Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

2,733 mentally injured Israelis?

Does anyone else think that this is a shallow attempt to enhance the casualty figures on the Israeli side? Reaper7 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hysteria and shock are both considered injuries. Oftentimes, in the case of those 2,733, they need to be evacuated to hospitals. --Shamir1 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be, but I'm not sure that Israel would necessarily want to boost their casualty figures. On the one hand, more casualties probably evokes more sympathy, but on the other hand, more casualties also bolsters the cases of opponents to the war and those who think that Israel "lost".

Not to quible over semantics, but the website stated that the injured were treated for anxiety, not hysteria. Also, the shock described on the Wikipedia article is different than the shock described on the Israeli website, as the shock described in the Wikipedia article is physical shock, while the Israeli website specifically lists the shock as mental. The closest article to mental shock is probably PTSD. I think I already fixed this wikilink in the article itself some time ago though. — George Saliba ^[talk] 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your 'testing the waters' was reverted by Kendrick. Personally, I agree with your rationale, and am in favour of your version. Perhaps I will change it back soon. Tewfik^Talk 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

George.Saliba, I was making a general comment injuries. I have been covering the 2006 and 2007 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a common injury from rocket attacks is hysteria and, if serious enough, needs to be treated. Quick note guys: let's try to avoid the sympathy talk. Pictures, names, and others should not be done in regard to who suffered more or less per se, the point is to cover the war, not evoke sympathy for who may or may not deserve it. Naturally, most of the pictures displayed will evoke some kind of sympathy, but its purpose is coverage of the war, not sympathy. Shamir1 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned "sympathy" in regards to why the Israeli government might boost their casualty figures – not why we should or shouldn't. That was my interpretation of what the original poster was asking about. — George Saliba ^[talk] 00:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was being general, and I actually didnt have in you mind for that. I just recalled instances like with the Infobox pic, which i said didnt need to (but still could) be changed, and one user said it didnt need to because Lebanon is more damaged or something. I just want people to have good reasons. --Shamir1 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the picture, we should strive to create another multiple image along the lines of the previous one, since it seemed far more descriptive (and interesting). Does anyone know which specific part of the previous one was the copyright problem? And perhaps we remember who created the previous image? Tewfik^Talk 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know much about the copyright issue...Try this one: [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Number of casualties

I think the IDF estimate of Hezbollah casulties (600+ dead) should be the only in the list of Hezbollah's casualties (or at least first), and not the hezbollah's estimate (about 250 dead). Everybody knows that the Hezbollah estimate is not trustworthy, and it is a part of it's propaganda. On the other hand, The IDF (and the UN) estimates are more authentic and based on facts. — 80.178.88.248 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this would inject POV and OR into the article – two things that we try to avoid, as they are against Wikipedia policy. — George Saliba ^[talk] 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now, Hezbollah's estimate is first on the list, and it's not really neutral... We are talking here about a terrorist organization! 80.178.32.222 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is a point of view. We are trying to give a full picture here... not a "correct" one.

Any ideas for how to balance this out? Tewfik^Talk 06:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the "although", and split it into a new sentence like "Nearly all of them were able to return to their homes in the days following the end of fighting"? I'm not sure what the correct time period is, though I doubt it's much longer than a few days or weeks. — George ^[talk] 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the statement in question seems to refer to the Israeli displaced, and not the Lebanese displaced. When splitting it, we probably have to be careful not to mess up that correlation (unless it is incorrect). — George ^[talk] 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's really the issue. Are there sources for either, both? I believe most Lebanese returned to their homes in the last year, but our source is out of date. Tewfik^Talk 07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I'd just rip the statement out, personally. If there were some significant numbers of either that remained displaced for a period of time, I would just cite that instead. — George ^[talk] 08:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Prophecy

Does anybody else think that this whole war was predicted in Revolations in the Bible?

No. Dwmr 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I think so. (thats not the first time i heard that.) --Shamir1 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It would be POV not to include it. The article should provide anything related to the war. Just because you don't agree with it does not mean it should not be added. TFighterPilot 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This falls into the category of undue weight: "Articles that compare views... may not include tiny-minority views at all." — George ^[talk] 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

11k of new Timeline information

An anonymous editor recently added 11k worth of new Timeline information. I'm suggesting that the majority of this addition be moved to the main Timeline article, and these sections be retitled from "Timelines" to something like "Key events". We worked really hard to trim down the article's bloat to meet GA status, and we need to be careful to not let it explode again. — George ^[talk] 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Iorek85 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Delad 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved to remove it, and suggested it be moved to the Timelines subarticle, and was reverted. I hope that its now clear that I'm acting in line with consensus and the general practice on this article of not adding new information to the main entry, but rather its substituents. Tewfik^Talk 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn';t aware of this consensus. I guess you're right, there is consensus. thanks. --Sm8900 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

POV (Syria-USA)

This article is POV because there is spoken war and nothing about what has happen before. Have everybody forget Syria soldiers which has on ultimatum of USA left Lebanon and return home. Sorry but Israel will never attack Lebanon if Syria soldiers has been there. Even if they attack military situation will be different. In the end we must put in this article story about Syria soldiers returning home in 2005. Rjecina 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the policy on original research. — George ^[talk] 07:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not Syria soldiers going home in 2005 [2] !! Timeline is very simple and timeline must be in article. Why in part of article with name Background you have all from 1968 to 2004 but not return of Syria soldiers home? If not writing about that is not POV what it is .Rjecina 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By OR, I was referring to your statements "Sorry but Israel will never attack Lebanon if Syria soldiers has been there. Even if they attack military situation will be different." Mentioning the Syrian withdrawal as a possible pretext for war is okay for inclusion in the Background section if (and that's a big if) it is properly sourced, and without the OR interpretations. — George ^[talk] 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that the statement "Sorry but Israel will never attack Lebanon if Syria soldiers has been there" is correct, original research or not? After all, in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon there was a Syrian presence, it is even mentioned in the article here in Wikipedia.Krynnish Conspiracy 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we are having agreement ! In background you will add something like (you english is better): "From time of Lebanon civil war Syria troops has been in Lebanon. This situation has been recognized in 1990 when Syria has recieved international mandate for peacekeeping missing. Only after strong pressure from USA this mandate has ended in april 2006 when Syria troops has returned home". Something like that is OK ? Rjecina 08:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit long, and it's important that it have some relation to the topic of the article. Do you have any sources (news paper articles, for instance) that say why the Syrian withdrawal is important to this war maybe? — George ^[talk] 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For that I do not need source, like you have not needed source to write about Syria 29 years of military occupation ! Background text is not so long so your argument for not writing about that is bad. Rjecina 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood. We need to say why Syria's military presence is important to the 2006 Lebanon war, because that is what this article is about. To say why it is important, we need a source. — George ^[talk] 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources about connection Syria-Hezbolah:

• [Israel thinking in 2007 about Lebanon-Syria]
• [Syria support of Hezbollah]

And read this:

"Israel’s intelligence old-timers are looking back wistfully at the days when the Syrian Army “pulled the strings” and manipulated puppets in Lebanon. What was referred to as the “Syrian Force in Lebanon,” though it functioned as a non-threatening garrison force as far as Israel was concerned, nevertheless imposed its authority on the Lebanese power brokers." it is from [[3]] ---Rjecina 09:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try to take a look at these when I get a chance. Obviously any other editors should feel free to evaluate them as well. — George ^[talk] 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New lead picture

File:2006 Lebanon war lead picture.jpg

Unfortunately it's low resolution. By mistake. Please comment on possible changes or else.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What would the caption be? Also, why do we always pick the most sterile pictures of war we can find? Is there actual policy against, or POV implications of, picking images that represent the most damage done on both sides? — George ^[talk] 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's inadequate about the current image alone. Italiavivi 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or else what? :) I like it. The helicopter doesn't really illustrate much (maybe a an air strike in progress would be better), but you work with what you have. Chuck it in. Italiavivi - the current image is open to accusations of POV by only showing the damage to Lebanon. Not that I agree with them, but they could be made. Iorek85 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

the helicopter is the only PD photo not showing damage or smoke. -- (TheFEARgod)161.53.48.211 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What about using something like these four images:

• Apartment bombed in Israel
• Apartment bombed in Lebanon
• Car bombed in Lebanon
• Car bombed in Israel

What do you think about this juxtaposition of one apartment and one car bombed in each country? That seems like the most balanced way to select the images to me. I'm still not 100% clear why we're aiming for images with the least damage visible, instead of images showing a balance of damage (such as the house and vehicle in each country I listed above), and it's not like they're the images of dead bodies and children and stuff. The images together would look like the image at right. I'm cool with TheFEARgod's version too; just playing around. Thoughts? (I'm not a copyright person, so I have no idea if I licensed/uploaded it correctly...) — George ^[talk] 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify. By least damage visible I mean that of the three images, only the one of the apartment building really shows damage. The top one just shows smoke, and the third is just a helicopter, as you mentioned. I just noticed the comment about the images being public domain however – is that a requirement to use them? Again, I don't understand copyrights at all. — George ^[talk] 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not good to use a non-free picture in a composite image. Some anti-fair use bad guys could delete it, like the past image we had (1-2 months ago) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer using thin black separation lines for the images --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're non-free, just not in the public domain. They're mostly listed with that CC-SA-whatever stuff. I'll leave it to you guys though to do the image work (which images, borders, etc.), cause I'm definitely no master. ;) — George ^[talk] 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like some of those pics better, George, but if we're going to be NPOV, we should have three of Lebanon, one of Israel, considering the vast majority of the damage was in Lebanon. It's what we had before. I'd like (if they exist) some "action" shots, maybe Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel, or an Israeli air strike. Iorek85 09:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I could see that. I agree that I'd prefer action shots too, though I couldn't find any good ones of Hezbollah firing katyushas. My biggest issue with TheFEARgod's suggestion (and the current image, and the composite image that proceeded it) is that they don't say war/conflict/fighting to me. The smoke thing almost looks like a thunderstorm (half-kidding), and aside from the apartment building in Haifa, if I were to see the other images, outside the context of the article, I don't know that my first thought is "Ahh, this shows a war/conflict/fighting". Again, I'm cool with whatever you guys decide, just listing some things to consider. Cheers. — George ^[talk] 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

DAMN! most of the excellent flickr photos are copyrighted like: [4] Even this: [5] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the colour of the top two in the second image, but I agree that we should have action. Maybe the artillery piece from the original composite and a katyusha launcher, a notable part of the conflict? Tewfik^Talk 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat leaning towards Tewfik's idea. How about: 1 picture of damage, 1 picture of damage, 1 picture of Katyushas, and 1 picture of a tank...? Either that or perhaps a map showing major attacks (on both sides of the border of course). --Shamir1 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

then please help us find wiki commons-compatible images (again, only those can go in a composite image) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of contractions in this article's text.

Search this article's text for the word "don't." This article's excessive use of contractions gives it too informal a tone. Italiavivi 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember if it was this article or another I was looking at, but at some point I saw an anon editor go through and replace all the terms like "it is", "do not", etc. with contractions. I didn't think those changes really improved the article, but I figured it was just a readability issue. If some of the contractions sound too informal, expand them I say. — George ^[talk] 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Outcome of the war

Middle east is my topics, I wrote a book on it. It was the inexperience and foolishness of Olmert to attack Lebanon. Hezbollah won. Israeli objectives: Dismantle/disarm Hezzbola, kill their leader, return to israeli soldiers. It did not happen. So you can not call this a draw or victory. Almost no neigbouring country can beat Israel militarily- Military power can only do so much, politically totally lost for Israel, to say the least. Bombing all of Lebanon is mistake, they should have just entered the Hezzbloa stronghold, 1200+lost lifes, not good.

The last public opinion poll I read was that most Israelis (and American Jews) feel that neither side won. Time (magazine) wrote, to quote to the best of my ability, some thing like: Both sides claimed some degree of victory, but Hezbollah brought Lebanon to shambles and Israel still didnt get their soldiers back. This would take a lot of work, and looking into a lot of sources. A lot. Most likely, however, the infobox would remain without a result. --Shamir1 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds ok, but politically Israel lost, Hezbollah had moral victory at least. The original goal was to bring back soldiers, it did not happen, then again that was an excuse for unwanted war.

I agree, it was certainly a Hezbollah propaganda victory. Defeat for the Olmert government, after the Winograd report, although a military draw. See also infobox of Tet Offensive --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for those interested, this would take a long time, but if u r interested there are several sources about the issue. Harvard University professors said that Hezbollah won the media war and that Israel lost it. Also see these.[6][7] This is more to read. Again, a conclusion on Wikipedia would take wayy more sources. --Shamir1 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I'm tired of seeing all these modern conflicts with bizarre Result statements. Battles are either won, lost or drawn and UN ceasefire resolutions are based on those results. Can someone call who won (both or neither if necessary) and put it up so people unfamiliar with the topic are not going to be confused? Kensai Max 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is controversial but I recommend updating the results to reflect a Hizbollah Victory. The reasons:

1) Israel met none of it's objectives, even after scaling back it's objectives considerably

2) Hizbollah is still in Southern Lebanon with it's arms

3) A state-of-the-art semi-stealth Israeli warship was taken out by a Hizbollah missile, putting to question Israel's invulnerability.

4) Prevention of arms flow to Hizbollah isn't being enforced

5) Hizbollah and Lebanon managed to get the Shaaba Farms dispute on the UN agenda so Israel might end up giving territory.

6) Hizbollah managed to gain a great deal politically.

7) Kill ratios were somewhere between 2 to 1 (Hizbollah), 4 to 1 (UN), or 5 to 1 (IDF) and even 5 to 1 is very poor for assymetric warfare.

8) Winograd report and calls for Olmert to leave office Pocopocopocopoco 03:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

'However by April, 2007, the Bush administration had re-characterized Israel’s experience in the War. They described the Summer War as a “strategic defeat” that failed to meet military goals, heaped widespread condemnation upon it, and punctured the “myth of the invincibility of the Israeli army.” [198]'

If even Bush is calling it a strategic defeat for Israel shouldn't we update the Results in the Summary Box to state "Strategic Hezbollah Victory"? The only counter-argument I see is the presence of UN peacekeepers. But they already shown that they aren't going to stop Hezbollah from getting arms. I don't really see how the presence of peacekeepers is going to stop another Zar'it-Shtula incident from happening. Can anyone present a good counter argument as to why the results shouldn't read "Strategic Hezbollah Victory"? Pocopocopocopoco 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG

Image:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Begining of the war

The second paragraph that claims Hezbollah first fired at Israeli villiages needs a reference--we're not sure if it is true. In this conflict, it is important to understand who first fired at civilian targets. There is no evidence that Hezbolla fired at civilian villages first. Their attack was on a military target.

This claim is sourced to 2 references (a UN report and a BBC timeleine) in the body of the article. There is absolutely no question about the fact that Hezbolla fired at civilian villages first. Isarig 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias in Timeline

every event in the timeline talks of Israeli soldiers killed, and Hezbollah actions against Israel. The Israeli timeline for the most part shows civilial casualties. Over 500 Hezbollah soldiers were killed, you would not know it from reading the timeline. Drsmoo 09:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Hezbollah wasn't really keen on letting us know about that sort of thing. Tewfik^Talk 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The begining of the article speaks of Hezbollah kidnapping IDF personnel. Military personnel are not kidnapped they are captured. A civilian is kidnapped a soldier is captured. Abufijli 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion on this issue before. For the latest example see here. Iorek85 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Extended background

I've thrice reverted Nwe's insertion of an extended background section. I can't put my finger on it, but it looks like one of the older versions from last year whose length was what precipitated the creation of Israel-Lebanon conflict. I hope you understand Nwe, that we've been trying not to lengthen the entry, and where there is a dedicated subarticle, there is no need. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The two should likely be merged. The added text is only a sentence longer than what is currently there,[8] but it is just being inserted in front of the existing text, not merged with it, and the old text is showing up in a grey box. If we merge the two together, the section will probably get a sentence or two longer, but we may be able to improve the wording and/or sourcing. — George ^[talk] 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss this a little than persist with continued re-reversions. I can't remember any genuine reason being given for the exclusion of these lines last year, the whole argument was all rather convoluted.Similarly without them the background still demonstrates an anti-Arab pov, as it fails to mention the role of Palestinian refugees and derides Lebanon's role with weasel words.Nwe 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Moved from Tewfik's Talk page. Tewfik^Talk 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see any benefit to changing the current section, as I now see that the 'few lines' were the same ones tying this into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and challenged by me here, and still have the same sourcing/relevance problems that I pointed out then. Tewfik^Talk 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In case its hard to tell from the linked discussion, the issue was that no source was provided that argued that the 1948 Palestinian refugees were any more significant to the background of this conflict than any of the other ethnic groups in Lebanon, which was unstable even before their arrival (as opposed to the Palestinians & PLO that arrived after the 1970s Black September in Jordan, and which are mentioned). As for adding in [the bold] Lebanon had long suffered from and failed to control militancy, I think it was removed on stylistic grounds. Perhaps we can find a new formulation that says that better while still reflecting the sourcing? Tewfik^Talk 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The importance of the 1948 Palestinians as I can see it is with respect to the strength of the PLO in Lebanon, which is already mentioned in the background. Mentioning the presence of the PLO without explaining the presence of the refugees from which they could recruit creates a POV against the Palestinians, disguises the injustice behind which the PLO strength and attacks lay. Page 20 of the first source given refers to the significance of both the 1970 and the 1948 Palestinians in Lebanon, and also to the refugee camps. If there are stylistic or linguistic objection to "Lebanon had suffered from and failed to control" I am willling to find a replacement, but it has to be a replacement, as the current sentence seems to me subtly biased against Lebanon.Nwe 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this version? I tried to reword/rewrite the current paragraph based on some of Nwe's concerns:

Following the 1969 Cairo agreement, and Black September in 1970, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) established itself in Lebanon, drawing support from refugees who fled or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The PLO exchanged sporadic attacks with Israel from 1968 to 1978, contributing to the start of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975, and culminating in the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978. PLO forces were pushed out of southern Lebanon, after which Israeli troops partially withdrew. In 1982, in response to the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israel again invaded Lebanon, this time successfully expelling most of the PLO from the country. Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of proxy militants in the South Lebanon Army (SLA). In 1985, a Lebanese Shi'a militia calling itself Hezbollah declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. When the Lebanese civil war ended and other warring factions agreed to disarm, Hezbollah and the SLA refused. When Israeli forces withdrew to their side of the UN designated border in 2000, the SLA collapsed. Citing Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region and the incarceration of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah continued cross border attacks, and successfully used the tactic of abducting soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.

Thoughts? — George ^[talk] 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks alright to me at first glance, though I'd have to it absolutely in context to be certain. Thanks for taking the time to look the who thing over. A meaningful mention of the significance fo the 1948 refugees was all I wanted. i take it the exlusion of the current first sentence means you're suggesting it be removed? Personally I'd agree with this. Nwe 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem for me, which I discussed at length at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict, is the meaningful mention of the significance of the 1948 refugees, which I didn't find to be sourced as being any more relevant than any of the other factors, and which thus unnecessarily ties this conflict into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To be clear, AFAICT the only mention in the IDC source presented is "its factions recruiting within the refugee camps", while the focus there, and in other sources discussed in the length discussion I linked to above, is on the PLO and its post 1970 Black September entrenchment. Tewfik^Talk 06:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I kind of understand, but if we're mentioning Black September in 1970, the PLO, and the first Israeli invasion in 1978, it seems that mentioning that the PLO was supported by existing refugees in Lebanon from the 1948 war makes sense from the standpoint of a background section. On the flip side, what do you think if we strip out the whole mention of Black September, the PLO, and the 1978 invasion? They seem to me just as unrelated to the creation of Hezbollah as support of the 1948 war refugees. I mean, we're stating that Hezbollah was created in 1985 in response to the 1982 invasion and subsequent occupation, so what relevance does the rest of this history have, and why even mention it when we have the full articles? I'm thinking something much stripped down, like:

In 1982, in response to the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Israel invaded Lebanon. After expelling the PLO from Lebanon, Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (SLA). In 1985, a Lebanese Shi'a militia calling itself Hezbollah declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. When the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990, and other warring factions agreed to disarm, Hezbollah and the SLA refused. When Israeli forces withdrew to their side of the UN designated border in 2000, the SLA collapsed. Citing Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region and the incarceration of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah continued cross border attacks, and successfully used the tactic of abducting soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.

What about that? I think we need one more key phrase at the end of the "When the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990..." sentence, stating that one of the other reasons for Hezbollah's creation was the "bringing to justice of the SLA" (I'm pretty sure they have some 3 point plan that makes that claim, though I'm too tired to look it up right now). That would better explain the inclusion of the mentioning of the SLA. Also, is the "Hezbollah continued cross border attacks" post-2000 accurate? Just curious. — George ^[talk] 07:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there has to be a mention of the Palestinians and the Palestinian diaspora, in which case this suggested version would therefore be generally worse than the current version. The two conflicts, contrary to what Tewfik says, are inextricably linked, and that should be clear at least in passing. Nwe 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm missing something. Can you explain how the Palestinians in Lebanon (whether they be from the war in 1948, or from Black September in 1970) are related to the war in 2006, or the formation of Hezbollah in 1985, or the Israeli occupation from 1982 to 2000? One of those things should be applicable to include information on them in the background section I think. — George ^[talk] 12:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple. The Israeli occupation was a response to the presence of Palestinians in Lebanon, which led to the formation of Hezbollah, which led to the 2006 war.Nwe 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about adding this information, but in a shorter, vaguer manner:

In 1982, in response to the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov by the Abu Nidal Organization, and continued attacks against Israel by Palestinian refugees in Lebanon led by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Israel invaded Lebanon in the midst of the Lebanese Civil War. After expelling the PLO from Lebanon, Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (SLA). In 1985, a Lebanese Shi'a militia calling itself Hezbollah declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. When the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990, and other warring factions agreed to disarm, Hezbollah and the SLA refused. When Israeli forces withdrew to their side of the UN designated border in 2000, the SLA collapsed. Citing Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region and the incarceration of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah continued cross border attacks, and successfully used the tactic of abducting soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.

Thoughts? — George ^[talk] 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It would make a lot more sense simply to go back a bit further with a few preceeding sentences. I don't see the problem with including information pre-1982. Perhaps if the information was over-elaborate, but none of the suggested formats thus far are.Nwe 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1948 Palestinian refugees are mentioned as one of several factors supporting the PLO presence, alongside close support from the Shia, Druse, and even some Christian groups, Syrian logistical support and supplies, and a 1969 diplomatic/political "mandate" from Egypt. All of these points are indirectly related to the conflict (none of them are, nor should they be mentioned in this short background), while all of the sources directly relate to the 1970 influx of PLO infrastructure preceding and following the Black September as playing a role in internal Lebanese instability as well as the subsequent attacks on Israel (which is why this is included, and should continue to be). Tewfik^Talk 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What I don't entirely understand, and which maybe you can clarify for me a bit, is the relation of the PLO to the 1982 invasion. According to the 1982 Lebanon War article, it sounds like the most direct cause of the invasion was the assassination of an Israeli ambassador. The assassination was carried out by a group (Abu Nidal) that was not only not a part of the PLO, but in fact opposed to the PLO. P.S. Did the IDF Chief of Staff's really say "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to screw PLO!"? LOL — George ^[talk] 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether the quote is apocryphal or not (yes, it is hilarious), it reflects the idea that the aim of the invasion was to dismantle the so-called "Fatahland". To Nwe, I think you are misreading, as the MERIA report actually doesn't put any additional focus on that factor; it is first due to chronology, but that brief mention is the only one, and is immediately followed by the others. As for other WP articles, consider the case of these passages from Lebanese Civil War, and the absence of any tying in to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War:

1. (in the Shia militias section) "The Palestinian radicals' secularism and arrogant behaviour had alienated the traditionalist Shi'a community, but simultaneously presented a model for revolutionary politics that appealed to the young of Lebanon's poorest and most downtrodden community."
2. (in the The Palestinians section) "The Palestinian movement, which had relocated most of its fighting strength to Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan in the events known as Black September in 1970, was formally under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - by itself undoubtedly Lebanon's most potent fighting force."
3. (in the The PLO and regional conflict section) "As a result of the Cairo Agreement brokered by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1969, the Lebanese were forced to allow a foreign force (the PLO) to conduct military operations against Israel from their own territory. The PLO were granted full control over the refugee camps, but soon much of southern Lebanon fell under their effective rule. As fighters poured in from Jordan after the Black September destruction of the PLO's apparatus there, the PLO's presence became overbearing to many of inhabitants of these areas."

I'm puzzled about what 'anti-Palestinian POV' you perceive, but the Palestinian refugee are just one of many aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, itself just one aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this background should not be engaging in a discussion of that detail (consider all the other details from the 1948 conflict that NPOV would demand). Tewfik^Talk 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian refugees are mentioned explicitly ahead of other factors. The MERIA source given explains the growth of the PLO's strength with reference to support from the refugee camps but, at that point, makes no comment on other ethnic groups in Lebanon. Other related wikipedia articles also seem to prioritize the presence of the refugees, so I don't see how this one should be any different. The refugee camps were clearly the centre of PLO activity in Lebanon, even if others aligned themselves with them. The Cairo Agreement is already mentioned in George's first suggested version, and I'd accept some mention of complicity within Lebanon aswell.Nwe 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out where other factors contributing to the PLO's strength are mentioned in the MERIA review? I can't quite see it myself. The Palestinian refugees may be be one of many aspects relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they are the aspect most specific to Lebanon. The relation of PLO attacks against Israel without including a reference to the some of the injustice that they behind the strength that allowed those attacks.

As far the passages you quote are concerned, I've not said that the background should necessarily refer to to the 1948 war, a simple reference to the refugees themselves would do. Nwe 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The next few lines and paragraphs mention in turn Egyptians (quite lengthy), Lebanese Muslims, and Syrians, though of course the discussion isn't limited to this one document. Again, if you look through other entries on the topic and their sources, you will see that this is only an indirect topic. That is not to say that it doesn't deserve discussion, but mentioning it in this brief background section lends it undue weight. Again, keep in mind that a discussion of the Palestinian exodus would need to include both sides, and while there are many places where that is discussed, this really is not one of them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that the Egytians are not an issue. The lines that follow do not attribute PLO strength to the Lebanese or the Syrians. Entries on PLO and the Lebanese Civil War both detail the PLO' presence in the refugee camps. A discussion of the Palestinian exodus is not necessary, all that is required is a mention. Nwe 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read more carefully, as the MERIA document does indeed talk about those groups, though of all of them, only the Egyptians are given any weight, which is why they are the only one that would warrant any mention, though I think even that would be taking this too far. "Just mentioning" an indirect cause like the refugees opens the door to "just mentioning" countless other indirect factors, which is why only the most salient and directly relevant points should be mentioned. As for Lebanese Civil War, mention of the refugee camps is only tangential and not as part of any reasoning for the PLO's actions, while the discussion focuses instead on Black September and tensions between Fatah and other factions, the states supporting them, and other events of the late 1960s and mid-1970s which sources like the MERIA document reflect as relevant. Tewfik^Talk 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite true, I agree, that we could end up "just mentioning" many other matters. That is why we need to ascertain where exactly on the spectrum of priorities the refugees are, and this is where I maintain you are misreading the source we are using. Of course the MERIA article talks about other group, that is not what is in qustion, rather the issue in question is whether it attributes any of the PLO's strength to these groups, which it does the Palestinian refugees.Nwe 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The document gives about the same amount of weight to the refugees as to the other Lebanese groups and Syrians, that is, extremely minimal mention. An observation in passing is not the same as a key cause. The Egyptians have more than a paragraph, so you could make a case to include them, though again, I don't see it as helpful to try to include these details in what is only a brief background. Tewfik^Talk 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The refugees are given a brief but central mention in the section explaining the strength of the PLO in Lebanon. The presence of the Syrians and Lebanese group on this matter is, on the other hand, non-existent. That is an extremely significant difference. As for the Egyptians, they are also included in George's first version. What problem do you have with this version, I don't think the mention of the refugee's in any way affects its brevity.

Following the 1969 Cairo agreement, and Black September in 1970, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) established itself in Lebanon, drawing support from refugees who fled or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The PLO exchanged sporadic attacks with Israel from 1968 to 1978, contributing to the start of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975, and culminating in the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978. PLO forces were pushed out of southern Lebanon, after which Israeli troops partially withdrew. In 1982, in response to the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israel again invaded Lebanon, this time successfully expelling most of the PLO from the country. Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of proxy militants in the South Lebanon Army (SLA). In 1985, a Lebanese Shi'a militia calling itself Hezbollah declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. When the Lebanese civil war ended and other warring factions agreed to disarm, Hezbollah and the SLA refused. When Israeli forces withdrew to their side of the UN designated border in 2000, the SLA collapsed. Citing Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region and the incarceration of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah continued cross border attacks, and successfully used the tactic of abducting soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.

Nwe 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since they are both mentioned briefly and in passing, it is difficult for me to see your position that the authors were framing the one mention as more central than the others, but even if you were correct, the problem still exists. We cannot just select a detail important to one side's narrative (in this case to imply the rationale for the PLO's attacks), and a neutrally constructed discussion of such sources undermines the purpose of a brief background. Tewfik^Talk 08:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason the mention of the refugees is more central is simple, they are referred to as a reason for the PLO's strength, the others are not. Furthermore a detail important only to one sides narrative would not merely being selected if the refugees were included. The Israeli perspective is already given in the current version, namely the failure of Lebanon to control militancy in its borders and PLO attacks into Israel, which are mentioned twice as it happens.Nwe 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It says "its factions recruiting within the refugee camps", a tiny fragment of the paragraph and the paper. There is no more assertion that they are the source of the PLO's strength than the mentions of Lebanese supporters, Syrian troops, and the extensive paragraph about Egypt, nor is not mentioning who they recruited from creating a POV against them, unless the issue is arguing why they were doing what they were doing, something else that doesn't belong in this brief background. No one is calling their attacks evil, only stating that they existed. There are many places on WP where the Palestinian exodus can and should be discussed, but this section of 2006 Lebanon War is not really one of them. Tewfik^Talk 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There absolutely is more assertion, the reason being quite clear. The refugees are mentioned as a source, and at the very point in the paper where PLO's strength is being discussed, the Syrians and Lebanese ethnic groups are not. Another source, the BBC's history of Israel's role in Lebanon ([9]), describes the refugees situation in the first sentence That implies greater assertion. The background explains why Israel attacked Lebanon, it goes without saying that in order to be objective it should also then give some mention of the PLO perspective in attacking Israel.Nwe 13:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

At least were are clear that the issue is not the source of backing, but rather providing the PLO's rationale; I addressed that point above as well. Tewfik^Talk 01:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you accept, though, that there clearly seems to be a consensus that the Palestinian refugees account for a far more significant group than any other group, and regarded as a significant factor in the PLO's rise in power? I have already addressed the issue of the PLO's rationale. Isral's rationale in attacking Lebanon is given, but the perspective of the PLO's attack on Lebanon is not. That is clearly unfair.Nwe 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, as I do not see that position represented in any of the literature we discussed, and I actually saw evidence for the contrary. However had the refugees been included it should not be in order to make an implicit argument, which is directly against our neutrality policies. Now even if we were making explicit arguments, it would still be innapropriate, as we don't discuss either side's rationale, just what "the conflict" in question actually consisted of: one side attacked, the other side attacked. Tewfik^Talk 06:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But the position is clearly represented by both MERIA and the BBC, and you haven't shown the evidence you have apparently seen to the contrary. The difficulty with your argument rationale is that the Israeli rationale is explicitly discusssed , in quite extensive detail in fact. As I have said the Palestinian perspective is not. Mention of the refugees needn't hold any implicit argument at all, but their inclusion is needn't in order to balance the current pro-Israeli bias with the Palestinian point-of-view.Nwe 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That sentence should be reworded by the way. A failure to control militancy implies that either (a) they should have but didn't, or (b) that they intended to, but couldn't. These are both subjective, making them difficult statements to support with citations, even if true. A better wording would be to list when, how many times, or how often militants attacked across the border. — George ^[talk] 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is awkwardly phrased, but I'm not sure how to go about writing a number-based sentence. Tewfik^Talk 21:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we simply remove the first sentence? I don't think it really adds that much.Nwe 13:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the Talk page confusion. However, upon reviewing your comments, I still can't say that I agree. Being mentioned first is in my mind a function of chronology, while we say that x attacked in one direction and y attacked in the other direction. Events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 30 years prior, while related, simply are not directly related. I'm sorry that you see a pro-Israeli or anti-Palestinian POV in that, but the same charges have been made often enough by partisans on the other side, and that is just as much an indication of neutrality as anything else. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, as this discussion has recently gone a bit stale. Do you object to any mention of the 1948 refugees, or do you only object to mentioning them in a way that makes them a direct contributing factor to the 1982 invasion? Given that the 1948 refugees made up more than half of the Palestinians in Lebanon, and given that there were attacks made against Israel by Palestinians in Lebanon prior to Black September (and vice-versa, with Israel's first incursion in 1968), their inclusion seems entirely relevant, provided that it isn't framed as a direct contributing factor (unless fully sourced, obviously). — George ^[talk] 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to mentioning them in the main synthesis (Israel-Lebanon conflict), or wherever else they are discussed specifically. But mentioning them here would be just as inappropriate to my mind as mentioning the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, or any other indirectly related issue, since even a minimal mention in such a brief summary is undue weight. As for the 1968 issue, I believe I addressed it in slightly more detail on the original discussion, but in essence it was the beginning of the process culminated in Black September, in that it was carried out by newly arrived PLO elements, not some indigenous Lebanese action. Tewfik^Talk 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to the addition of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 in the background, though the Jewish exodus from Arab lands article is likely inappropriate as it encompasses both Jews going to Israel, as well as Jews leaving the area completely (heading to the U.S., Europe, etc.), the later of which can't be linked to the conflict in any way. I guess my main question is where you draw the conclusion that "it was carried out by newly arrived PLO elements, not some indigenous Lebanese action"? I would agree that it was likely not indigenous Lebanese, but it's entirely possible to have included Palestinians in Lebanon who were not associated with the PLO, and who lived there as a result of the 1948 war (it looks like there were at least ten times as many Palestinians in Lebanon as there were PLO members). The issues are that (a) there is a 12 year gap between when the PLO moves into Lebanon, and when Israel invades in 1982, during which time the PLO would have almost certainly gained support from at least some among the 100k+ refugees, and (b) other Palestinian groups, such as Abu Nidal and the PFLP, appear to have attacked Israel during the same time period ("From 1968 on, the PLO, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other Palestinian groups established a quasi-state in southern Lebanon, using it as a base for raids on northern Israel."[10]). I fully understand that Black September resulted in one of these groups gaining prominence in Lebanon, but why ignore the others? — George ^[talk] 09:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I covered all of this in detail at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict, and it would be helpful if you could review that. In short though, factually, the attacks of the late 1960s were carried out, as you say, by foreign financed and backed groups moving into southern Lebanon (PLO, Abu Nidal, PFLP - Syria, Jordan, etc). Relatively few Palestinian refugees lived in southern Lebanon (3/12 camps, only 1/5-1/4 of population), so even if the sources weren't as clear as they are, the inference would still be quite obvious. For 20 years prior, there were no attacks (and relations were so good that Israeli farmers tilled their fields over the border). And yes, we could include Israel's creation along with many other salient events along the timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but where do we draw the line, especially in this brief summary of a synthesised entry? Syrian backing, destabalising forces responsible for the power-vacuum in Southern Lebanon that allowed the outside groups in to begin with? I believe it should be drawn at only the most directly related elements. Had Lebanon declared war in 1950 because of the influx of refugees, that would be directly related, but mentioning them because otherwise the PLO's attacks cast them in a bad light (Nwe's argument) simply isn't neutral, or concise. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through the discussion you mentioned, and I think I have a better understanding of where our differences lie. The basic difference, as I see it, is that you're saying that the PLO moving into Lebanon directly caused the conflict. I don't disagree with that, however, I believe that the existence of Palestinian refugee camps acted like the fuel that the PLO match lit. A canister of gasoline, by itself, can't explode, but add a match and you get combustion. Likewise, just mentioning the match doesn't really explain how the explosion took place. I agree that without the PLO being expelled from Jordan, Israel likely wouldn't have invaded in 1982; no match to light the fire. Likewise, however, I feel that without any Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the PLO alone would not have had the popular support necessary to move into Lebanon, setup shop there, and launch attacks against Israel. The PLO without refugees is like a match without gasoline. — George ^[talk] 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but why limit indirect propellants to the refugees, when so many other factors are equally relevant? Direct causality means that the PLO had to be in Lebanon to attack Israel from there. It means that the Israelis attacked Lebanon following those attacks, etc. It does not mean that an event 20 years previous causes the chain; one party argues that, but it is at best disputed and certainly not an "objective" understanding. Tewfik^Talk 08:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm aware of what other factors are relevant to the 1982 invasion. There were tons of other elements relevant to the civil war, but I can't think of any others having to do with the 1982 invasion. I also don't think that we should explicitly state that the event 20 years prior caused the chain, but do remember that the PLO was in Jordan to begin with as a result of the same 1948 war that led to refugees in Lebanon. In effect, the 1948 war and subsequent exodus led to both the refugees in Lebanon, as well as the refugees in Jordan and the PLO.

My worry is that by not mentioning the 1948 refugees at all, we're doing the reader a much greater disservice than if we were to just mention the existance of the 1948 refugees as an indirect correlation. The problem is any reader unfamiliar with the history in the region is going to draw strikingly wrong conclusions from the current wording. The background section is effectively stating that (1) the Palestinians originated from Jordan, not modern day Israel, and (2) it was the PLO, and only the PLO, who attacked Israel – both of which are very untrue, highly non-neutral things to imply to an unknowing reader. These will lead to confusion on the part of the reader as to why the PLO was attacking Israel, possibly framing the PLO as an anti-Jewish organization, rather than an anti-Israel group, and may be considered tantamount to Palestinian history denial. — George ^[talk] 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1982 invasion was not caused by the refugees, but by the PLO's attacks. I was saying that the PLO's attacks are what were related to tons of factors [some of which were intertwined with the civil war] so I apologise if I wasn't clear. Similarly, the PLO was not expelled to Jordan from Israel in 1948 - the chain from the Palestinian exodus to the formation of the PLO is an indirect one, and I think you are making the mistake of Palestinians=PLO. It is not as if we are just a step away from clarity, the reason Black September in Jordan is mentioned is because that was the event that directly led to the PLO's move to southern Lebanon, and not because we are interested in anyone's extended history.

For the same reason, I don't believe anyone would come to those conclusions, since we are not talking about "Palestinians", but the PLO (I'm not sure what you mean about "only PLO", but if the other groups were significant they can be mentioned, but mentioning the Palestinian exodus would be what clarifies that). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I didn't realize that Abu Nidal and the PFLP were both also parts of the PLO; I thought they were three completely separate Palestinian groups. If these various parts of the PLO were the only Palestinians who were attacking Israel during this period, then it is indeed fine to only mention them. That still leaves us with a pretty large gap as to why the PLO decided to attack Israel. If we don't mention the 1948 refugees, we should give some reason for why they decided to attack Israel, whether that reason be the right of return of the refugees, the establishment of a Palestinian state, the destruction of Israel, or what have you. — George ^[talk] 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to provide the PLO's stated rationale - anyone interested can click on their link and very quickly see what their raison d'etre is (it certainly wouldn't make sense to preface every suicide attack with "this is in response to 1948"). Likewise, Israel's official reason for the 1982 invasion was the London assassination attempt (abu Shmidal ;-]), yet we rightly have no need to mention it here, in this briefest of summaries. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See, for a background to have any meaning at all, it should provide some meaningful information to the reader. I think we should include both the PLO's ratinale, as well as Israel's stated rational (though maybe sans the "Abu Shmidal" quote ;) ). I don't think that a statement so brief as to only mention the movement of the PLO from Jordan to Lebanon prior to the attack helps the reader figure out anything at all about the background of the conflict. If you look at the background information for the World War II article, it mentions events 80 years prior to the war; the Vietnam War article's background section goes back over 2,000 years; the Korean War's background goes back over 50 years before the war started. These aren't hand-picked articles, they're just the first three that I looked up, and they all discuss long periods of time not directly related to the article itself. I'm still a bit confused by the quest for brevity on this issue, as there are numerous other things I would remove from the existing article to truncate its length before the background section. I'm not saying mention the 1948 war or refugees per se, but I am saying that the background is severly lacking in useful information to warrant its inclusion in this article. Cheers. — George ^[talk] 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree if this were a conflict like any of those, but that "background" as it were is already dealt with in numerous levels of detail and focus at the substituents of Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel-Lebanon conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and dozens of other entries (no US-Germany conflict, US-Korea conflict, or US-Vietnam conflict OTOH). I don't believe that creating another fork of that same information is encyclopaedic, or that it will improve our coverage of the "2006 Lebanon War", which is ultimately what our goal is. Tewfik^Talk 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but I can see your point. What if we mention the PLO's presense in a more ambiguous manner? The problem with only mentioning the Black September half of the story is that the reader is unlikely to click through to find out the rest of the story, as by explicitly stating half of the story we imply that it is, in fact, the whole story. I'm thinking something like:

In 1982, the Abu Nidal Organization attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. In response, and amid continued attacks against Israel by Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) forces operating from inside Lebanon, Israel invaded Lebanon in the middle of the Lebanese Civil War. After expelling the PLO from Lebanon, Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, held with the aid of its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army (SLA). In 1985, a Lebanese Shi'a militia calling itself Hezbollah declared an armed struggle to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. When the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990, and other warring factions agreed to disarm, Hezbollah and the SLA refused. When Israeli forces withdrew to their side of the UN demarcated border in 2000, the SLA collapsed. Citing Israeli control of the disputed Shebaa farms region and the incarceration of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah continued cross border attacks, and successfully used the tactic of abducting soldiers from Israel as leverage for a prisoner exchange in 2004.

It likely needs some earlier history, but what do you think? — George ^[talk] 10:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your appreciation of my views, and I don't want to seem intractable, but it is precisely the earlier history that I am worried about. I could maybe live with the Argov/Abu Nidal stuff since it is at least a specific stated casus belli for that event, but then I don't really think that that detail really belongs. Its just that there was not really any unified Israeli-Lebanon conflict prior to the late 1960s, so I'm wary of any material from that period being associated with this conflict. But, I suppose I should hear out what else you would like to see before I start arguing ;-) Tewfik^Talk 07:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my delay in re-engaging in this discussion. From what I can see the argument over the refugees doesn't seem to have advanced significantly. The problem with their absense remains. To mention the presence of the PLO without including the refugees aswell is misleading. The refugee camps provided the base and the flow of recruits for the PLO, and as such were as significant as the presence of the leadership itself. George's simile on a match and gasoline is a good one. The present version of events is inadequate because it struggles with more than an incomplete version of events, the absense of this information creates an inaccurate impression, it suggest that it was simply the PLO, and not an actual Palestinian population, that was in Lebanon. This gives the reader a dangerously false idea of the situation in Lebanon at the time. The complementary problem that Israel's perspective is given in describing its attack on Lebanon, but the Palestinian perspective in attacking Israel is not given. Tewfik's main argument is that there were many other factors equally relavent to the PLO's strength. But there weren't, certainly not in terms of the PLO's support base. Co-operation of groups like Druze, Shiites or Sunnis with the PLO was far more opportunistic, complex and peripheral. The PLO would almost certainly have been able to establish itself in Lebanon without any other group allying itself with them, but its highly unlikely they would have in the absense of the refugees. Though I know you dipute this, two sources I have provided do re-affirm this greater importance.Nwe 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)