Talk:1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	Lebanon Portal This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Clearly, in terms of "result," we need to come up with something that is short but captures the complexity of the situation. Merely saying "Hezbollah victory" — as some people keep trying to do — is misleading, and there are multiple nuances to the situation: Hezbollah did not exist at the start of the conflict (being formed under conflict, just as the Taliban Movement was formed under conflict), the goals of the other parties weren't to control Lebanon, Israel's 1985 withdrawal from most of Southern Lebanon was part of the peace plan (and, as such, might be considered the proper start of the South Lebanon conflict), Israel's 2000 withdrawal wasn't a "retreat" in the sense that they weren't under fire, Hezbollah lied and/or broke their promise about their goal (claiming they would disarm after Israel left Lebanon, which the UN recognized in 2005 — see Shebaa Farms — then failing to do so), and, finally, because it is not clear, "Hezbollah victory" is a propaganda phrase of Hezbollah supporters. People will continue to deface the page with "Hezbollah victory," but I think those who want an accurate representation should agree on one.

Obviously I like my "result" best. That said, anyone who objects to my explanation (in use as of now), please speak up as to why. Also, why no mention of the roles of Syria and Iran, without whom Hezbollah could not have continued? Calbaer 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel's 2000 withdrawal was a retreat under fire. The situation was that the SLA positions (Shia Muslim) in the center of the zone collapsed. The day after, the SLA positions in the east (Druze) collapsed. At that point, the Israeli forces began destroying the remaining weapons of the SLA and quickly retreating (over perhaps two days) out of Lebanon. The leader of the SLA had previously deserted his own men and was hiding in France.

There are many conspiracy theories about what Israel may or may not have planned to do in June 2000. But they can't go on the page unless there are facts to back them up.

As far as Hezbollah lying or breaking promises, it depends on who you listen to. To say that they lied would be to take a POV side in the Shebba Farms dispute (which should not happen in this article). I agree that Hezbollah Victory is too strong a term but its not just a term used by Hezbollah supporters, it is also used by the far Israeli right who use it for their own propaganda purposes. My view is that only the basic facts should be on the page and that the very concept of "victory" has no place in the article.

It would however be proper to describe the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as being unplanned and chaotic including a clearer description of events such as the disintegration of the SLA. 168.127.0.51 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My view is that it may have been poorly planned, but it was not unplanned. I believe Barak campaigned on withdrawal, and, considering that it was a military operation, the year-long lag from election to action was to be expected. The BBC has well-known biases on international issues, including an anti-Israel POV that comes across most clearly in issues such as the Battle of Jenin, so its blurb about the withdrawal may not be the best summary of the events.

As far as taking a POV in the Shebaa Farms dispute, it is mainly a matter of language, albeit an important one. For example, one could say, "The UN found that Shebaa Farms was not part of Lebanon. Hezbollah's critics and other international observers cite this as evidence that Hezbollah's goal is not the liberation of Lebanon from Israel, but rather the control of Southern Lebanon in order to wage campaigns against Israeli soldiers and civilians." Likewise, one could say that, "Supporters of Hezbollah and other international observers view the withdrawal as a retreat, due to the chaos that accompanied it." Of course, I'd want cites, but those are just examples. Calbaer 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

the article is POV making it seems like the area was "simply occupied" and also by the excessive used word resistance etc. Amoruso 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)