Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hezballah and the US embassy bombing of eighty-three

The portion of the article which states that Hezballah most likely bombed the US embassy is uncited, and for good reason. It is true that a number of groups took credit for the attack, including Hezballah. Further, in the gangland of Beirut, everybody is a suspect. However, a National Security Estimate that was released under the Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996 gives the CIA's internal account of the attack. This report states that a group named the Islamic Justice Organization (IJO) participated in attacks, at least insofar as providing the driver of the truck-bomb. The Islamic Justice Organization is a cover group for the Pasdaran. One of the Pasdaran's officers, Hossein Mosleh, was responsible for the attack. There is no intell on the extent to which he was responsible but we do know that he organized the IJO. I wanted to allow a rebuttal on the talk page before I made any edits.

Sources: Hostage Task Force Report 094A, National Security Estimate

Central Intelligence Agency

Near East Group

Paragraph 3

May 20, 1982

Baer, Robert "See No Evil" P265 Crown Publishing 2003. New York, NY

Middle Eastern Quarterly V13 P35. University of Chicago Press 1998. Chicago, IL

AaronXavier 08:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Current section "Allegations of... terrorism"

In the current section on allegations of terrorism, the following allegations are listed in that paragraph:

1)kidnapped and tortured to death... U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley

2) kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.

3) responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63

4) being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing

5) a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines

6) bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut

7) killing 20 Lebanese and two American soldiers

8) carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847

Of these eight incidents, numbers 1, 4, 5, and 7 are categorically not terrorist acts, even if the accusations are true. They are strikes against legitimate military targets. Number 1 is a violation of various standards of treatment of military prisoners, but it isn't terrorism per se.

Numbers 3 and 6 might be terrorism, depending on whether one considers an embassy to be a legitimate military or strategic target in wartime. In any case, they aren't attacks aimed at purely civilian targets in order to solicit terror among the populace for political purposes (terrorism).

Number 2 is probably terrorism, unless there was some strategic reason why these particular figures had a military strategic value. I don't know the specifics of that situation.

Number 8 definitely appears to be terrorism.

All in all, Hezbollah seems to be more of a resistance movement aiming at militarily significant targets, than a group like Hamas or Al Queda, which seeks to attack civilians in public places for terror purposes. However, they might dabble in terrorism from time to time and this would make them terrorists. I really can't tell by reading this article. In any case, two things are clear: (1) all military operations will often involve the deaths of civilians, but only the intentional targeting of civilians makes an act terrorism, and (2) "terrorism" doesn't simply mean any small militia whose cause is unpopular. It has an objective meaning.--Daniel 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If the intent of the article section is to describe past allegations of terrorism, then all Wikipedia needs is verifiable citations indicating that notable people or political institutions have made the allegations. There could also be descriptions of corresponding counter claims from others. --JWSchmidt 01:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if the allegations are true or not, that's not my point. My point is that several of those listed aren't terrorist acts, so it makes no difference as to the subject of "allegations of terrorism" and doesn't belong under that section.--Daniel 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've been away from news sources for the past few days, but just open your TV to CNN , and you'll hear that for the past 4 days Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israeli towns - in other words, "the intentional targeting of civilians" - per your own definition of terrorism. I don;t see what problem you;d have with Hezbollah being labeled a "terrorist organization". Isarig 01:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think I have any "problem" with Hezbollah being labeled anything? If you read all of my comment above, you'll see that 1 or 2 of the points I listed, I say they are terrorist acts. But what they are or aren't isn't even the point. The point is that this is a section called "allegations of terrorism" and most of the points within it aren't terrorism, and therefore are out of place in that section. It would be like having a section on cooking called "making pastries" and then listing instructions for making a steak, a salad, a lasagna, and doughnuts. Only one of those is a "pastry". The rest should be in another section. And, by the way, the recent rocket attacks SHOULD be listed in this section. --Daniel 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. His claim is entirely one of precision in using words. --66.227.111.238 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peacekeeping?

If "peacekeeping" is put in scare quotes all the time, then "defensive" and all the other claims regarding Hezbollah should also be put in scare quotes. Either adhere to NPOV or stop pretending to.

NO. The Hezbollah was formed gradually after 3 years of Israeli state terrorism and Israel's outrageous refusal to leave Lebanon in defiance of UN Security Council's Resolution 425. So they were truly defending themselves and their territory. The US presence at that time, however, was clearly to support Israel (what else is new?) under the dastardly guise of "peace keeping". If USA truly wanted to create peace in Lebanon at that time, it would pressure Israel to withdraw its occupying forces from Lebanon. Therefore, editorially speaking, "defense" in the article needs not be enquoted, but "peacekeeping" clearly does.

Hey anon user-- you seem like a reasonable and articulate person, why dont you get a login and sign your name with four of these:~ That way...its clearer, not clutter. -戴&#30505sv 19:40, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

As you saw on Talk:Israel discussion page, they have already blocked some of the dynamic IP's that I have used before, for no reason at all other than the fact that I have had the audacity of presenting some facts that are unfavourable to Israel. So getting a login ID would be nothing short of entering a game predisadvantageously ... and that would not be smart. For this reason I prefer to work with dynamic IP's. And just in case that limy (and slimy) lush is reading this, allow me to mention that I can come in with a more variegated range of IP's from different blocks than he can imagine.

Please, don't be a jerk. Your uncompromising attitude is preventing anyone from editing this page, which doesn't allow anyone to correct bias in either direction. This is Wikipedia. You can't have it your own way. Most of us are not Zionists, and in fact some of us are anti-Zionists. But all of us should be committed to making a good, neutral encyclopedia (i.e., not propaganda which selectively omits or colors facts). Please, please, your attitude that this is a "game" will forever leave this page locked. It's not a game, we're trying to produce a serious article. If you can't live by this, go away, and let us edit in peace. Graft 16:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The current article (00:42GMT 13 August 2003) is another failure in neutral point of view. It seems that all that happens are partisan swings in favor of or against, but nothing else.

---

This article states that "[The Hezbollah is] seeking to create a fundamentalist Islamic republic to remove all non-Islamic influences in Lebanon" ..... this is an outrageous lie. Why should such lies and decpetions be tolerated in Wikipedia? Isn't the mainstream media enough?? The article is so grossly false and biased it's actually entertaining.

---

The Hiballah came into existence as a reaction to the Israeli invasion in 1982. I would like to add this. Btw. I was in Lebanon at the time. --RS

---

Isnt this a Copyright infrigement?

Antonio Here comes Martinez!! Here Comes Martinez!! Martin

That text is everywhere on the Internet and has been in Wikipedia for well-over a year. If anything everyone else copied from us - but it probably is public domain US government text. --mav

---

Well, I wanted to stop people from bashing back and forth, and instead start moving forward. It might be a case of "I don't write 5 words but I change 7", but let's try to add to things instead of (just) delete them/revert them.
~ender 2003-05-07 01:45 MST

I still think that we should pare the history of invasion out of this article, and put it elsewhere. This should only be Hizballah stuff. Maybe just put something to the effect that Americans were on the scene, and as part of the occupation forces (to the residents) they were targeted. I'm willing to re-put in that much of the world media depicts Hizballah differently, but I'd really like some cites for that. That's implied when we put 'American media says' but not stated.
I'd also like some current information... but I ain't been following that too much.
~ender 2003-05-07 02:15 MST

---

Is it really true that hizbullah is also known as the "Islamic Jihad Organisation"? I know there is an organization of this name in Palestine, but as far as I know that originated from Egypt and has nothing to do with Hizbullah. So, is this merely a name overlap? Do they need to have disambiguation? "We are not that Islamic Jihad, we're another group of the same name." Or, more likely, is this incorrect information? Graft

(Can't help myself...) No, we're the People's Front of Judea! (stifled snicker) -- John Owens

Why have we chosen this spelling? Google finds 17,400 hits for "Hizballah" and 151,000 for "Hezbollah", and a search for Hizballah says, "Did you mean: Hezbollah" - Zoe

I deleted several paragraphs and links discussing accusations of Israeli bombing of south Lebanon. Although those items might belong in some other article, they seem out of place here. -- Zoe

Accusations?? Umm, those are news reports.

Damn, you guys are making me start to side with that anonymous guy who can't spell.

~ender 2003-05-11 21:12 MST

As I said, put it into an article in which it is more relevant. -- Zoe

If you're gonna be deleting it, then *you* put it in an article that would be more relevant.

And deleting source documents is not very NPOV.

~ender 2003-05-11 21:24 MST

Also, I don't see where it could be much more relevant than in an article on Hizbullah... that would be like saying that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not relevant to an article on Operation Desert Storm... Graft

Please explain how bombings in May of 2003 have anything to do with Hezbollah. If you want to include discussions of other events which led up to the creation of Hezbollah, then that's fine, but this is a current event which, unless it's because of Hezbollah attacks on Israel, or are direct attacks against Hezbollah which somehow are more important than any other attacks on Hezbollah, then how is it relevant? -- Zoe

Who's talking about May 2003? I didn't see any specific dates in the relevant text, actually, but as far as I'm aware the last time Israel bombed southern lebanon was when Barak was in power. Anyway, it doesn't matter much.. the article really just needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Graft

The rationale by the non-western contigent complaining that we're just spewing department of defense rhetoric is that the Hizballah is a self-defense organization, and that they only operated on lebanese soil (which I tried to disprove using some sources). Part of the rationale behind the Hizballah existing is the terror attacks by Israel, to 'eliminate' terrorists, by bombing power plants and radio stations. Kinda like the US in Iraq, if you look at Gulf war 2 & 3....

But ya know what, have it. Stupid revert wars aren't acceptable. Add information, make information more correct, add new articles. If you want to delete. Have fun. Point is to be adding stuff, and making it better, not removing it. It was an attempt at trying to be more inclusivist to other non-state department views.

~ender 2003-05-11 21:38 MST

Oh yeah Zoe you should also mention that you completely removed all references to American peacekeeping forces entering the fray, UN resolutions, and the like :)

~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST

Sheez, ender, create a damn login already! Graft

Bah, hate logins :P

This is the internet, we're all allowed to be cranks. :)

~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST

The last sentence of the article is pretty awful. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, exactly, so I didn't want to unilaterally change it, but it's a terrible sentence. john 04:05 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Moving my comments to the bottom instead of continuing to post in the middle. Please tell me what American peacekeepers have ever been involved in Lebanon/Israel. -- Zoe

Consider reading before editting.

FYI: [1]

Which is why Americans have been attacked by the Hizballah.

I've had enough with wasting my time on this.

~ender 2003-05-11 21:52 MST

Claiming that there were US peacekeeping forces in the area doesn't make it true. -- Zoe

How did US Marines come to be bombed by the Hizballah in Lebanon? They magically appear? Maybe they're some other 'US' forces I don't know about.

Tell that to Congress and the Department of Defense who awarded those forces medals for excellent conduct. Claiming it is not true doesn't make things false either. I gave you specific references to look up and prove or disprove, that should be enough. I didn't merely claim 'american forces' although that would read cleaner, which is what you seem to be shooting for - delete everything you can get your hands on. Minimal information. I'm not sure that those specific references should've been in there (note above), but I did include them. Because we're talking about the rationale for attacks on Americans in Lebanon.

~ender 2003-05-11 22:01 MST

"Peacekeeprs" implies that they were there to engage in action against either the Israelis or the Lebanese or both. Their sole purpose there was to remove Americans safely from the action. They never engaged in battle against Hezbollah. -- Zoe

Try reading again, you'll like it.

non-combatants -> combatants.

Also, I don't make up these names, you have issues with it, tell it to the US Department of Defense & the UN. I don't think invading a country should be called peacekeeping either, but that's what we like to call it.

~ender 2003-05-11 22:23 MST

Basically I guess my complaint is this: I don't see people attempting to adapt to/address other points of view and refute them with facts. In the places where there may be different interpretations of events, I don't see both sides being given air-time. I don't think that the clueless non-speller user has been taken seriously enough. Yeah *e has issues - but that doesn't mean *ier viewpoint is irrelevant.
I believe this article is pretty much US propoganda at present - that doesn't mean it's without merit, but the suppression of disenting voices/views does not make me feel good that it is even half-way accurate.
But underlying this is a larger problem. I see people deleting information they don't agree with. Removal of sources, etc, etc. I don't believe some people are actually reading what's written before editting/reverting (as is apparent above, re: American forces). I think it's disingenous to imply that all the information is still there, when it's buried in the history page and not visible.
And I'm unhappy with the way the Wiki system seems to be dealing with these issues. Which is an indictment of the people who watch recent changes and do nothing.
~ender 2003-05-11 23:05 MST

And who might those people be? -- Zoe

Seems to me the main problem with this article is that it's very poorly organized, and not especially well written, at least at present. The last sentence/paragraph remains dreadful, and much of the rest of it isn't much better. I don't know that much about the subject, so I don't really want to get into rewriting it, but I think what really needs to be done is a thorough rewrite that tries to give information about Hezbollah in basically chronological order. As it is, the chronology is extremely garbled and its full of bizarre statements and scare quotes. john 06:06 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

(American Media) That is only the result of edits :)

Check the history and see the progress before recent reverts. If Zoe had completely reamed all the information in the article, you wouldn't have been bothered at all.

~ender 2003-05-11 23:15 MST

There ya go, almost completely back to US state department stance.

C'mon, you guys can delete the rest too...

"the whole article needs rewriting (but I'm not the man to do it)"

But you are the man to prevent others from doing it... :D

~ender 2003-05-11 23:24 MST

Why don't you revert it back the way you want it, if you're so upset? The fact is that that sentence was just bad. I have no ideologic stance about this, but the article as is is terrible (probably due to the ongoing edit war, I suppose, although it doesn't seem to have ever been particularly good). If you restore what you had before, I could try to work it up into a better-organized and more NPOV article, if you'd like, but as I said, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute anything of my own. Again, I'm really not trying to make the article be the State Department/Israeli view of Hezbollah at all. It's just that that once sentence really grated with me. On your last comment (written while I was writing this), I'm not preventing anybody from doing anything. I'm certainly not the one who deleted most of the content you added. john 06:22 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Because it won't stay that way without some consensus. I hate revert/edit-wars. I think they're dumb. I'd rather people edit up than delete.

Nope you didn't delete most of the content that I *modified*, but you didn't bother to look at it either. Instead of trying to grasp the point that was trying to be made you just deleted it.

~ender 2003-05-11 23:56 MST

I did look at it, but I'm not much good with this whole reverting concept, so I wasn't sure what to do (especially since it's not really my fight). In any event, I've tried to edit your material in with the original material to form a cohesive article (and I've changed around the wording a bit), although I'm not sure how good it is at the moment. It still needs work, I think. john 07:01 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hey *I* think it needs a lot of work myself. However, it is hard to work on the article when it's not there. I'd like to see enough done on it that the anonymous poster is happy with it. Or have points lined up to refute their allegations. I think we could say that Hizballah has not restrained themselves to Lebanese borders (disputed or otherwise) with the Argentina attack + Israeli stuff, which make the anonymous poster wrong in stating that they have only done things within Lebanon. I will grant that poster that mostly they've stayed in Lebanese or Israeli territory (embassies are part of a country's territory), and I guess I need a list of hostages they've taken. From what I've seen they've limited themselves to military and political targets. Not sure, but i believe they may have held a journalist for a really long time... They might construe that as a quasi-governmental operative. But that should be stated (if it's true).

~ender 2003-05-12 01:47 MST

On a separate note, there is not a single shred of evidence that the Hizbullah (or any other group for that matter) were involved in the bombings of the Israeli facilities in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is ONLY Israeli insistence that it is the Hizbullah (and at the same time they say it is Iran!), and naturally, USA also supports the Israeli claims as usual. But who else believes them? Even more and more Amercian people are awakening to the facts that Israel and their incredibly powerful US lobby keep lying, deceiving and misguiding the Americans with misinformation, fabrications and flat out lies. Also, both Iran as well as the Hizbullah have consistently and categorically rejected the accusations about the blasts in Buenos Aires since day one.

This is probably not the place for this, but most Israeli sources which discuss the Argentinian attacks suggest that the organization responsible was holed up in the "tri-water area" on the border between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. This is exactly the region that Reverend Sun Mying Moon has a half a million acres. The Brazilian government has accused him (the life long anti-communist with links to mass murderers and "A" class fascists of Imperialist Japan) of running drugs and guns from this same exact spot. Hard for me to believe they are camped next to each other. JoshNarins 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How irritating. I edited the article to merge the two versions together into one (not-)seamless whole, and it disappears without a trace, not even appearing in the page history. How the hell did that happen? john 18:11 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

What's with the name? I know Arabic names appear in many Latinized forms, but this article deals badly with it. While Hezbollah is the only form I've ever seen it in (until now), I don't really know or care what the best name is, but it's a mess right now. The article's header gives three names (Hezbollah first), but the title of the article's not even among them. In the rest of the text, Hezbollah is mostly used, but Hizballah shows up a several times. I don't know what the name should be, but to those who do, please do the following:

• make the first mentioned term the same as the title
• mention all others forms in the header
• use only the title term in the article

Jeronimo 13:00, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jeronimo, I think no one is listening to you: from following the edit histories, it appears that a couple of anonymous individuals have decided to force their preferred version of the article onto the rest of Wikipedia. (Oddly enough, the version they keep removing is not very favorable to Isreal.) A clue to their intentions are the statements, "Reverting game with the Zionists again" & "Wikipedia does not belong to you Jews".

To the partisans involved -- If I am wrong about your intentions, & please prove it by cleaning up the following sentence from your favored version:

Hezbollah is profesedly anti-Zionist]].

-- llywrch 19:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

About the name: the official name of the organization is Hezbollah, but Hizbullah is also correct and is used. The reason you see "Hizballah" here is because someone, obviously unfamiliar with Arabic, wanted to make sure that "allah" is present in the name, so they came up with the odd "Hizballah" spelling on their own. Apparently that happens to be the person who initiated the article.

As for reverting, just read the differences between the versions yourself and you will see that theh version the pro-Israeli folk try to enforce, is full of lies, deceptions and misinformation. For example, they say the Hezbollah is trying to get rid of all other groups in Lebanon, and make Lebanon an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state. This is so ridiculous that doesn't even desreve an argument.

The pro-Israel people, in typical fashion, try to villify the victims of Israeli atrocities, and play down or excuse the atrocities perpetrated by Israel. They do that in mainstream American media all the time, because over there they have direct or indirect control or influence. In the Internet, they have less of that luxury, but sadly, it seems this is also changing. Hezbollah's website was first blocked at most major ISP's and now it will refer you to some pornographic sites.

If the part concerning making "Lebanon an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state" is incorrect, why don't you just correct that part of the page, while leaving the rest alone? There are a lot of misspellings & grammatical errors in the version you (or someone within your internet domain) keeps reverting to.

BTW, I'm puzzled why you had to keep editting & saving this page so many times. Are you aware of the "show preview" button? Frankly, I use it a lot. -- llywrch 21:43, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why don't I just correct that one line? Because that was just one example out of many obvious and subtle lies crafted in their "contribution" to the article.

And what do you consider are the other ones? -- llywrch 19:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Would anyone object if I delete Hezbollah and redirect this article to there? RickK 06:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have no objection; best wait a while -- maybe a week -- to see if there are any objections, Rick. If there are none, go for it. -- llywrch 19:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I object. You fuckers have reverted to a disgusting pro-Israeli version of this article, have locked it so nobody else can edit it, and now are trying to eliminate it. You are abusing you admin status in Wikipedia, and because of ficking racist morons like you, lies and depections are permeated in our world. This article should be here, but without any lies and deceptions. Only with facts, not from a particular angle or point of view. FACTS ARE FACTS. Fuck you cowards.

Language like that isn't going to convince anyone. And for the record, I do not have admin status -- I'm just another contributor, who was trying to find a middle ground & end this edit war.

BTW, why don't you sign these statements where you call everyone cowards? -- llywrch 20:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

A few comments:

• The section "American involvement" seems to be disconnected from the rest of the article to the extent that its relevance is unclear. It is also written in a sort of cheerleading style. It should be replaced or deleted (I would vote for deletion).
• That Hezbollah has an Islamic state as one of its aims is supported by their own web page: http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm . Clicking "Introduction" we get a summary that states this quite explicitly.

-- zero 12:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I clicked on the URL that you gave, and then read the entire Introduction section. There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind .... I read the whole seciotn. I found this:

....

Today, Hezbollah is one of the most prominent Lebanese political parties that has its presence in the parliament with 8 MPs.

Hezbollah today also commands respect politically after it proved its strength with its presence by respecting the values of others in the field.

Hezbollah also sees itself committed in introducing the true picture of Islam, the Islam that is logical. Committed to introduce the civilized Islam to humanity.

...

Hezbollah does not wish to implement Islam forcibly but in a peaceful and political manner, that gives the chance to the majority to either accept or refuse. If Islam becomes the choice of the majority only then will it be implemented. If not it will then continue to co-exist with others on the basis of mutual understanding using peaceful methods to reach peaceful solutions. And that is how the case should be to the non-Islamists as well.

Were you smoking weed or drinking something when you read that section?

Ahhh ... I just checked your "contributions" .... all of them to Jewish or Israeli-related issues .... wow, what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate !

As a matter of fact, the Shiites in Lebanon are not even the second largest group, demographically. They are the thrid or the fourth. Lebanese Constitution requires that the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Primse Minister, a Sunni Muslim, and Speaker of the Parliament, a Shia Muslim (not necessarily from the Hizollah).

---

There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind -- Sorry, I was mislead by the sentence that says "Another of its ideals is the establishment of the an Islamic Government." Silly me to not realise it was just a typo for "Another of its ideals is to NOT have an Islamic Government".

what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate -- Actually that's pretty funny.

Now, looking at the Wiki article we see Reportedly, the organization is seeking to create an fundamentalist Iranian-style Islamic republic and remove of all non-Islamic influences. . -- The final part of that sentence is quite unacceptable. I suggest a replacement like this:

According to its stated policy, Hezbollah favors the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon by democratic means.

-- zero 00:41, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From my understanding of Hezbollah's statements, they are far more liberal about the whole matter than others - they want Islamic rule and government for Muslims, but others should not be governed by Islamic law, since they are not Muslims. Whether this is PR or not, I don't know, but this is what they say they want: Islamic rule for Muslims, self-government for everyone else. Graft 05:24, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between state and government. The Hezbollah is not only fully in accordance with the Lebanese present state and constitution, they in fact take pride in having made political progress within that framework. It's not like they are racist like Israel or anything .... kinda like how last week Israeli parliament passed a double-standard racist law for citizens of Israel that if the citizen is a jew marrying a non-Israeli, the spouse can become an Israeli citizen, but if the citizen is an Arab-Israeli marrying a non-Arab-Israeli, the rules are different. To me it seems that the Hezbollah are fair and tolerant and they just want to protect their own rights and religious and cultural interest in a traditionally difficult environment.

---

Disambiguation

On an unrelated note, I think we should add this sentence (I can't, as the article is protected):

This article is about the Hezbollah based in Lebanon. For an article about the unrelated Hezbollah in Turkey, see Hezbollah (Turkey).

If for no other reason, it will clarify that these two are not the same organization. DanKeshet 21:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since this is of an administrative nature, I will do it. -- Toby Bartels 05:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Excerpt from Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger

This article is remarkable for not mentioning the group's beliefs and driving motivations. That is an oversight which needs to be corrected. Some of the following information needs to be incorporated into this article. (Source: Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger by Robert S. Wistrich)

A similarly radical ideology motivates the Lebanese Shi'a movement, Hizballah ("the Party of God"), which rose to prominence following its resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Its total negation of Israel's existence and its view of Judaism as the oldest and bitterest enemy of Islam owe much to the Ayatollah Khomeini's "anti-Zionist" preaching and the movement's symbiotic relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In accordance with this doctrinal source of inspiration, Hizballah opposes nationalism, imperialism, and "Western arrogance" while laying special emphasis on the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem as a major strategic aim.

As with the Hamas and other fundamentalist groupings, Israel is depicted as a Western puppet installed in the Middle East to enable imperialism to continue its domination and exploitation of Arab regional resources. Israel is invariably seen as the source of all evil and violence in the area and as the main obstacle to Islamic unity. Hence it must be totally eradicated.44 The recent Israeli departure from Lebanon is no more than a prelude to this future obliteration of the great "usurping enemy" of Islam-frequently described by Hizballah (as in Iranian propaganda) as a "cancer" and poison that affects the entire world.

Hizballah's most senior cleric, Sheikh Husayn Fadlallah, continually emphasized through the 1990s that Israel was not just a Jewish state in the formal sense of the word. It was the ultimate expression of the corrupt, treacherous, and aggressive "Jewish" personality. Jews were indeed "the enemy of the entire human race," congenitally "racist" and condescending in their attitude to other peoples, and ruthlessly bent upon global domination. In an interview in the late 1980s, Fadlallah already expressed a widely held fundamentalist attitude toward allegedly boundless Jewish ambitions:

"The Jews want to be a world superpower. This racist circle of Jews wants to take vengeance on the whole world for their history of persecution and humiliation. In this light, the Jews will work on the basis that Jewish interests are above all world interests." 45

Hizballah's consistently intransigent philosophy of all-out war against Israel, Zionism, and the Jews has an unmistakably virulent anti-Semitic underpinning linked to its overall pan-Islamic, revolutionary perspective. Its special venom also draws from the traditional Iranian Shi'i attitudes toward Jews as unclean, impure, and corrupt infidels. This is a theme that pervaded the outlook of the Ayatollah Khomeini and still influences the present Iranian leadership.46

Like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Hizballah engages in a total demonization of the Jewish and Zionist enemy, eagerly embracing violence, "suicide bombings," martyrdom, and terror as the only path to "liberate" Palestine, destroy Israel, and defeat the West.47 Everything is made subordinate to the supreme imperative of the jihad-the holy war that must be waged to the death against the infidel-until all Islamic lands are liberated and a truly Islamic state is restored.48

The Western media, as is its custom, has been extremely reluctant to relate the current terrorist war against Israel and the West to its ideological roots in Islam or to the sources and meaning of jihad. It is equally averse to connecting terrorism with the anti-Jewish obsessions that currently animate millions of Muslims.49 Amazingly little attention has been paid to the sheer abundance, energy, and viciousness of contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism from Cairo and Gaza to Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, and Lahore. The seemingly endless parade of grotesque falsehoods exhibited in Arab and Muslim defamation of Jews and the Jewish state scarcely seems to impinge on Western consciousness. At most it is perceived as a footnote to the raging storm of anti-Americanism or as a form of "political opposition" to Israeli actions. Not even the rampant Arab claims that the Holocaust was a fabrication invented by Zionists and Jews (which attracts much attention in the European media when made by neo-Nazis or far rightists) stir more than the faintest of responses in the West.50

Footnotes:

43. Esther Webman, Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1994), pp. 17-22.

44. Ibid., pp. 8-9.

45. Middle East Insight, March-April 1988, p. 10.

46. David Menashri, "The Jews of Iran: Between the Shah and Khomeini," in Sander Gilman and Steven T. Katz, eds., Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pp. 353-71.

47. Raphael Israeli, "Islamikaze and Their Significance," Terrorism and Political Violence 9:3 (Autumn 1997): 96-121, emphasizes the planned, premeditated style of the "suicides" organized by Muslim terrorists, which are designed to wreak maximum damage on the "abominable" Zionist enemy.

48. Ibid., pp. 110-11.

49. See Raphael Israeli, The Terrorist Masquerade (Shaarei Tikva, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2001).

50. See Holocaust Denial in the Middle East: The Latest Anti-Israel Propaganda Theme (New York: Anti-Defamation League, 2001).

Source: Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger by Robert S. Wistrich

I would hope that something from a source with a less obvious political motivation could be found. --zero 03:01, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Why protected?

Why is this article protected? —Frecklefoot 15:51, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From the page history, it sems that an anon IP was going ga-ga with a revert war a couple of weeks ago. On the assumption that the anon has got bored and gone somewhere else now, I have unprotected the page again. Tannin 15:57, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

State Dept. info on "non-Islamic influences"

Where does the State Department say that Hezbollah is "seeking to remove all non-Islamic influences"? It does not appear in the document mentioned at the bottom of the page and I could not find it on the S.D. site in half an hour of looking. The closest I found was "Hizballah formally advocates ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon" which doesn't even contradict what Hezbollah claims. --zero 10:15, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I couldn't find the exact phracse on the dept of state page ... but on other pages i did find the reference ...

heres a few links ...

(link to item and google's cache of it in [])

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/terorism.pdf [2]

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/handouts/terrorism.doc [3]

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1992/9235/923504.PDF [4]

I'll modify the statement accordingly ...reddi 12:58, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ah I found one page from the US dept of state page with the reference to the "seeking to remove all non-Islamic influences" ... http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/fto1999.htm ... reddi 13:20, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

State Dept. Info on Alternate Names

I exposed the one external link at the bottom. I didn't know if there was a reason the rest were hidden, so I left them like that. But I had to find that link through the talk page here, and that's not good.

Also, I removed the following sentence:

According to the United States Department of State, it has been called the Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine.

Does anybody beside the US Department of State (and the legions of websites that copy their information wholesale) say that Hezbollah have been called these names? If not, then there is no reason for us to include erroneous state department information, even if it is properly attributed. This question was asked above, by Graft, and nobody answered.

DanKeshet

Please don't remove this information ... it is relevant ... I am reinstating this information reddi 14:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You haven't even tried to answer my question. Does anybody other than the US Department of State (and people citing or copying their information) say they go by these names? Can you give me any references I can look up that would say the same thing? Why would it be relevant whether the US Department of State erroneously attributes various other names to the organization? DanKeshet

the history of what Hezbollah has been called is very relevant to this article. The US Department of State is a very reputable source and the inclusion of their informaiton is generally accepted through out wikipedia. reddi 14:34, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BTW, you can find pages and pages through a simple search of the names listed (just like Revolutionary Justice Organization does) ... it's not really hard to find references for this ... the info is accurate ... reddi 14:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I take serious, serious issue with the idea that the US Department of State, or any agency of any government--least of all a government involved in a conflict--should be considered a "reputable" source if challenged. We shouldn't take the Hezbollah website or Lebanese PR at face value, either. Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing, not because we all simply believe what the US state dept says.

[snip info souce skepticism]

Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing AND it is a reputable source of information (even if it goes against some ppl's POV). The information is reliable and should be include (much like the Hezbollah's own info should be included).

I'm all for being skeptical of information from wherever it comes from ... but don't restrict the information ... give the reader as much info as possible and let the reader decide ...

I have done the web searches for these names. Almost all the references that turns up are wholesale copies of the US State department information, or a 1996 propaganda leaflet by the Israeli foreign ministry (for example, here). As the Foreign Ministry leaflet pre-dates the State dept. info by 3 years, it's moderately likely the Israeli foreign ministry's information is the source for the (unsourced) information from the US State dept.

it's all just State dept / isreali propaganda? I doubt that (and many others do too) ... YMMV on it though ...

But the Israeli information only uses 3 names: 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance'. And it doesn't say that Hezbollah has "been called" these names like the state dept does, rather that they have created cover organizations using these names so as to misdirect credit and blame for their actions. DanKeshet

Are you seriously proposing a Conspiracy theory?

• Laugh*! I'll come back to this later, but I don't know what the "conspiracy" I'd be proposing was! A conspiracy to assert that Hezbollah has been known by other names?! DanKeshet

PS. FWIW, the Hezbollah website refers to their military units as "The Islamic Resistance".

I just included that in the intro ... reddi 15:43, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RickK - what are you doing? Please explain. -戴&#30505sv 02:54, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

This page is already grossly pro-Hezbollah. "The poor terrorists are only killing innocent people in self-defense. The Hezbollah drove the evil Israelis out of Lebanon." I can't sit by and let more lies be added to the page. I didn't interfere with the addition of the "NPOV dispute" line, that's VERY true. Ironically, the person who included it did so because he or she thinks it's too anti-Hezbollah, which is hardly true. RickK 03:01, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whenever you do a revert -- explain. To not explain is to paint the other party as a vandal which is clearly not the case here. -戴&#30505sv 03:06, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

The article is full of nonsense in both directions and Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist. If you look back through the logs, you will see that current dispute is over one word. I objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint. I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement, but that is not good enough for the people here who think that articles should tell people what to think about events and not merely inform them of the facts. I would not object to many of Hezbollah's actions such as kidnapping civilians and shelling Israeli towns being called "terrorist" because they satisfy the accepted definition of that word, but to use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable. It's a clear case of POV that should not be here. The United States was attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing. That is a fact. --zero 06:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

full of nonsense in both directions? YMMV that ...

Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist? again YMMV on that ...

dispute is over one word? I believe that there is more at dispute than that ... the relabeling of a organization that is supports terrorism (atleast in part) [which even the UN acknowledges] ...

Objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint? a viewpoint that correlates to FACTs ...

I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement? may be neutral ... but less accurate .... you leave out the reason why they attack ... which was a political move [to get the US peacekeepers out]

[snip 'tell ppl how to think']

[snip 'other Hezbollah's actions "terrorist"]

use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable? When it's part of a peacekeeping operation, YMMV on that ... especially when they are try to restablish order [not initating it in the 1st place]

It's a clear case of POV that should not be here? YMMV on that ...

The United States peacekeepers [you keep leaving that bit out] were attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing? yep ... BUT under the mandate to reestablish order ... and take out the Hezbollah terrorists. That is a fact. reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

state terrorism by Israel -- Wji, how is that more NPOV than what was there before? It is just a different POV. This is the problem with the word "terrorism"; it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion. We've seen it a hundred times. Someone describes something as "terrorism", then someone claims it wasn't, then someone makes it "which X regards as terrorism", then someone else adds "but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism", and so on. The resulting article is always awful and I don't think I've seen a single exception. It is a type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events. If the bare facts were presented without such loaded words in the first place, such nonsense could be (partly ;-( ) prevented. If it was up to me, I'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism. -- zero 08:11, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

state terrorism by Israel? nothin wrong with stating that some view it as this IMO, YMMV ...

different POV? nothing wrong with a view, as long as the editor isn't introducing it himself [as far as I can tell, from other articles] and it reflects REAL views in the world.

This is the problem with the word "terrorism"? terrorisms is real and factual ... sorry you don't see this ... I see how others can view certian actions as terorrism, while others don't ... and if you state who is viewing what as what, it's not that big of deal [the reader can tell which is telling the truth from the respective source] ...

it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion? YMMV on that ...

[snip 'hundred times' "which X regards as terrorism but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism"]

Resulting article is always awful? YMMV on that ... to me, it make the article more informative ....

A type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events? umm no, IMO ... it's an insult to not provide the reader the appropriate facts [as you seem to want to leave out the facts of what it is and what exists]

bare facts were presented without loaded words? loaded IYO ... others don't see it as loaded ... just a staement of facts of what is ...

If it was up to you, you'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism? ... mabey the is part of the problem .... you have a problem with the fact that terrorism exists and terrorists are real ... reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

On further reflection, and the latest semi-literate addition, I've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on. There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one. So I hope you all enjoy yourselves here; I'll be working on other articles. --zero 10:49, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

you've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on? great, hope you do some good work with other articles .... here's the fish .....

There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one? IYNSHO ... reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Reddi, the point that I think Zero is trying to make (and which I, and others probably, agree with) is that the way many people seem to deal with perceived POV problems is injecting an alternate POV into the article. The writing then turns into a hodgepodge of "X says A. Y, however, believes B. Some have alleged that C." Which is not only ugly and horrible reading, but it doesn't really serve to inform the reader. It would be -much- better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL. There is no need to go back and forth over who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't - let's just clearly explain who they are and what they have done, and let people decide these things for themselves. Many Wikipedia articles suffer from this same see-saw style of "N" POV editing, which results in really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them.

While I disagree that we should just run away from this article, I do agree that this article has serious problems, because it doesn't try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply to paste together two wildly divergent viewpoints into one article. Result, incoherence. Graft 11:28, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Ugly and horrible reading? mabey ... mabey not ...

It does really serve to inform the reader of what position organizations of society worldwide think ...

Better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL? So leave out Hezbollah's POV? Mabey leave out the United Nations's POV?

There is a need to state who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't .... IMO (others may disagree or agree) ....

Let's clearly explain who they are and what they have done BUT let's also clearly explain what other organizations have stated on this group (not just what they state that they do and what they have done) ....

I do agree that we let people decide these things for themselves, but with all the facts ....

Really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them? hmmm ... 1000 monkeys @ a typewriter =-) ....

Incoherence? YMMV on that ....

IMO, it does try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply state the two divergent viewpoints into one article. Not allowing the Hezbollah view's alone ... nor the UN's view (among others) alone ... reddi 14:50, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Having been around for a while, and having given this topic some good Christian thought-- I would define who is NPOV on this topic with a question:

"Do you think its acceptible for beautiful young Palestinian men and women to make sweet love with beautiful young Israeli men and women? Yes or No?

If you say "no" then you are not neutral on the ethnic issues underlying this whole subject matter (and this article), and you cannot claim to be neutral in editing this article -- all edits by such person are suspect, and subject to scrutiny. Only NPOV -- or "WPOV"-- a "world point of view" deserves the last word here.

The word of God is Love,

~S~

---

Please notice that this article is constantly modified by a bunch of Zionists in concert and if anyone tries to remove their lies and decptions from the article, they keep reverting it back and since some of them have admin status, they eventually lock their version of the article until things "cool down", then they unlock their version of the article. Wonder why the rest of humanity has always hated this vermin. This is abuse of the Wikipedia and the freedom that we should all enjoy in the Internet. Unfortunately they do this same disgusting practice on many articles in Wikipedia which were initially contributed by people in good faith. (anon)

---

American forces were at the time engaged in fighting against Hezbollah, both viewing the others party as the aggressor. And this is how an Islamic apologist insists we describe the Embassy truck-bombing. It's the intellectual dishonesty that makes Islamists so repellent to the majority of Americans. Wetman 20:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was just coming here to discuss this. I thought I was reasonably well-versed in what's going on in the world, and I don't think I've ever heard of the US fighting Hezbollah. Could someone cite an instance? RickK 08:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't have my books here so I'm writing from memory. I think the US forces were not specifically engaging the Hezbollah at that time, but they were certainly conducting military operations (including shelling from ships and air raids) against Lebanese Muslim (as opposed to Christian) forces. So the wording is not quite correct, but not far off either. I'll look up the details. --Zero 11:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to English journalist Robert Fisk's "Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War" the US military was attacking various Lebanese Muslim militias and therefore, to paraphrase Fisk, involving themselves in the war.

In reference to the terrorist/guerrilla/violent attack argument about the suicide bombings of the Marines base and US Embassy: In my opinion, since the US military had involved themselves in the fighting an attack on a US military base should probably not be described as a terrorist attack. (Also the US do give $4bn a year to Israel)

An attack on the embassy may be described as a terrorist attack however, since embassies are generally considered civilian targets and there are whole conventions--the Vienna Convention and the Convention of the Protection of Internationally Protected Persons (inc. diplomats) designed to prevent such attacks. I guess this may be a bit unfair if a state decides to take advantage of these conventions and turns their embassy into an effective military base. --Kingal86 2004-06-11 16:16 UTC

The US force was part of a multi-national force in Lebanon overseeing the escape of the PLO out of Beirut. As such it's not exactly an army conquering a state. In fact it was there by request of the Lebanese government along with the French, Italians, etc. An attack on a peace keeping force is terrorism. Further your claim of the US embassy being a base is absurd and baseless. Yes, there were military bases for the US army in Beirut, the embassy was not one of them. It is a clear civilian target. Also, you dare claim Hezbollah didn't attack civilians? I don't remember the head of the American University or Associated Press reporters that were murdered and abducted being military targets. And don't worry, I'm compiling a list of civilian targets attacked. [[User: Doug Danner|Doug] 2004-6-12

---

As a Canadian, I want to point out that "we" resisted listing the social wing despite the pressure from the Zionsts, our enemies in Washington, and our own little band of scum, the Alliance.[5] What tripped things over was a false quote in the Moonies' "newspaper".[6] 142.177.171.49 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

copy and paste

removed copy and paste into article from external source ... put the link in the in the list ...

See Ozleft articel

Hezbollah is not on the European Union list of terrorist organisations The Europeans hold the view that, among others, Hezbollah is a party to an official agreement with Israel not to fire on each other's civilians. Israel does not sign agreements with terrorists.

The Israeli court in Upper Nazareth is currently evaluating a legal submission that Hezbollah is a guerrilla organisation and not a terrorist one. The court has decided to accept the affidavit and to rule on its validity. To quote the relevant Haaretz article: "The affidavit, prepared by Prof Moshe Maoz, the head of the University of Tel Aviv's school of government and an expert on Syrian affairs, stated, 'Hezbollah is a typical guerrilla organisation, whose operative goal is to fight the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Its activities made a significant contribution to the change in public opinion and led to a turnaround in the attitude of decision makers,' Maoz said."

The Israeli court in Upper Nazareth is currently evaluating a legal submission that Hezbollah is a guerrilla organisation and not a terrorist one. The court has decided to accept the affidavit and to rule on its validity. To quote the relevant Haaretz article: "The affidavit, prepared by Prof Moshe Maoz, the head of the University of Tel Aviv's school of government and an expert on Syrian affairs, stated, 'Hezbollah is a typical guerrilla organisation, whose operative goal is to fight the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Its activities made a significant contribution to the change in public opinion and led to a turnaround in the attitude of decision makers,' Maoz said. (June 2002)

Sincerely, JDR

"Qubth Ut Alla (The Fist of God), the monthly magazine of Hezbullah's paramilitary wing. Reportedly, this has more detailed than Israel's Bahamane (In the Camp) monthly magazine of the IDF." - Anyone got a clue what that sentence means? Something obviously got deleted... Mustafaa 06:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fantasy

An IP has recently added a lot of stuff to this article, most of which appears to be delusions. This needs sorting out - but I'm not really sure what is delusion and what is real? Morwen - Talk 16:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article was full of nonsense. I removed some garbage, but it was reverted while I was editing it again to remove some more. This article has been neglected for a long time, during which it accummulated a lot of nonsense. I suggest discussing it instead of just posting it right back, there was really a lot of nonsense there. --Doron 08:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ghaleb Awwali

Can you source the claim that Israel denied killing him? - Mustafaa 02:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Found one claim: [7]. Curious that no major news organization mentions it, but I'll accept it for now. - Mustafaa 02:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a real source that Israel claimed that it did? maybe BBC, CNN, etc?

Also, I've provided 3 artciles from Lebanon's The Daily Star that covers multiple admissions by Nasrallah himself that Hezbollah assists Hamas militarily. Please check the article. Doug September 4, 2004.

On what basis do you remove a link to a Lebanese news article? I'm not quoting from an Israeli paper here, but directly from a Lebanese one, which can't be argued as being pro-Israeli. The fact that I use a Lebanese source can't be edited out, whether you like the implacations of Nasrallah's world on the propaganda you peddle or not. Plus, don't remove a sentance that says 'by Nasrallah's own admission', when the following sentance is an example to just that. This is a fact, documented in a Lebanese paper, and it'll stay for that reason Doug Mon Sep 6 03:01:33 UTC 2004

"don't remove a sentance that says 'by Nasrallah's own admission', when the following sentance is an example to just that.": no, it wasn't. The sentence you now have following it, though, is.

"On what basis do you remove a link to a Lebanese news article?" - because it's not a primary source, and I've replaced it with a direct quote. A reporter's interpretation of someone's speech is necessarily an inferior source to the speech itself; that should be obvious. - Mustafaa 12:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That source lives and works in Lebanon and the op-ed is published in a main Lebanese paper. Considering Nasrallah's habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth (one thing aimed at foreign media, the other for internal consumption) your carefully editted snippet is out of context. That's also why the op-ed is quoted. Your tortuous attempts to discount Hezbollah's arming of Hamas is an amusing example of propaganda considering other things I've pointed out in that paragraph, such as the failed arms smuggling from Jordan to which Nasrallah admitted as well. I see you're having a hard time with UNSCR 1559 and such, but I suggest you wait until you have real material to post, rather than attempt to manipulate articles to your propaganda ends. - Doug 25 October, 2004

Attention

It is impossible to change this article. If you change it at the next minute someone re-enter the article that is here showed. ----

Nope - it's not impossible to edit the article, it's just impossible to get away with deleting most of it. The flip side of free editing is that, if your edits seriously damage the article, they will be reverted. - Mustafaa 12:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

category:Islamic terrorist organizations

After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron

Generally considered? I dispute that strongly. This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed. What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, especially since I don't consider them as such myself, but I don't presume my personal opinions to be accepted by all. As the article states, Hezbollah is officially considered a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, it is often associated with 'terrorism' by Western media, and it seems to be inofficially considered terrorist in nature by others. The article makes it seem that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a significant part of the world, certainly enough to include it in that category even if it is not generally accepted, so I think you should either return the category link, or change the article to make it clear that the United States, Canada, the media, etc., are wrong in this designation and that in fact, Hezbollah is nothing of the sort. Does the dispute over the recognition of Israel justify removing it from Category: Middle Eastern countries? --Doron 11:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In other words, it is considered terrorist by the Anglophone world. As far as I know, it is not considered terrorist anywhere much else, and in much of the world such a suggestion would be found actively offensive. However, I can see your argument; were there some way of making its controversial nature clear, such as adding both that category and "Category : Non-terrorist militias" or something, I would support adding it. But surely in cases like this, when its membership is highly disputed and the very question is politicized and is discussed at length by the article itself, it's inappropriate to jump the gun. That's what we have List of terrorist groups for, after all... - Mustafaa 11:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever, it's really not such a big deal. Expect this issue to surface once in a while in the future, though. By the way, as you seem to be a veteran around here, what do you reckon should be done for this article to stop being in "need of cleanup"? I've cleaned some rubish myself some time ago, now it doesn't look too much out-of-shape. And can an article cease to be disputed (or is this quality inherent)?--Doron 17:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User attack on me

Hey User:Jayjg, can you stop following me and reverting everything i write? Even though, everything i put is NPOV, or facts, you just revert them, either without explination or saying pov and npov and etc.... Just leave me alone! I added some info and facts in operation Litani, then you came and revert them... even that they are facts, and reality that everyone has in their archive...

Then when you finished "attacking my articles" in operation litani, you followed me here, in article about Hezbollah... Just a small sentence saying that "Hezbollah is a politic and military group aimed to fight israel in lebanon", and you revert it.. where is wrong in it? nothing... Is it pov? NO.. Everyone say Hezbollah has as objectives to fight israel in Lebanon.. See Israeli archives and us ones.. they also say the same...

I am thinking that you are just reverting what i write, because it is me that i wrote them... Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks ... Addoula 00:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed quote

I removed the below quote from the introduction. While it is well sourced it is from an inherently biased source and one who is a not a specialist in the region. It could go in the paragraph on western views of Hezbolah, but the quote does not even accurately reflect American policy in the region. The New Yorker used the quote in 2002 to state that "Hezbollah ... may soon find themselves targeted in the Bush Administration's war on terror," something which has largely not come to pass. The best place for the quote might be in Wikiquote. - SimonP 05:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Hezbollah the "A-team" of terrorism and Al Qaeda the "B-team." [8]

Multinational force?

There seems to be a quarrel whether the Hezbollah only attacked US forces (US Marines) in Lebanon, or US and other international (French, Italian, ...) forces. David.Monniaux 09:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Article

This structure of this article is very difficult to follow. It also says very little about Hezbollah. It does say much about other issues, this is presumably included under other entries? Could this article please be restructured?

Possibly, but please don't delete relevant information. Also, "militant" is the accepted NPOV word here; both "guerilla" and "terrorist" imply a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Surely the point must be to provide information in a non-biased way? Or is the main aim to discredit this organization?

The former, which is why you shouldn't be trying to bias the article by using POV words and deleting negative links. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article IS biased. Removing some of these links would make it less so, please explain why MEIB would be a credible source? I believe it would be prudent to edit this article as it is full of allegations, most of these from 'America' or 'Israel'. The fact remains, for the casual reader this article does not provide much information on Hezbollah: Their ideology, history, involvement in Lebanese political system, involvement in the social sphere, there is little background on their influences, etc As for the picture, it is odd to use the word militant on a guerilla soldier.

If your issue was only the links, then you should have at least left an edit comment while removing them. However, you made other deletions as well, and made POV changes besides, which is why I reverted. I've removed the links since they are not particularly encyclopedic; however, what is odd is to use the word "guerilla" or "militant" to describe what just about everyone on the Western world (including the U.S., Canada, E.U., etc.) describes as a "terrorist". Should we change the description to "terrorist" to reflect that opinion? And by the way, "guerillas" are people who are fighting either a government or foreign troops in their own country; exactly which "geurilla" war are the Hezbollah militants involved in, a fight against the government of Lebanon? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just referring to your last point - those regarding Hezbollah as a guerilla (including myself), claim so because Hezbollah has mostly fought against the IDF during its occupation of the Security Zone in southern Lebanon. Although there have been Hezbollah attacks targeting Israeli communities in northern Israel, they were an exception, most of their attacks were against Israeli military outposts in Lebanon. There were probably attacks targeting civilians in every war in history, but surely you can't call everyone a terrorist, so I think that in general, calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is wrong. This is in stark contrast to the tactics of Hamas and the likes, who attack civilians almost exclusively. Since the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's pretext for continuing the war is the Shabaa Farms issue, which is perhaps a slim excuse, but on the other hand there have been very few attacks against Israel, nearly all against military targets. I think "guerilla" describes Hezbollah perfectly during the Israeli occupation. Since the withdrawal, Hezbollah is just a militant group trying to keep its power after losing its purpose. The fact that it is labeled as "terrorist" by politicians does not make it so. Given the facts listed in the article, it is not clear at all that Hezbollah ought to be labeled "terrorist".--Doron 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. As I have been saying from the start, I think, given the current state of affairs, that the term "militant" is a reasonable compromise between "guerilla" (a function it certainly does not perform any more, if it ever did), and "terrorist" (a function it has definitely performed in the past, and the designation of most western nations). By the way, lobbing mortars and missiles at Israeli civilian towns isn't a military action, and that's still going on. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "militant" is the way to go, I just thought for a moment that you were contemplating to change it to "terrorist". As for Hezbollah's actions since the withdrawal, I can't remember any attack against Israeli civilians (though I may be wrong). Assuming this list is exhaustive, there is only one attack (the infiltration near Shlomi) that I'd consider "terrorist", and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for that attack, so even since the withdrawal, Hizbollah generally seems to stick to military targets. On the other hand, there are some claims of Hezbollah support and involvement in Palestinian terrorist activity.--Doron 18:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

main hezbollah wiki article

1.) I think it's time to add a tagline of 'information may be from a biased source', or whatever it is that's added to the article when anonymous biased sources try to rewrite the article from their point of view. Hezbollah is becoming increasingly mentioned in the media after UN resolution 1559 and the 'side order' to disarm militias in Lebanon will ensure it stays there.

Basically, I hope that the article can be stabilised and these anonymous biased edits/re-edits highlighted, so it can be possible to utilise wiki for a link to unbiased background info to Hezbollah.

2.) How about adding a paragraph for Hezbollah culture and mysticism ? There are a lot of mystic references by Khomeini, and probably others, and there are a lot of media resources of Hezbollah music or artful video clips, for example : http://www.baabeilm.org/presentations/wahdat.htm (which is an english remix) . Hezbollah draws from the twofold source of islam and resistance to foreign aggression, and exports well, so i think it's pecularity in cultural matters is worthwhile noticing.

Neutrality of this article

This is the most neutral, unbiased article I have ever read about the hezbollah. Someone may want to add a section with the dates of hezbollah attacks on israel and israel retaliations (or vice-versa), and the casualities if possible... You may also want to add sources (again, if possible!) like "implicated in this terrorist act according to ..."

i dispute the neutrality of this article mainly due to this sentence:

"Israel continues to blatantly violate and fly over Lebanese sovereign territory, eliciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General's representative in Lebanon."

if this is true, it MUST be sourced or verified somehow, otherwise it's pure POV. ~The article claims that Hizbullah was created "with the help" of Iran. It was created BY Iran, and continues to receive support to this day. I don't know if that's biased, though. Downplaying connections between the megalomaniacs and the terrorists (they ARE terrorists--they've fired katyusha rockets at israeli towns and helped to arm Hamas) doesn't work if there's so much evidence (self-evidence, really).

axisglobe.com

I don't really think that this paragraph should be in the article. It's based on really weak facts. Aslo, we don't usually put external links in the text of a wikipedia articles. Most of the info comes from the website axisglobe.com

The pro-Iranian Hezbollah stands out among those who benefit from the Kremlin's support. Vladimir Putin's declarations about "Russia's uncompromising battle against international terrorism" are taking place simultaneously with the contacts of the Russian Ministry of foreign Affairs with the leaders of Hezbollah. Their emissaries in Russia recruit potential suicide bombers without restraint or opposition on behalf of the local authorities. They purchase arms in the areas of the ex-USSR, which are now under Russian control. Russian ex-military experts train militants of Hezbollah before they infiltrate Iraq.

--equitor 15:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph. This seems to be anti-Russian propaganda and should never have been allowed in this article. Count Iblis 00:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it seemed pretty silly to me and was going to do something about it myself eventually.John Z 01:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitism or Anti-zionism?

To those who revert the antisemit qualification to antizionism, you can see the controversial broadcasts of the Hezbollah here: Blood Libel, Al Shatat and a knight without a horse.

Is Hizballah a terrorist organization? Although considered as a terrorist group by the United States, Israel and some other European countries, Hizboallah has never targeted civilian as the Israeli army did during all of the period that followed its creation as a state. This party was created mainly to counter the foreign presence in the lebanese territories and its political agenda does not refer anymore to the suppression of Israel as a foreign body from the Arab majority lands. Hizballah proponents believe that their party is mainly a defense shield against attack committed by Israel against the territorial sovereignty of the Lebanese territories. 137.165.28.200 05:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Anis Ben Bachir.

• I agree that Hizbullah has not been involved in terrorism the same way that for example Hamas has. And its armed actions have almost exclusively targeted military forces, i.e. Israeli occupation forces and in some instances Lebanese militias, most notably during the war with Amal and the attack on Aoun's military government.
• But Hizbullah has also occasionally targeted civilians (rocket shelling of northern Israeli villages), and is strongly suspected (and in some cases legally convicted) of involvement in terrorist attacks abroad, for example the bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina (see below!). However, it denies all such charges.
• Additionally, the organization maintains extensive contacts with Palestinian groups often classified as terrorist (especially Hamas), provides them with assistance and training, and also vocally supports terrorism as a method of struggle against Israel.
• The definition I would prefer is probably that it is a guerilla/political organization connected to terrorism, but that is quite vague. Still, saying it "is" or "is not" terrorist is equally misleading. I think the article handles the terrorism issue pretty well, dealing with both allegations and denials, without taking sides. Arre 07:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Argentinian bombing/"Partisans of God"

• The article says the Lebanese based group "Partisans of God" took responsibility for the AMIA attack in Argentina. The AMIA bombing article says the same thing. Could this not be a translation of "Hizbullah" - "Party/Partisans of God"? I know they are accused of the attack, but also that they deny responsibility. So whether they did it or not, their name would probably not have been used in claiming the bombing. I suspect it is actually a mistaken/mistranslated reference to Hizbullah, but if there actually was another group (or a front for Hizbullah) by that name, could someone please source it?
• Hm, an update. This page claims that "Ansar Allah" claimed the attack. That could be maybe be translated as above, but the website itself suggests the much more appropriate "God's Helpers". "Aiders of God" would be another interpretation. To avoid confusion and avoid giving the impression that Hizbullah took direct responsibility, I suggest we change into one of those forms. Arre 07:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ansar Allah

Why is it that, when I click on the Ansar Allah link, I am redirected back to the Hezbollah wiki? --SeanMcG 05:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I nominated it for deletion. CG 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

Template

{{User Anti Hezbollah}}

Translation error

Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya ("The Islamic Resistance Force") Force has nothing to do with this name! it should only be al muqawama = the resistance , al islamiyya = the islamic, so the islamic the resistance , correct in arabic grammar but in english The islamic resistance only! i ll repaire it ...

Picture of Lebanese Hezbollah members?

Slightly OT, sorry: iranmania.com posts a picture with the label "Members of the Iran Basij Militia" [9] _{(site takes long to load)}. Somebody uploaded it to wikipedia claiming it to depict "Lebanese Hezbollah Members" [2]. Can anybody help? --tickle me 06:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture's label and info are now fixed. --Filius Rosadis 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarity of Language

this sentence makes little, if any sense. i would correct it but i cant really figure out what exactly the author wanted to say:

On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated through German mediators Israel agreed on an exchange of prisoners.

is it 2 sentences jumbled together or what? Morphine 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Martyr's Day

Does anybody know about Martyr's Day, celebrated on November 11 by the Lebanese Hezbollah? Who instituted it and which martyrs specifically are honoured? --tickle me 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Amal Saad-Ghorayeb's book (p.132), it commemorates all the party's martyrs. It takes place on 10 (not 11) November, the date of the party's first martyrdom operation, carried out by one Ahmad Qasir, referred to in Hezbollah rhetoric as "the prince of martyrs", an operation which killed some 90 Israeli military personnel on 10 Nov. 1982. Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV introduction

Hello, you made this edit to the Hezbollah article, claiming that it was more neutral that way. I see that in the old version, H. was described as a "Islamist group" that is "regarded" "as a legitimate resistance movement" "by many in the Arab and Muslim world" but as "a terrorist organization" "by the United States and some other Governments". In your version, this became "a national resistance movement" "perceived as a" "Islamist group" "by many Zionist and neo-conservative analysts". I would argue that this is a strong introduction of POV, and by no means an introduction of more neutrality, as "resistance" clearly is a positive view upon what Hezbollah does, and the claim that all who oppose its methods or ideology were zionists or neocons is plain nonsense. To find some sort of compromise, I have changed the article, so that it now claims that Hezbollah as a "militant group", regarded by those and those as such and such, etc.-- 790 07:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If HezbAllah is not an Islamist org, then what is? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

@ H. sapiens: Well personally I would agree that Hezbollah is an Islamist group, but it should be clear that some people may regard this label as POV, so I wrote that it is a "militant" group - no question on that - that some call "islamist" and others call a "resistance group". Wouldn't you agree on that? -- 790 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

@ Fares S: I pointed out that I think your definition is completely inacceptable, and you won't make it more acceptable by jsut reverting to it. -- 790 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot please everyone, but need to reflect NPOV. In this case, it its safe to call them Islamist. We may say that according to scholar A, they are X; organization B designated them as Y, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, well... that is just what I suggested, isn't it, just that I would abstain from refering to it as "being" islamist and rather say that many "regard" them as islamist, while many muslims reject that designation. That passage could be changed insofar that "many" regard them as islamist, not only the US and some other governements. Cheers -- 790 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with the last version of 790/Tamams Fares S 08:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we don't refer to them as being islamist because some people reject the term then we wouldn't be able to refer to any organization as Islamist. I would agree with Humus and present them as an Islamist organization but adding an Addendum saying some reject that term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Humus and Moshe here. "Islamist" has a recognised meaning, while militant is close to meaningless and getting closer every time it is used as a code-word for terrorist. I've put Islamist back in the first line, but in any case I've expanded on Hezbollah's ideology, the link with Iran, and a little more info on the terrorist thing. If people don't like the term "Islamist", and I know a lot of people don't for perfectly valid reasons, maybe the best place to point that out is on the page about Islamism (or else, can we say fundamentalist instead?)? I suppose saying an "Islamic" movement would be an OK alternative. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig that their alliance with secular groups is irrelevant. They are allied with the Lebanese Communist Party; that doesn't make them communists, nor does it stop the LCP being communists. They're also allied with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party - does that mean that the SSNP are no longer a secular Syrian nationalist party? The structures of Lebanese politics mean that parties are always allying with those they disagree with. That doesn't mean they have given up on their ideology. I would ask those demanding to remove "Islamist" two questions: 1. Would "Islamic" be an acceptable alternative?; 2. If we can't say "Islamist", how should we describe HA's political outlook? Just calling it a resistance organization misses a lot of the point, and fails to distinguish it from the LCP, OCA, SSNP, etc, which surely we can all agree are quite ideologically distinct from HA despite all being involved in the resistance. Palmiro | Talk 10:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Palmiro, however I think "Islamic" doesn't really capture the point, especially in a situation like Lebanon where politics are pretty much only divided between Christian, Druze, and Islamic. When seeing the designation of "Islamic" a reader might be left with the impression that it is onlt saying that most of their support comes from Muslims, if we use "Islamist" it really shows underscores the fact that being Muslim is central to their organization's identity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as a big problem (and don't forget that in Lebanon, Druze are a Muslim group!); it's quite common to refer to the Murabitoun and other secular groups as largely "Muslim", they are rarely called Islamic, while on the other hand groups such as the Islamist nuts in Tripoli that Arafat cosied up to in 1982 as well as the Hizbullah are often termed "Islamic". Nevertheless, my preference too is for "Islamist". By the way, "scientific transliteration" is common terminology, and many linguists not to mention Arabists of my acquaintance could get quite annoyed by your taking issue with it;). Palmiro | Talk 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying transliteration isn't a difficult and important subject, but when I think of science I think of people using the scientific method- that is they come of with a hypothesis to answer a question then set about proving it. To transliterate someone just has to have a suffcient command of both languages, then figure out how to phonetically write a word of one language with the characters of the other. Also even if Druze are classified as Islamic, they are still usually in groups by themselves.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Names

I would propose putting the gory detail about Persian and Arabic H's, etc, into a footnote. It hardly belongs in the main body of the article, and certainly should not be the first paragraph of the main body. The second paragraph currently under the heading "Alternative spellings and names" could judiciously be incorporated into the following section about "Designations". Any remarks? Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Palmiro | Talk 11:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

terrorism

1. When did Hezbollah ever killed an Israeli civilians. 2. Israel the occupier should be called a terrorist.

Answers: 1) Hezbollah strikes northern settlements e.g. - Just in the last 2 days 4 civilians have been killed and hundred have been wounded. 2) Israel left south Lebanon in 2000. 3) Hezbollah has started to attacking - Killed 8 and kidnaped 2 soldiers IN Israel territory!

Idiotic. They never killed any israeli soldiers until israelis started killing civilians. Look up your current events fuckwad

Please, why starting with curses? (Fuckwad?) 6 years have passed since the withdrawal of the Israeli army from south Lebanon, in these years there had been a truce between the sides. UNTIL Hezbollah has started to attacking IN Isreal territory in last week. Since you don't live in the middle east I suggest you to shut up and start to listen to the truth instead of swallowing lies from your pro-arab, Non-objective media.

Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization and is funded and supported by the dictatorships in Syria and Iran. They have killed over 800 people since they were founded. The only thing wrong with what is happening now is that it did not happen earlier. I hope they destroy Damascus and give Lebanon back to its rigthful owners, the christians.

Category "Designated terrorist organization"

I have problems with the category itself and listed that category for deletion. Articles in that category van be listed if the UNSC, the US or the EU lists the org. as a terrorist organization. So, in principle that shouldn't be a problem. However, if we are going to make categories like that, then we should also make categories to indicate how much support an organization has as a militant organization. So, I tried to do that by making a category for "legitimate militant organizations".

Just like one can say that the fact that the US lists Hezbollah has a major effect that cannot be ignored, whatever your views on Hezbollah, so also you cannot ignore the fact that a large fraction of the Arab world is sympathetic to Hezbollah, and that Iran supports it directly, whether we like that or not. In fact this does have a major impact, otherwise Israel and the US wouldn't make such a fuss over Iran's support of Hezbollah. It also makes it difficult to reach consesnus at the UN how exactly to define a terror organization.

Now, I chose the name "legitmate militant organizations" for that category, which perhaps is not so well chosen. Anyway this was listed for deletion, so this makes the whole categorization of orgs. like Hezbollah no longer NPOV. Many readers, even if they agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, know that it is a controversial topic. If that's not well reflected in the article, then the credibility of wikipedia itself is at stake. Count Iblis 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a soapbox, and you can't create or delete articles to make a point. See WP:POINT. So putting aside your current dispute over the "legitmate militant organizations" category - it seems you have no real problem with the category "Designated terrorist organizations" (you say "in principle that shouldn't be a problem."). So kindly leave it in. Isarig 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As you wrote on the cfd page, we can rename it to include something like "designated by the US&EU". That would be pretty accurate. We should perhaps also rename the category of militant organizations to include "supported by Iran", Syria or whatever. The word "legitimate" should be dropped. Count Iblis 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Having separate cats "TOs des by US", "TOs des by EU", "TOs des by UNSC", "TOs des by Australia" would be unworkable. Most orgs on most lists are common to more than one list; the cat list at the bottom of Hezbollah would be lengthy. Same for MOs supported by Iraq, Syria etc etc. Going back to the guildeline WP:CG, it states "Categories ... help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called" What info would the MO cats help users find? AndrewRT 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this can't be made to work. I think it is important to distinguish between the Security council on the one hand and a group of major powers. So, perhaps, if it is too difficult, then we should make two categories. One if the SC has proscribed a group. Org. like Al Qa'ida would be in there. And another if one or more major powers have outlawed it, but not the SC. Count Iblis 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that there is much overlap between the lsits maintained by the US/EU & Australia, how about renaming the cat "Organizations designated TO by US, Eu & Australia"? Isarig 03:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to try this as an article instead of a category Designated terrorist organisations. Lets see how this works AndrewRT 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is designated a terrorist organization by the US and a couple of other Anglo-Saxon countries and one or two European countries, but notably not by the EU. The United States does not equal the world. This category name is misleading, and really the category itself should go.

Also, I'm restoring the introduction to the more balanced version that was there previously. The current second sentence is not by any means suitable. Palmiro | Talk 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. We've discussed this before when you trried to make that change a couple of minth ago, and you did no thave consensus for thta change then, and you don't have it now. Isarig 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to that discussion? As far as I can see the insertion of what I just deleted was made without any discussion. You were right to put "Islamist" back in instead of "militant" though - that was an oversight on my part. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the discussion above, under the heading NPOV Introduciton - but my main objection was the use of "resistance" instead of Islamist, which you seem to agree with. I have no problem with the rest of your changes.Isarig 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to everyone here. There is a vote for deletion underway for the category designated terrorist organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations

Count Iblis 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What do people think of the wikilink to Islamic extremist terrorism? The page in question appears pretty Americocentric, considering it includes a list of the United States Department of State's designated terrorist organizations, and most of the statisics are gleaned from American sources. Linking Hezbollah to this page is misleading - as another user mentioned during the previous discussion, the U.S. and a few other Anglo-Saxon countries are the only ones to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The use of the word "extremist" also doesn't seem especially NPOV. MeredithParmer 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and goals

Just looking again at the intro, which I think I more or less wrote in its current form and was happy enough with at the time, it strikes me that it gives a somewhat misleading impression in bluntly stating that HA wishes to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon. It is quite an important point that HA has since the mid-80s accepted that this canonly come about through the consensus of the Lebanese people - which of course relegates it to a purely idealistic level as various commentators have pointed out, since there's little prospect of the Lebanese people as a whole agreeing to such a development in the foreseeable future. Palmiro | Talk 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What if it was a christian resistance?

I always had this question in mind, what if in the place of Hizbullah, was another resistence, and it was all of christians, would USA put it on the terrorism list?

If you don't know, or maybe you know but you didn't mention, the villages that were occupied by israelians in south lebanon, were of christians, muslims and drouz, and Hizbullah was fighting not only for Shia, or Islam, they were and still fighting for a land that they know that it belongs to them, and to all lebanese people, and only lebanese people.

The french resistence, any difference between this resistence and what Hizbullah is doing? or only because they are Muslims, or because they are fighting against Israelians, or Jewish?

Did any of you watch the "Naked News", this is something very funny, but very important and dangerous at the same time. A nice beauty girl, reading the news while stripping and removing her clothes one after the other. It is nice, but, what news is she talking about? All about Bin Laden, Hizbullah, and islams... and try to guess why.

I think it has to do more about the fact that Hizbullah is acting against the interests of Israel. Note that the US never considered Pakistani organizations that directly targetted civilians in Kashmir, as terrorists organizations. The US used to have much better relations with Pakistan than India.

If a country has good relations with the US, then the US will judge them by a different standard than other countries. E.g. the US urged Saddam to attack Iran. When Saddam did that, the US took Iraq off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Count Iblis 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right - thats realpolitik, but it functions in both directions. The rest of the world doesn't merely adopt positions in reaction to a percieved US bias, but rather actively pursue their own agendas. And somwhere there still remains an objective reality. Tewfik^Talk 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If any of you would have bothered to research what you are talking about you would know that both ETA and different fractions of the IRA have also been labeled terrorist organizations by the EU and US. So it isn't just muslim organizations that are being labeled terrorist organizations. But since the muslims are responsible for the far far majority of attacks and killings it shouldn't come as any surprise that they are the ones that recieve the most attention in the media.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hezbollah/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Please See: Talk:Hezbollah/Archive_11#GA_on_hold

Last edited at 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)