Talk:Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal This article is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.

Project Israel To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Hinduism in Israel, Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Zman Tel-Aviv, Iton Tel-Aviv, Council for Higher Education in Israel, Category:Jews buried in the Mount of Olives (or "List of...") Copyedit: Yossi Sarid, Havlagah, Palestinian views of the peace process Cleanup: Israel Export Institute, Agricultural Research In Israel, Israel lobby in the United States Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Secular Jewish culture#Dance, Carmel Winery, Goldstar, List of Egged bus lines, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel Stubs: Israel stubs Update: Gush Katif, National Religious Party NPOV: Israel and the UN, Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Other: Translate from Hebrew: Yuval Steinitz Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis

Please read this Hi, and welcome. Take a deep breath and relax your eyebrows. If you are about ready to explode it is suggested that you stop for a minute and relax, because that indeed may happen after sifting through these heated debates. This is a controversial topic, and has always been. Remember, reason will always beat ignorance, no matter what.

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] United Nations

Twice people have suggested that this section be removed, as the attacks were on soldiers (even if unarmed) and this article is about civilians. Following WP:BOLD, I'll do it. --Dweller 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You just beat me to it :) good call. RandomGalen 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have found something uncontroversial to do in such a controversial article. --Dweller 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They weren't part of the conflict making them innocents be the civilians or not. In anycase it is a very important part of this section targetting without regard seems to be the theme.

[edit] Created articles for convoy attacks & industry attacks

Attacks on civilian convoys in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

No POV, just a size issue- page is too long, which probably has a lot to do with all the stuff on hiding amongst civilians.

Regarding the article names; in the case of convoys the IDF has yet to respond to the accusation that they were targeting them all in every case. Same in the case of the industry- unclear if the industry was a target ie. if the attack was on the industry, or an unintended casualty. Attacks is a compromise as that an attack took place is not in dispute.

Articles for Israeli industry could probably also be created. RandomGalen 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah's "human shield" tactics

This needs its own article. It has increased the size of the article for little net value. RandomGalen 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit?

Does this article still need to be copy edited? Aside from the fact that its a little bit long, I think its ok in its present form. If nobody disagrees, I'll get rid of the call for copy editing at the top of the article.--GHcool 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No response? OK. I'm deleting it then ... --GHcool 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herald Sun article

The Herald Sun link is already there as note #102, which links to the original Herald Sun article. That is the best source for it. Weblogs have a WP:RS issue, and we do not need two links to the same source, especially when one is the original article itself. -- Avi 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulances

For the record: The information I brought (well-cited and supported according to WP:RS and WP:V can be seene here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=71198350&oldid=71186194

The fact that in 2002 the terrorists performing the attack were in Gaza as opposed to Kiryat Shemona should be irrelevant. A few tens of miles does not mean that the entire modus operandi of terrorists changed. The citations show that 1) Under international and Israei law, there are times when “ambulances” lose their protection, to wit, when they are used as combat or munitions transports and 2) this has happened to the state of Israel any number if times. The fact that the 2002 and 2004 reports happen to predate the 2006 conflict does not mean that Hezbollah has had a collective lobotomy and would never even conceive of using such tactics. -- Avi 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article makes mention of attacks on ambulances in the framework of its being a crime. The Israeli justification under international law is the same, whether this occurs in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, etc. Thus, it must remain in this article, otherwise we have the POV that it is a crime without the corresponding POV that it is allowed under the international rules of war. The presence of any one of those requires the other for WP:NPOV. -- Avi 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, it is not about a few miles. It is about that this article deals w/ Isreal-Lebanon conflict. If your edit was on the conflict w/ Hamas article, i'd not remove it. -- Szvest 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the justification remains the same. You seem to believe that Hezbollah would not use ambulances, because they have a different name. I believe that is ludicrous. The issue is rather simple, inmy opinion:

• Anti-Israeli Arab terrorists have used ambulances in the past to support their attacks.
• Under both Israeli and international law, ambulances used in such attacks are stripped of their protections.
• This article claims Israel attacked ambulances, in violation of international law.
• To refuse to allow the documented Israeli justification, because in 2002 the attacker was Fatah or Hamas is, in my opinon, semantics, sophistry, and makes that section, de facto, a POV propaganda piece, and not informative. I think your reasoning is weak, goes to make this article not represent all sides. -- Avi 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia should use sources related and specific to the issue on hand. You seem to believe that Hezbollah would not use ambulances, because they have a different name is just untrue Avi. Have i removed any sourced material re Hezbollah in all the related articles? If yes, than i'd say you're right and would apologize. Let me talk to you about my reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions yourself. In the court, we judge the person who is responsible of a crime, not their neighbours who did the crime before him somewhere in the neighbourhood. They've already been judged. What i know is that i never judged your reasoning. For the rest, I don't object your other points above. I have an idea which may explain to you clearly my weak reasoning. The info we are talking about would fit very well into something like Usage of ambulances by terrorists or Usage of ambulances on wartime. -- Szvest 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Fayssal, and I apologize if I came on too strongly -- Avi 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. No worries Avi. I know your intention and no need to apologize. -- Szvest 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand. (I hate edit conflicts) I can see having a discussion on whether the bulk of the arguments belongs in its own article, should one ever be created, but to keep the instances of attacks without the corresponding legal justification is against WP:NPOV in my opinion. -- Avi 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are any official Israeli claims that ambulances have been used for unlawful purposes in Lebanon, the very long "defence" section has no place in this article. There is nothing in that section mentioning Lebanon or Hezbollah. As Szvest rightly has stated above, "In the court, we judge the person who is responsible of a crime, not their neighbours who did the crime before him somewhere in the neighbourhood. They've already been judged." Trying to defend multiple attacks on official Red Cross ambulances in Lebanon by putting in material about Palestinian misuse of ambulances several years ago, must be considered as POV pushing. The fact that Hezbollah don't like Israel, for obvious reasons, doesn't mean that unlawful actions done by members of various Palestinian groups in the past should be attributed to them. Thomas Blomberg 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, we are not judging the Lebanese or Hezbollah. We are bringing the long-standing Israeli position, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Israel (a left-wing establishment in my personal opinion, but that does not matter) that attacks on ambulances are warranted. The Geneva convention giving the protections in the first place (Red Cross/Convention 1) also does not mention Lebanon, does that make it inapplicable? Of course not! That very same convention brings the times those protections are stripped, as confirmed by the Israeli Supreme court, which is also applicable without mention of Lebanon. I feel that the defense must remain as the NPOV balance to the accusation. -- Avi 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I think you have misunderstood your role as Wikipedia editor. Your job is not to come up with defenses for Israel's actions. It's perfectly okay to report what Israel's defense is, but that requires verifiable quotes that Israel has actually referred to the Palestinian misuse of ambulances as explanation for the ambulance attacks in Lebanon. If they haven't, then you're trying to do it for them - and that's definitely POV. Thomas Blomberg 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to remove the usage of ambulances by Palestinians who have nothing to do with this conflict on hand. It is not a hard job finding references to the usage of ambulances by Hezbollah. -- Szvest 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

[edit] Page restructure

I made some major changes to the page structure, but I did not remove any information (except for a redundant citation).

• I've tried to place all of the weaponry allegations in one section, and removed "prohibited" as the first sentence in that section say that these weapons are not expressly prohibited
• I've tried to place all opinions in one section, broken down by UN, US, UK, etc.
• I've tried to combine the leaflet issues, which were in at least three different sections.
• I've put the Lebanese gov't statement about Israel targeting industry under the industry section.
• I combined the two different Engeland sections together, and followed it with the Hezbollah defense under the UN opinion section.
• I combined the to Arbour sections together under the UN opinion section.
• I combined most the numerous AI allegations into one section under AI opinion, but I left the individual AI allegations of weaponry is in the weaponry sections.

I think it is more logically combined this way. The next step is to go through and remove unneccesary, excess, redundant citations. -- Avi 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Avi.  :) --GHcool 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depleted uranium ammo *is* illegal

The use of depleted uranium ammunition is illegal indeed.[1][2][3][4] This is verifiable and in my opinion should be reflected in the article. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 02:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium ammo is illegal under the Geneva convention, yes. But Israel and the US aren't signatories to the convention, and so when they sue it, it's not illegal in the slightest. HawkerTyphoon 03:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Israel's position should be reflected too. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 04:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be of interest also, if DU is illegal under Lebanese law or if Lebanon is signatory to relevant Geneva conventions and exactly under whose jurisdiction is US-made Israeli DU munition exploding on Lebanese soil. --Magabund 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remba

The Remba article is brought in its entirety in a number of places including:

• http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000170.html
• http://www.ameinu.net/perspectives/israel.php?articleid=106
• http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/article.asp?key=7249

The article has been verified. You do not expect something like this on Al-Jazeera's website. -- Avi 12:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please. Like I said in my comment: I removed references to an opinion piece by a former Israeli PM official and current president of a self-proclaimed zionist organisation, written on a website called "zionism-israel.com". Please comment if you think that this is a reliable source. You accused me of removing Harvard references, but trust me: I wouldn't even dare to touch them. Feel free to quote published Harvard scholars, anytime. Cheers. Kosmopolis 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I know I am a bit of a wikipedia neophyte, but I digress...

It is of interest that no-one has even mentioned the fact that the targetting of Ambulance during the 2006 conflict has been all but debunked at http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

BTW, before you accuse me of stating a fringe view remember that Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer publically spoke out against this particular photo fakery.

So I suggest that the Author of this article also try and remedy some of the information on Qana, as he, on a supposedly unbiassed and academic site, has completely whitewahsed the fact that there was prior warning to the attack. In addition, it must be noted that rockets were fired from the building that was hit, not, as the author purports, near the building

Isn't this website meant to have a neutral POV?

http://www.zombietime.com is hardly NPOV. The articles and essays on that site have a severe right wing bias. If zombietime is a legitimate source, then so is Loose change. --Joshua242 07:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "added sources sympathetic toward Israel to ensure an NPOV"

Adding "sources sympathetic toward Israel" in a section for voices critical of Israel – when there is already exists a subsection "sympathetic toward Israel" – injects POV rather than ensuring NPOV.--G-Dett 05:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Human Shields" section needs work

There are several problems here. First of all, the title of the subsection. Unlike any of the other items listed in the "Targeting by Israel" and "Targeting by Hezbollah" sections, there is vigorous debate between prominent reliable sources about whether this tactic was even used. As a title, "Hezbollah's 'Human Shields' Tactics" forecloses that debate instead of presenting it. It needs to be changed; I suggest "Hezbollah's Alleged Use of Human Shields."

Secondly, the Salon.com report by Mitch Prothero disputing the allegations about H's use of human shields clearly belongs here, and not in a special section about individuals "Unsympathetic towards Israel" (a hilariously POV title in its own right; I've now changed it to "Critical of Israel").

Thirdly, the sources presented here needs to be pruned. The views of UN officials (such as Egeland) and human rights organizations should obviously be presented. I would say that we should likewise present the work of journalists reporting from Lebanon, and of news media (like the Sunday Herald Sun) who published a documentary scoop. But not Alan Dershowitz blogging from Martha's Vineyard, or an op-ed writer from the Financial Times Deutschland, and so on. These just bloat the section; given that no balancing layman pundits' perspectives are offered from the other side, we can moreover conclude that this is just POV-pushing bloat.

Fourthly, if we're going to quote IDF officials, there ought to be a balancing perspective from the Lebanese government or Hezbollah.

Lastly, the following paragraph is completely problematic, and needs to be fixed ASAP or thrown out:

"According to Al Arabia's website as well as an article on IslamOnline.net, Hezbollah fighters tend to wear civilian clothes while being blended within to the civilian populace. Hence, fallen Hezbollah fighters in civilian areas are likely to be accounted as civilians casualties."[12][13]

"While being blended within to the civilian populace"? The broken syntax says little but insinuates much. The linked article, on the other hand, says that Hezbollah fighters wear uniforms on the battlefield, and civilian clothes in town. It doesn't talk about "blending." The article is illustrated, incidentally, by a photo of a regiment of Hezbollah soldiers in uniform.

The sentence "Hence, fallen Hezbollah fighters in civilian areas are likely to be accounted as civilian casualties" is obviously original research, unless the Al Arabia website articulates this conclusion. From the way this paragraph is put together, it seems that's not the case. Someone fluent in Arabic ought to check; if there's no confirmation that the Al Arabia article says something about the accounting of fallen Hezbollah fighters, then I'm going to delete it.--G-Dett 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, most reliable sources (most prominantly Jan Egeland) agree that there is at least some degree of human shield tactics used by Hezbollah in this war. Its as clear to me that something would be wrong with "Hezbollah's Alleged Use of Human Shields" as there would be with "Alleged targetting by Israel."

Secondly, the Prothero article is so full of baloney as to make it null and void for serious consideration. FrontPageMag.com has already systematically challenging every piece of disinformation in the Salon.com article.[5] Even if you don't trust FrontPageMag.com, use some common sense! The entire Western world and international bodies such as the U.N. (including critics of Israel) all say that Hezbollah blends with civilians. By the way, Hamas does as well. Prothero's remarks are equivalent to Holocaust denial in terms of its motives and its reliability as a source. If it were up to me, I would delete it completely from Wikipedia, however I will not without a consensus.

Thirdly, I agree about pruning sources such as editorials, while keeping official reports or news articles. This merits more discussion about which sources are considered "prunable" and which are not.

Fourthly, I agree with you on the "a balancing perspective from the Lebanese government or Hezbollah," as long as we keep in mind that the Lebanese government is the ultimate authority on the reaction of the targeting of Lebanese civilians and that Hezbollah is the ultimate authority of the targeting of Israeli civilians.

Lastly, the sentence you had an issue with seems to have been changed.--GHcool 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, there is indeed a dispute about "human shields." "Blending" with the civilian population doesn't automatically mean using them as shields. Every guerrila army in history – the IRA, the KLA, the French resistance, the American revolutionary minutemen, you name it – has blended with the population to some extent. If the population believes in the justice of the guerrila force, believes their interests are being protected and advanced by it, and offers willing assistance, then they are not human shields. The HS argument also maintains that Hezbollah tried to engineer civilian casualties for propaganda purposes – a claim dismissed by Human Rights Watch and others. The counterargument says that Israel calculated that a high cost to civilians would help turn them against Hezbollah. In any case, GHcool, read a little further into the debate and get a better sense of its contours.

Your second point is a fatuous one, to be frank. It's not for you to dismiss one reliable source and elevate another. This is elementary wikipedia protocol. The comparison of Prothero's report to Holocaust denial is offensive, and a serious discredit to you.

We are fully agreed on points 3 and 4, so let's get to work.--G-Dett 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear G-Dett,

You seem to be a fairly moderate wikipedian even if we do not see eye-to-eye on all of the points concerning Hezbollah's human shield tactics. Let's set aside our differences for now and deal with the matters we agree on. That seems to be the most productive course of action now. If after we are done editing the human shields section according to points 3 and 4 and we still want to discuss points 1 and 2, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

In my opinion, the sources that can be pruned without serious damage to the integrity of the section include: Alan Dershowitz, the National Post, New Republic, IslamOnline.net, Financial Times Deutschland, and NormanFinkelstein.com. I would argue that the Sunday Herald Sun and the Los Angeles Times citations are necessary to the article since it emphasizes solid evidence over political commentary. And I think we both agree on the necessity of the citations of Jan Egeland, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and official IDF spokesmen in this section. --GHcool 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions are excellent.--G-Dett 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chart

This chart may be usefull on this page somewhere.

Pie chart of casualties using figures provided by respective parties

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carbonate (talk • contribs).

I disagree. The chart is clearly anti-Israel propoganda and does not reflect the complexity of the facts. It cites no sources, does not account for the fact that Hezbollah combatants may have been counted as Lebanese civilians, the fact that Hezbollah lied about its own casualties (Hezbollah estimates 80 casualties compared to the 500+ estimated by the IDF and the UN), the fact that Hezbollah's allies (such as the Amal militia) were not counted in the graph, and does not even give a total number of casualties (just percentages). If you take the statistics from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article, the data looks closer to the following:

• Lebanese civilians — 1,187 (59.26%)
• Israeli civilians — 44 (2.20%)
• IDF — 119 (5.94%)
• Hezbollah & its allies — roughly 600 according to IDF and UN statistics (29.96%)
• Lebanese army — 46 (2.30%)
• UN — 7 (0.35%)

The total number of casualties was 2,003. In short, this is a poorly designed graph that design to construct reality rather than to reflects it. --GHcool 06:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useful and can be used here, as long as we put a tag that says the figures is provided by respective parties. Go ahead and put it somewhere. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This POV chart has been removed from 2 other articles where the POV pushers have tried to insert it. It does not belong here, or anywhere else on WP. See Talk:Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict