppose 'Lebanese police originally claimed that the soldiers were captured in Lebanon, but...', but I would oppose 'some say the attack was in Lebanon' because that gives too much weight to a very small minorities view. Iorek85 06:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More like too much weight to a lie. Cerebral Warrior 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute On Where IDF Soldiers Were Arrested 

message: The article is a hodgepode and doesn't have a lot of clarity. The emphasis on Bush and especially his picture is really out of place. He thinks he's winning in Iraq. I've read a lot of articles on this. These are important points that are not getting through. 1. The IDF was very, very successful in the air war against the long range, and medium range missles. It was able to use drones, Humint and there was virtually no threat from that source. 2, HA was able to preserve its short range rockets and the IDF had no answer for that whatsoever. There were as many fired in the last days of the war as in the beginning. 3.The IDF ground attacks were spectacularly stopped b/c of the HA fortifications and Sagers and HA stood up to the  Golani,Sayreed Maglan, Givati, Nachal and other elite units. 4. The Shiite-Christian alliance was not broken and the Aounists took Shiite refugees in their homes. 5. Israeli invincibility and deterrence that has been around since 1967 has been shattered! The announced Israeli aimes of retrieving the prisoners, stopping the rocket attacks were not met. HA has been resupplied, They are intact. UNIFIL is not going to disarm them. They are going to remain low. UNIFIL has threatend to shoot down Israeli aircraft and has confronted Israeli tanks. Alistair Crooke: How HA Won the War Part One See Also parts 2, and 3. Paul Rogers Lebanon: the war after the war   spin on who won There's a lot more expert opinion. Best Wishes Will314159 01:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your 2nd 'expert' concluded: What this all means is that the early analysis of the war that appeared around the end of August was substantially correct, and that recent indications from Israel that suggest a less problematic outcome are inaccurate. Hizbollah did indeed emerge successfully from the war...  So the article is correct as it is now... Valtam 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll bet Hezbollah threw a hell of a victory party after burying all their dead mujahideen eh? Cerebral Warrior 15:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Won the War 

message: Not that I disagree that this was the most direct cause of the conflict, but should it also mention that the Hezbollah still exists as a military force because of Israeli occupation of and frequent military movements in Southern Lebanon? This casus belli certainly makes it look like the initiation of hostilities was a random senseless act committed by Hezbollah. If everyone thinks causus belli implies merely the most direct cause I suppose it is fine but I would argue that you have to go slightly deeper.
Most pages go deeper than the most immediate and direct cause:
World War II cites the Gleiwitz incident
World War I lists Franz Ferdinands assassination as a trigger incident, but also talks about the destabilization of Europe
These articles I feel set a precedent for a slightly more elaborate Causus Belli.
::A senseless act of violence by the Islamofascist outfit Hezbollah triggered this extended anti-terrorist operation. That's the truth. Cerebral Warrior 10:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not go all the way back to the creation of Israel on May 15th, 1948? Or maybe to the UN partition plan vote on November 29th, 1947? Cymruisrael 12:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causus belli 

message: * ONE  The comment from the Saudi London paper was placed in context. Paper owned and RUN by Royal family. The family's position is clear. "The poll was a clear repudiation not only of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had made his views against Hezbollah known at the outset of the conflict, but of those Sunni leaders, including Saudi King Abdullah and Jordan's Abdullah II, who criticized the Shi'ite group in an avowed attempt to turn the Sunni world away from support of Iran. 
"By the end of the war these guys were scrambling for the exits," one US diplomat from the region said in late August. "You haven't heard much from them lately, have you?"[The poll was a clear repudiation not only of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had made his views against Hezbollah known at the outset of the conflict, but of those Sunni leaders, including Saudi King Abdullah and Jordan's Abdullah II, who criticized the Shi'ite group in an avowed attempt to turn the Sunni world away from support of Iran. 
"By the end of the war these guys were scrambling for the exits," one US diplomat from the region said in late August. "You haven't heard much from them lately, have you?"Alistair Crooke How HA Won the War, Part III
*TWO "the fragile unity bond" comment was placed into context. Before the war the March 14 forces of Sunni and Druze were opposed by the Aoun-HA block. The March 14 forces are in power though outnumbered numerically because of an archaic electoral law and the confessional system. Aoun-HA have a national compact to go to one man-one vote and reform the confessional system. Aoun-HA unity held through the war, March 14 was weakened (Sinyora said on TV crying Bush loves us but loves Israel MORE, as bombs rained all around him. Aoun-HA are pushing for a national unity govermnet but March 14 resists, clinging to power. So that original quote says nothing. But the fact that Christians sheltered Shiite refugess from the South instead of blaming them for the Israeli bombs speaks volumes about Aoun's character, Christian charity and Shiite interfaith reconciliation. Some good out the stupid war. Cheers. Will314159 13:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Review of Conflict for Balance 

message: When the editors are so biased that a simple NPOV article tag can't kept up, that is so disputatious that a stronger dispute tag is in order. Not to mention such a flagrant abuse of perceived numerical rollover. Take Care 65.184.213.36 13:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, what is a "perceived numerical rollover", and you do you abuse it, flagrantly or not? Valtam 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Dispute- Neutrality & Fact