Talk:1982 Lebanon War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:



this article is definitly byist, it gives uncited quotes by the UN secratary general as well, some of them false

Contents

[edit] Civilian casualties

By not seperating military casualties from civillian casualties in the summary it gives a misleading impression to the reader. It makes it seem as if all 17,825 are military casualties (since the Israel casualty figure is all military) and that then makes it seem as if the army under Arafat lost 50% of its combatants, when really the percentage is much lower.

Also, most war articles seperate military from civillian casualties in the summary, so I don't see why this should be any different. There's no reason I can think of for not seperating them, so I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.56 (talk) 13:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

This is the same guy again, I've made an account since my post above. Someone has made a good edit to the summary, I have only one complaint. The civillian casualties are listed over both sides, which again is misleading since they were all in Lebanon and therefore don't effect the Israeli side. It would be useful if someone who knew the figures could seperate the civillian casualty figure into Lebanese and Palestinian. User Libertariansocialistdeist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertariansocialistdeist (talk • contribs) 08:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title is POV

We have Operation Litani, why do we not have Operation Peace for the Galilee? What makes this war different than any other war Israel fought? It should be merged with Lebanon Civil War or the title moved to Operation Peace for the Galilee. If thats not good enough, than it should be called the "1982 Lebanon War" .]

I've done a Google Search. These are the results.

1982 Lebanon War has if done by the strictest search "4,950" hits. "[1] 1982 Invasion of Lebanon has doing the strictest possible search has 10,700[2]. The problem is that some encyclopedias duplicate wikipedia articles one to one after the articles are made, increasing the number of hits on goolge. Finally, we have to consider the name intself. In the search it is used pejoratively. We could call WW2 the War of Nazi Aggression, but instead we call it WW2, we use the same standard for 1948 Arab Israeli War vs Israeli War of Independence or Nakba, and we use 1973 War vs Yom Kippur War. I think to continue by this standard, we need to call it by a neutral name and list what both sides call it as wikipedia always does. I am going to move it, and see the response.

Guy Montag 23:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 02:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think it is really POV; "Invasion" is not necessarily pejorative - as in the D-day Invasion of Normandy, or the Allied invasion of Sicily.

Sure, but these are battles within a war, a war entitled WW2, not something like Nazi War of Aggresssion.


It is the most usual name in English for the war in my experience, from writers on all sides. Also Wiki does prefer Yom Kippur war to 1973 war. I don't think it is too important either way, just that good faith should be assumed about such IMHO minor points, and that if it is felt necessary to neutralize the name of one war, one should do it for all. Concerning Operation Litani, it, like the War of Attrition, is somewhat forgotten, so I think the argument that the most usual name (with words) should be used is even stronger there. Peace for Galilee would probably not be what most searchers would start with, and it is too distinct an event from the civil war to be merged. --John Z 01:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think 1982 Lebanon War is a neutral term, its also shorter.

Guy Montag 08:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The term seems NPOV to me. --equitor 04:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

No need for euphemisms here..."Operation for the Peace..." Invasion or war are clear, everyday terms for this action. In my view, war to stop the larger peace process (eg, withdrawal from West Bank, etc) is the most accurate description I've come across.

Jim Bodefeld 11 Oct 2005

[edit] 3 revert rule

Style, I have not violated the 3 revert rule. I NPOVd your many POV edits, restoring some deleted information, but certainly not reverting or changing all, or even the majority of your work. You then reverted my own edits 4 times, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please voluntarily revert to the previous version to undo this breach, and please bring your proposed edits to Talk: . Jayjg 18:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A revert is a revert is a revert. You reverted my edits first. And look closely, I didn't revert to the same version 4 times. --style 05:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

People, I checked the history page, there are not many point of disagreement, please talk it out in here. For the meanwhile, either leave the orginal page until NPOV is resolved or find a temporary comprised version. Put NPOV notoce if you see right. MathKnight 20:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a newcomer with some understanding of the international situation at the time, I'm curious; why is there a delete war going on? Is it impossible to agree on NPOV caveats? For instance, in the first section that keeps getting reverted, you could add the following after "…launched from Southern Lebanon.": "The Lebanese representative to the United Nations stated [3] that these reasons were a pretext, and many still believe this to be the case. Israel and the United States rejected those claims." This does not say either is a correct viewpoint, just that many people legitimately held (and still hold, if Yuber's and Guy's posts are any indication) views that differ significantly on the reasons Israel took military action. To exclude either in "un-Wiki".
The Fisk quote, whether we like it or not, is perfectly in line with the NPOV guidelines; deleting is not. Fisk did say that, and it was in specific reference to the subject of this article. Just because we don't like a quote that is relevant is no excuse for censoring it. Simply add a rebuttal quote and put the statement in context.
The Ben-Gurion mess, on the other hand, has no reasonable foundation. To posit that a 1937 quote (about a nation that did not yet exist) as the basis for an action fifty years later is an unreasonable stretch. There were (and still are) many who believe the leaders of the newly formed Israeli state never accepted the 1947 boarders as reasonable or tolerable, and believed that they would have to fight to gain the land needed to form a viable state amongst hostile neighbours. This is just a lousy (and deliberately inflammatory) quote to use when trying to make that point, and an unfounded tie to the conflict at hand.
IMHO, the current article along with each historical edit I've seen on either "side", is infused with POV, often to the point of open propagandizing. Bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball between "our" POV version and "their" POV version means that we will never see a valid, encyclopaedic article. Just my opinion, of course. Kevin/Last1in 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequently, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred during Israel's occupation of West Beirut.

This does not belong in the introduction; it is not a critical piece of information about the war, and is one of many massacres committed in the overall Lebanon war, including in those very camps. Jayjg 21:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It does belong in the intro, because it is a important, historic event of greater fame (infamy?) and notability than the war itself. For example, the article on the massacre is _much_ bigger than this article.
I'll respond to your other edits here. They are all obviously factually incorrect and POV. Palestinians alone did not kill thousands of Lebanese civilians; both sides committed massacres. There was not intense international pressure placed only upon the Palestinians; there was pressure on both sides to achieve peace. And I really don't see how writing "hundreds, possibly thousands" is better than "700-3000" for the massacre casualties. Why are you wasting my time? --style 05:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I agree that it does not belong in the introduction. This article is meant to be about a military operation, that had legitimate and long-reaching political causes and effects. Civilians get killed in any war; it's just one of the unfortunate, and all but unavoidable results. This is especially true when the combatants are themselves guerillas, possibly in plain-clothes, hiding amongst civilians, as is nearly always the case with the PLO.

I do not believe that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is "a important, historic event of greater fame (infamy?) and notability than the war itself," as you claim. I had never heard of it before reading this article. LordAmeth 18:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, because it is relevant to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, anti-Israel activists have tried to make it that way. Of course, they ignore the large massacres in this conflict that had nothing to do with Israel, and make absurd claims that a massacre of 800 or so Palestinians by the Phalange is more significant than a war which lasted cost hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced over a million people, etc. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is going on here? This should be an article about the 1982 Libanon war. As far as I can see, the war ended after the first day of the invasion, there's no real information after that. Though, even Israeli friendly sources say 'The War in Lebanon can be divided into two phases. The first was a conventional war, which lasted from June 6 to August 23 1982, when the terrorists were expelled from Beirut. The second phase, which lasted for the next three years, was a counter-insurgency campaign.' Especially the counter-insurgency phase should be of interest today. How did the IDF fight it, are there lessons to be learned regarding the Iraq war? Imho the election and assasiation of Gemayel should be mentioned,too, as well as the 2nd invasion of Beirut and the Sabra and Shatila massacre on the next day. These are main events that were reported aoround the world and did shape public opinion about the war. Has there been serious vandalizing, or is there any serious argument regarding the duration of the war? Imho this article is just a stub. Gray62 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The massacres are important because they resulted in 1/10th of the population of Israel (350,000 people) protesting the government's foreign policy and the resignation of Ariel Sharon. Any event which leads to such a shift in Israeli opinion is significant. User:Libertariansocialistdeist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertariansocialistdeist (talk • contribs) 22:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shebaa Farms

Style you keep reverting the change from Sheeba Farms to Shebaa Farms, which is the name of the Wikipedia article. Why? Jayjg 21:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Background

Jayjg, I have added completely new information to this page, there is no duplication, and the background is necessary to explain the context of the 1982 war. It's curious, the previous version's background went back to 1976 but you didn't delete that, Jayjg. And you still haven't explained your previous reverts. --style 18:34, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The (current) edit war seems to be over how much background to include. Instead of reverting, how about discussing these issues:

  • How much background should be included or excluded?
  • Why?

—No-One Jones (m) 19:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The background should deal with events immediately leading up to the conflict, and immediately relevant to it. A POV re-write of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict is not appropriate, particularly as it creates two contradictory version of that history; a see also is quite enough. And if it is appropriate to go back to 1948, why stop there? Why not go back to the 1929 Hebron riots, or the 1917 Balfour declaration, or Saladin, or the Muslim conquest, or the Roman conquest, or the Maccabean victories, or... Jayjg 21:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this, both of you. All the information in this page is accurate and relevant to the 1982 war, and consistent with historical facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only question is if it would be better on other pages. As a gesture of good faith, I have moved the 1948 background to History of Lebanon and the civil war background to Lebanese Civil War. The other pre-1982 information is important, and should remain on this page to show the history of PLO-Israeli conflict, unless someone has a better page for it. I am also considering creating a more general page, such as Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

--style 01:37, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

I think Style's suggestion of moving much of the detail to more appropriate articles has merit. If the text dealing with Operation Litani were moved into that article and the remainder cut down to some two- or three-sentence summaries, then we might end up with a level of background acceptable to all. —No-One Jones (m) 05:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I didn't want to create a new article, as it's difficult enough to contribute to existing articles, but as you think it's a good idea, I've made Operation Litani and put all the pre-1982 information there. I've left one paragraph summarizing the situation in Lebanon in, because I think one parapaph of background is acceptable as it's less than what was there before. (Remarks removed too, per request.)
IZAK: Nice work with the map, thanks, but I don't see the relevance of the 2000 events regarding resolution 425 to the 1982 war. I've moved your info (slightly edited) to Operation Litani, in accordance with WP norms. --style 08:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the info about the UN Sec Gen's certfication in 2000 that Israel has complied with UN Res 425, an important "official" ending for the 1982 invasion. IZAK 10:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Phosphorus

The paragraph contains important information about Israel's conduct in the war. It does not contain any extraneous details about phosphorus. Why is important information being deleted? And why are citations being deleted? --style 12:05, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

What do you imagine the important information that is "about Israel's conduct", not phosphorus shells, that is being deleted? Please be specific. Jayjg 19:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Firing cluster bombs into civilian areas, where children might play with them. And what do you imagine the important information that is "about phosphorus" that you are repeatedly deleting? Please be specific. --style 23:37, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Um, the version you keep reverting to says nothing about "firing cluster bombs into civilian areas". Try again. Jayjg 00:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's what is implied if children are playing with them. Why are you deleting the cite, regardless? That is against WP policy. --style 09:11, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
So you're saying I'm deleting something that's not actually in the text, but is implied by it? The sentence already uses the word "civilian" twice, I don't think that implies military. Jayjg 16:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Fisk Reference

Is this reference to Robert Fisk really necessary in this article? The paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading. What is the purpose of mentioning this? Why are there no factual statistics accompanying this point? Simply saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a quesitonable account of the events that transpired in this war. Moreover, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US. Is the intention of the author of this article to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee? If not, then perhaps the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.

-ecl26

Responding to your points in order:

  1. No, the reference to Robert Fisk is not really necessary to this article.
  2. Yes, the paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading.
  3. The purpose of mentioning it is to demonize Israel.
  4. There are no factual statistics accompanying it because Fisk didn't provide any; he was more interested in criticizing Israel than providing factual accounts.
  5. Yes, saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a questionable account of the events that transpired in this war.
  6. Yes, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US.
  7. Yes, the intention of the author of that particular part of the article was to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee?
  8. Yes, the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.

Hope that was helpful. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Israel POV

Two statements in this article seem to be anti-Israel propoganda to me: 1)n 10 July 1981, after a period of peace, the Israeli air force bombarded Palestinian targets in south Lebanon and later that day Palestinian elements fired artillery and rockets into northern Israel. After a period of peace??? What, the Israelis were the mean guys here??? And 2) Israeli provocations continued from August 1981 to May 1982 during which there were 2125 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters. Provocations??? Sure, the PLO was shelling Israeli villages from Lebanon, but hey, ISRAEL was the provoker, right? 69.58.249.133 12:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty POV. It's a longstanding problem with this article; see Talk: sections above. However, these specific edits are quite new. I'm not sure the editor realizes why this particular narrative is just one POV that should at least be attributed as such, rather than stated as bald fact. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's the point of weasel words such as "alleges"? Is this a new standard on Wikipedia, that for each source we have to say the source "alleges"? Also, Jayjg, why do you pick out certain quotes that you feel are anti-Israeli and say they come from "dubious" sources. Yuber(talk) 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is another source that confirms Ben Gurion's quote:[4].Yuber(talk) 23:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These quotes have very little to do with the Lebanon War. You are using a quote from 1937 to allege a connection with the Lebanon War, which is false. Secondly, dozens of sources need to be verified. What book did Robert Fisk use? What does a book review have to do with the extent of US involvement in Lebanon? When did this involvement start? Why was there no mention of the Airport bombing of the US marines stationed there?

This article is in need of alot of work.

Guy Montag 21:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You really shouldn't claim links are dead to remove quotes. The link works fine for me. Please cease your censoring of information by your removal of quotes.Yuber(talk) 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does a quote from 1937 have to do with the Lebanon War? If you can't explain that, it has nothing to do with this article.

Guy Montag 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. It shows that the desire to occupy southern Lebanon was not in response to PLO activity, but rather rooted in early Zionist aspirations. The quote serves to temper the Israeli claim that the invasion of Lebanon was solely to root out PLO militants.Yuber(talk) 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


No, it shows what you want it to show. It has nothing to do with the invasion of Lebanon, it is not relevant to this article. It is a speech by Ben Gurion in 1937. He wasnt even prime minister at that time. That was still the mandatory period. You are pushing your luck so far down in history to justify a war which happened for different reasons.You have no proof on anything other than your wild imagination.

Guy Montag 21:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy is absolutely right; bringing in a quote made by Ben Gurion in 1937 and insisting it was a justification for the 1982 Invasion (long after Ben Gurion was leading Israel) is rampant POV pushing. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This artical has a disgusting anti-Israeli tone running throught it, and needs to be monitered closely. I've cleaned what I can, and will return later to make sure that nutral language continues to prevale. Please, everybody, wikipedia is not the place to voice anti-Israelism. Rudy Breteler 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of the article

Is Invasion of Lebanon POV? Shouldn't it be a subset of the Lebanon civil war?

Guy Montag 02:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am starting an article on a novel, The Stone of Laughter, and i want to link to this page because this war is part of the backdrop for the novel. However, it is hard since the title "Lebanon War" seems to be from an Israeli standpoint and therefore pov. In Lebanon every war in a "Lebanon War" and this would be more likely refered to as the "Israeli War", which is also pov. Perhaps we could change to "1982 Israeli-Lebanesse War". CuttingEdge 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article names need not be NPOV. From the Wikipedia naming conventions for events:
  1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
  2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
  3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
I think the current title was chosen under point #2 (or possibly #1). The Israeli government still refers to it as Operation Peace for Galilee I believe, but Lebanon war appears to be more common (variations being 1982 Lebanon war, First Lebanon war, etc.), which is likely the reasoning behind the current title. — George Saliba [talk] 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It just seems odd when one is writing an article about a novel which is from a Lebanese point of view to refer to something as "The 1982 Lebanon war". Its not actually a problem as i can name the link whatever i want and direct it here, but i just wanted to make sure the issue had been given adequate thought. CuttingEdge 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katyusha Rockets

I too would like to see source for the Katyusha rocket range. It should also be pointed out that the Katyusha article itself is incomplete, as many Katyusha variants (such as the Iranian Fahr-3) sport longer range or increased payloads. It's entirely possible the 40 km range listed here is because Hezbollah used one of those variants.

I do not beleive that any accurate description can be given on the range of the Katyusha rockets as they are nototiously unreliable... --jonasaurus 21:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda sources? NPOV?

Ian, do you really imagine that Sayigh's PLO-based view is more "neutral" than the "propaganda sources" you have removed? We've already discussed this problem of introducing a particular narrative POV, and insisting it is fact. You can do better than this, and, in fact the NPOV policy demands you do better than this. Please quote the positions of both sides; otherwise, I might be forced to restore the previous, well-sourced version. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)


I heartily agree with Jayjg. Clearly, you have much to contribute from the works you cited, and you have made important additions in good faith. But it is just as important to do so in the right way, to assume good faith from others, and to realize that this is a topic where one should tread carefully, and make possibly controversial edits slowly. What is more important than introducing a particular narrative POV and insisting it is fact, even if it is, is to add things that are missing that no one has ever disagreed with - like the mine killing the soldier being in Lebanon (which is pretty obvious if you think about it - is the IDF so lax as to let other people lay mines in their territory?), or putting in enough such detail to avoid disputes. E.g. here putting in the one-line complete text of the Habib ceasefire and the US, Israeli and PLO interpretations would clarify things a lot. Removing sources is often not a good idea, especially when they are supporting statements which don't really conflict with what you want to say. Everyone here has shown good faith and made important additions to the article. Guy should not have reverted at least some of your additions - at the very least your additions to the references section should be preserved - (in one case it was cleaning up a mess I personally had left - incomplete references to Cobban), but for instance, his change of the article's name was absolutely right, and I was an idiot to even weakly oppose it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and it really does benefit from it, and the amount of good faith and honesty here is far in excess of what you see in debates on these matters anywhere else, where assuming bad faith on the part of a source until proved different is a pretty good rule. --John Z 1 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)

John, thanks for your comment. Would you be willing to take a crack at synthesizing a compromise between the two versions? Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Colleagues, I've checked sources on forces deployed again. I think the dispute surrounds the total forces deployed over the conflict versus the total forces in southern Lebanon at the outset of the conflict. There is also a minor dispute over the condition of those forces, but I don't this is worth covering. I've now included both. Please let me know if these are still disputed and I'll supply additional references. Obviously, the article shouldn't include anything known to be inaccurate and if there are important disputes over the facts we should just explain these as fairly as we can. --Ian Pitchford 3 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

The excised information includes the following: "by 1982 the PLO had at least 15,000 organized forces and about 18,000 militia, as well as large amounts of rockets, artillery, and hundreds of T-34 tanks.[5] [6] In April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer, Israeli air strikes and Palestinian rocket attacks recommenced.[7][8]" Please restore the information, particularly about the tanks and militia. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

I've no objection to your restoring this information if you think it can be verified, but to the best of my knowledge the claim of 15,000 full-time soldiers + 18,000 militia is wrong and in fact even the Jewish Virtual Library source you cite above [9] says 15-18,000. I don't know of any other source saying that there were hundreds of PLO tanks in the area. Some sources refer only to "dozens", but I've included the figure in the table of total forces deployed over the conflict, even though it's misleading because of the poor condition of the tanks. Palestinian rocket attacks didn't recommence after the Damour air strikes because the Americans told the PLO that the Israelis had told them that the strike was not in preparation for a ground invasion. --Ian Pitchford 3 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

[edit] TITLE IS RIDICULOUS

In order to be politically correct this article has become ridiculous. Nobody in the world refers to these events as the 1982 Lebanon war. Just do a google search. The article name should reflect the REAL name of the war, or else readers won't be able to access the article properly from the search box. We should name the articles the way the outside world call these events. Hence, the title of the article should be: Operation Peace in Galille or the Israeli Invasion of 1982. Or maybe both sentences if it's the only way people will agree.

WWII is named world war II not the great patriotic war (russian propaganda name).--equitor 07:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Great Patriotic War refers solely to the Eastern Front in Russian terminology. Why? Because the Russians did most of the fighting and the Eastern Front was mostly on Russian soil. It is their own little war in the context of WW2. The Lebanon war did not start with Operation Peace for the Galillee, and WW2 was not about the Great Patriotic War. Neutral historians refer to the entire scope of events as the 1982 Lebanon War. There is not reason to insert pov names when we have already a neutral one.

Guy Montag 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


It seems to me that Operation Peace in Galilee is very rarely used (a google search yields fewer than 200 results). Furthermore, it would proably be seem as POV in favor of Israel (comperable to calling the Iraq War Operation Iraq Freedom). I think the current title should be kept. This issue has already been dealt with, and it seems consensus has been reached. Unless there are others who dispute the title, it should stay. Theshibboleth 12:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep; Title is fine - using either side's description is POV. Current title is as neutral as it can be. Celcius 23:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually a search on google of Operation Peace for Galilee yields 330 000 results.

[edit] The Israeli withdrawal

The Israeli withdrawal to the security zone was over in June 1985, but this withdrawal started already in January 1985, after the government's decision to withdraw from Lebanon! Toya 14:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crime and punishment - Osama bin Laden vs BB New jersey

In the late 2004 "golden robe" video Osama bin Laden clearly states that 9/11 was punishment for the USN 6th Fleet battleship New Jersey destroying the lebanese coastal villages with its 16" main guns in 1984. Where such a giant high explosive grenade fell nothing remained in a circle of 250 meters. He wanted american towers to collapse in exchange for the towers of lebanon that fell. This is the most significant consequence of the Lebanon invasion. Hear: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/30/terror/main652425.shtml

Just because Osama Bin Laden makes that claim now doesn't mean it is actually true. Consider the source. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I inserted this sentence into the article: "Osama Bin Laden said in a videotape released on the eve of the 2004 U.S. presidential elections that he was inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital."

This is very important information and deserves to be in the article under the section "consequences."Walkerson 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences on Aerial Combat

There should also be a sections for the consequences that this war had on the way aerial battles where wag. This was the most significant change in the evolution of aerial war since wwII. Up to this point each pilot was on his own, the IAF was the first to use a main fluting base point to direct the fight at progress speed, real time. This was the beginning of the use of animation within the pilot’s helmets to increase his reaction time by over 2.5. And many other significant progressions in aerial combat, after which neither the American nor the Russian military could ignore. BTW, this article has a highly anti-Israeli POV.

[edit] Language and style

I have started to correct some of the poor poor English and clumsy style in the Political Results section (4.3), and to fix missing links -- without, at this stage, making any of the factual historical/political content changes which should also be made. But there is a great deal of it, and I should be working! I will return to this later; but others are also welcome to assist in turning this into a more readable article -- then we can worry about the content. RolandR 12:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Non POV-neutral

I normally dont make too much fuss about POV/NPOV, but this is pushing it. Whoever wrote this obviously has a deepseated hatred of Israel and a desire to believe and cause others to believe that they are simply a bunch of terrorists. I'm slightly surprised the author didn't mention that Jews make bread with the blood of arab children. Jamesg 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Jamesg, this article is way over the line in places. I'm considering reporting it to be put as disputed neutrality. Rudy Breteler 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is far from perfect and could do with significantly more substantiation of the facts and figures it presents, but I don't detect any systematic bias towards either side. Tchicherine 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

"Rafael Eitan, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, responded to the aforementioned information in his famous saying "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to screw PLO!" ("!אבו נידאל, אבו שמידאל. צריך לדפוק את אש"ף")."

"We need to screw PLO!" is hardly NPOV.

[edit] "Hezbollah Victory" by 213.114.215.156

I believe that "Hezbollah Victory" isn't quite correct. In fact, the interpretation of who "won" the conflict is so subjective I don't think you can say that either side "won." Thus, I don't know what to put in the "result" section for this entry. I'll put something, but I won't be surprised if it gets reverted back to "Hezbollah Victory" within a short amount of time. Cla68 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Does it mean that if the US ever leaves Afganistan or Irak they lost those wars? That doesn't make any sense. The israeli goal of the war wasn't to keep the Lebaneese territory, hence you can't measure the israeli succes or failure in those terms. I dont know much about Clausewitz, but didn't the guy wrote about 200 years ago? Wars have changed a bit since then, eh?--Rataube 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] doughtful section removed from consequences section

" While it is unclear if the 1982 Lebanon War truly was the motivation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Osama bin Laden claimed this was his motivation for the attacks in a taped message released to Al-Jazeera on the eve of the 2004 United States Presidential elections. In the tapes, he claimed that he held the U.S. responsible for this war." Doesn't seem to belong to me so I've removed it. Jon 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sheik Osama bin Laden said in the 2004 video exactly that he "first thought to fell america's towers when he saw lebanon's towers fell" during the ziano-american invasion. It was america which did the largest destruction in lebanon when the battleship New Jersey ruined 12 villages in three days with two-ton gunshells, killing 5000 people. This attack was carried out due to zionist request.
At that time sheik Osama was active in the Afghanistan jihad of liberation againt the soviet satan and he felt america is a traitor when it stabs arabs and muslims in the back, while the jihadists are shedding their blood to save the world and especially america from the communist satan. So the unquellable hatred arose in him towards america and the jews who control america and make them do such evil deeds.


[edit] Balance in question warning?

I came to this article looking for some details on the specific campaign it is about. The military detail is pretty much non-existant. What is present in a considerable degree is one side's version, without the other side's being presented at all. I checked the references. I only recognize one author, whose POV is well known to be on a specific side. Several titles make clear their bias to the same side while the rest are neutral. Either neutral references only should be used or pro-Israeli references should be added and cited. It was so apparent this article had taken a side I scrolled up looking for one of those "the balance of this article is in question" boxes you see on other articles because I hadn't remembered seeing one. There was not one and there definately should be. I'm not sure what the policy is on adding them (my wikipedia editting experience is limited to just a few error corrections to date).

Some actual information on the campaign might be nice as well. Course of the fighting is the shortest section. That seems very odd for a military article.

[edit] Conflict -- who killed Shlomo Argov?

This article says he was killed by Fatah but the article on Shlomo Argov says he was killed by Abu Nidal. So which is it? -- Kendrick7 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I figured it out. -- Kendrick7 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No wait, now I'm confused again. -- Kendrick7 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The artcile says he was killed by "Fatah-The Revolutionary Council" - which is the offical name of Abu Nidal's group. In other words, there's no conlict "Fatah-The Revolutionary Council"=ABu Nidal. Isarig 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I delve into this more below. But when I first read this, I thought it meant PLO's Fatah, then I started reading the article on Adu Nidal, and concluded since he was once a member of Fatah, it made sense (that's when I said above, incorrectly, that I had figured it out). Then, I read a little further to where the Abu Nidal article says Nidal actually left and founded a group in opposition to the PLO, or at least its methods, leaders, whatever. Which is when I came back still confused, because by then I'd forgotten, or even skipped over, the phrase "Fatah Revolutionary Council" sprinkled among the Arabic in that article's opening sentence. If I hadn't had a passing knowledge about the affair from other sources which made it not quite click to begin with, I would have been left in ignorance. I try to edit articles keeping in mind the ignorant reader, and on many topics you'd be surprised how easy that is! -- Kendrick7 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Requesting a move to a non-POV title -- Kendrick7 09:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? How is this non-POV? The war happened in Lebanon and involved Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, and Israelis (plus, eventually, peacekeepers from other countries). Why choose two of the many parties involved to name the war? It makes more sense to name it after where it occurred. Calbaer 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Because the sovereign nation of Israel invaded the sovereign nation of Lebanon. -- Kendrick7 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
...which was being occupied by the PLO (Israel's target) and by Syria (which also invaded the country). Again, to be fair, you would have to call it the 1982 Syrian-Palestianian-Israeli Lebanon War or something similarly ungainly. Leaving out two of the four primary participants is more POV than simply stating where it took place. True, the defined start of the war was Israel's invasion of Lebanon. But we don't call WWI the 1918 Austro-Serbian War or WWII the 1939 German-Polish War. (In this case, the war doesn't have a firmly established name, but Lebanon War is used far, far more than Israel-Lebanon War, for the reasons detailed above.) Anyway, similar moves have already been discussed and dismissed (see above talk page entries), so it would be appropriate to remove the request unless you have anything new to add. Calbaer 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't complicated. A lot of sources would say both Syria and the PLO were invited guests of the Lebanese government (cf. the Cairo Agreement for example); the proposed title still describes what occured accurately -- an act of war (the invasion) by one sovereign against another resulting in a prolonged conflict (and in this case, occupation). I understand they are now calling it the First Lebanon War in Israel, but I can't find a cite for what they call it in Lebanon; having those in the lead would throw me a bone. Does Lebanon call it "our war?" "Our war 1982"?? -- Kendrick7 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Lebanon numbers their wars, but they've had so many conflicts I'm not sure which war this counts as; perhaps it was something like "the second Israeli war of agression against Lebanon." Not exactly POV, that. Israel's official name for the invasion was "Operation Peace for the Galilee," but that's neither POV nor catchy. By the way, the opinion Syria and the PLO were "invited guests" of the government is odd in light of their hostility with each other at the time of their "invitations"; the linked article seems to imply that this is likely a conspiracy theory with little basis in fact. Calbaer 07:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm rescinding the move request. Lebanese sources seem to just call it the Israeli invasion, but I'm not onto anything definitive. -- Kendrick7 16:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the backlog at requested moves, where this is listed. At this point, I don't see anything like a clear consensus for a move, but there is some disagreement with the present title. Please continue to discuss, and if a consensus to move to a better title emerges, please do so. Jonathunder 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally called the 1982 Israeli invasion, at least in Lebanon. 1982 Lebanon War makes no sense, except from a purely Israeli perspective (Wikipedia, I believe, aspires to a global perspective), as the Lebanon war lasted from 1975 to 1990. Palmiro | Talk 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. Googling for 1982 Lebanon war yields about a million and a half hits. Googling "1982 Lebanon war" produces nearly 30,000. Googling for "1982 Israeli invasion" produces a simialr result of around 33,000 hits. What lasted from 1975 to 1990 is the Lebanese civil war, which has its own article. Isarig 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Two Fatah's

I have no idea what exactly Fatah means in Arabic (struggle or something??), but Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini (Fatah (a reverse acronym), the PLO's military wing) is easily confused with Fatah al-Majles al-Thawry (the Fatah Revolutionary Council) which is commonly called the Abu Nidal Organization (note these both go to the same article). This distinction should be made in the lead, and probably throughout the article, to avoid this confusion, though it might go along way to explain if Israeli Intelligence really got them mixed up at some point, as some alledge. -- Kendrick7 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isarig's removal and WP:RS

Here is the texts that isarig removed and their corresponding sources:

  • were allied to Israel : The 1982 massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps claimed the lives of at least 800 civilians, murdered by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel during its brief occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. (BBC[10])
  • Israel sent the Phalange : On September 16, 1982 the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia entered the Beruit refugee camps called Sabra and Shatila. Their mission was authorized by the Israeli IDF, under the command of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, that held the territory around Beirut (palestinefacts.org isarig: if you don't think it is a RS please explain why)
  • The force is to drive out the remaining "2000 PLO terrorist" Mr Sharon declared that "2,000 terrorists" remained in Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. Sabra and Shatila were surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, with checkpoints to monitor the entry or exit of any person. But on the afternoon of 16 September about 150 LF fighters moved into the camps. (BBC)
  • Investigation result that Sharon was responsible for the massacre : Mr Sharon resigned his post after an Israeli commission of inquiry established that he bore indirect responsibility for the deaths (BBC), and also In 1983, an Israeli state inquiry found Mr Sharon, then defence minister, indirectly responsible for the killing of hundreds of men, women and children at Sabra and Shatila camps during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. (Reuters reprinted by the Irish Times if you don't think Reuters are not RS please explain why)

Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sources do not say "The Israeli command sent a force of about 150 Phalange fighters into the the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps". They say only the Phalange's request to enter the camps was authorized by the IDF. The two are not the same.
Your sources do not say That the IDF was "claiming it was to drive out a remaining force of "2000 PLO terrorists"- you combined one statement from one source that has Sharon claiming there are 2,000 terrorist in that camp, with WP:OR that has the IDF making that claim.

Your sources do not say "Israeli troops guarded the exits to the camps preventing anyone from leaving", they say only that the IDF had checkpoints around the camp. the two are not the same. This is a pattern of subtle POV changes, that together serve to create a very POV presntationm of events. The previous version is factual and more neutral. Isarig 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The casus belli

Nielswik has been inserting a casus belli that, besides false, does not make sense. Nielswik, if you read over the original casus belli, it says "PLO artillery attacks on northern Israel, and attempted assassination..." would you like me to put it back to that. I edited it to make it more correct. Nielswik, first of all, please learn what a casus belli is. A wish is not an act of war of initiation of hostilities. Israel may have wished to end the PLO presence in Jordan (which is on their border), but they did act on it. After exile from Jordan, the PLO redirected their threat to Israel. THAT is a casus belli, not a "wish". Just like the recent Hezbollah War's casus belli was their murder of eight soldiers and kidnapping of two, not Israel's "wish" to get back their abducted soldiers. If you need more examples, I can give more. --Shamir1 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of PLO Anti-Tank Weapons

Were there between 2 and 300, as the table states, or between 200 and 300 as the table implies? The latter seems much more likely to me as statistics are rarely presented with such high margins. Although usually fine in conversations, such an abbreviation is unsuitable in this case. Would someone who knows the minimum estimate either change it to 200, or tell me that the minimum estimate is in fact 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] International role including the US

I find that this article gives little or no mention of the position of the UN and the US on the conflict. I'm making some changes adding this additional perspective.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SLA patch.png

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article displays a clear anti-Israel bias.

As an example, the sections on the causes of the war itself are clearly biased in favor of the PLO and against Israel. This article fails to grasp that the 1982 war was clearly a continuation of the 1978 Operation Litani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)