Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Actual numbers of Hezbollah militants ?

Does anyone have information (which I think prudent factual data that should be posted in this article, especially since they are now a party in the conflict)how many militants does Hizbollah has exactly or approximately? --Tigry 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Their military wing consists only of a few hundred soldiers. Becoming a member of its military wing is quite difficult, as apposed to its other (i.e. humanitarian) wings where you may just join if you can contribute in any way. ArmanJan 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I did find one source, not sure of its credz.. Here is what I propose adding to the Armed Strength section:

The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates Hezbollah forces to 600-1000 active fighters (with 3,000 - 5,000 available and 10,000 reservists), 10,000 - 15,000 rockets of the Katyusha, Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 type. They also estimate a stockpile of 30 missiles of the Zelzal type. Source: The International Institute For Strategic Studies (2006-07-21). Agence France Presse - Lebanese army faces no-win situation. Retrieved on 2006-08-01.

Let me know what you think. Mceder 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It was referred to by the BBC in 2004 as an "influential group" : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm It also has a Wikipedia entry, so it must be good! Anybody who feels they're incompetent or slanted can argue about it on that page and refer to the argument here. I vote Yes to the IISS! JiHymas@himivest.com 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Inserted into the article. Mceder 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Check this: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505130316 ArmanJan 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to Al-Qaeda

There is written: During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's deputy leader, called for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon.[93

maybe some palestinian communists want to fight with Isral too.Does it mean they have link to Hezbollah. I think this sentence show Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda have the same enemy. But their religion, idealogy, strategy, tactics, organizatio are so different that maybe they fight in the cases like Iraq. So I think there is only US and Israel who claim these two organization are related and the others thnk they are compeletly different.--212.6.32.3 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they operate like any other big independent enterprises: they may be competitors, they may have huge differences, but from time to time they find their interests are served by cooperation. The first wartime example that comes to mind is China during the second war - in the former, the Nationalists and Communists cooperated against the Japanese, then went back to fighting each other. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
OKay Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization and has no links to AL-Qaeda. Wake up people, that is just propganda to further deminize them.

Edit War! See the versions:

  • 19:38, 2 August 2006 JiHymas@himivest.com (->Al Qaeda (reduce editorializing))
  • 19:35, 2 August 2006 JiHymas@himivest.com (->Al Qaeda (remove lengthy quotations, retain refs & redLinks))
  • 19:29, 2 August 2006 Bertilvidet (revert - some of the presented POV's may be relevant, but should be presented at this, we can not have a long list of what various conspiration theories within conservative think tanks)
  • 19:06, 2 August 2006 84.105.186.230 (Talk) (→Allegations of links to Al-Qaeda)

User "84.105.186.230" posted some links and extremely lengthy extracts from some opinion pieces; Bertilvidet reverted them while I was editing them. What should we be doing about these things? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits seem very reasonable, and did indeed improve the article. Thanks. Bertilvidet 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

pov TAG

nasrallah is anti-Zionist not anti jews

There is written in the idealogy section:

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

This is text of worldnetdaily.com:

Hezbollah terrorist leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warns "Christian Zionists" are gaining strength in the United States and are having a powerful impact on U.S. foreign policy.Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Lebanon, Nasrallah charged oil companies and weapons manufacturers have financed these "Christian Zionists," according to a report in Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper. "Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several U.S. presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists." Nasrallah said the aim of the Christian Zionists in the U.S. is to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." [1]

As you see they distorted nasrallah quotations. so I put the other part of this quotation in the article to prevent misinformation--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can finds original Arabic text.--Sa.vakilian 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above doesn't follow at all. Firstly, quotation and indirect speech is being mixed indiscriminately: Actually, the text referred to above is what WorldNetDaily [2] writes, basing its information possibly on the Lebanese The Daily Star [3].
The only direct speech is
  • "Christian Zionists" (2x)
  • "Their aim is to redraw the world's political map"
  • "It is said that several U.S. presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists"
  • "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"
As grammar demands, all quotes are marked by quotation marks, editorial insertions are enclosed in brackets. The editorial insertion "(Jews)" is present in all 4 sources given, including the Daily Star's - it represents the 4 newspaper's interpretation of what Nasrallah said. Besides, N. isn't speaking of "Christian Zionists" returning to Israel - he speaks of "Christian Zionists" in the U.S. helping "Jews" to "return" to Israel.
However, even on the drastically flawed assumption that the worldnetdaily text would have been Nasrallah's direct speech, the inferrence that it devaluates the New York Times', the New York Sun's, and historian Michael Rubin's assertions is
  1. baseless (that's my judgment, following logic and semantics. Being a mere WP editor, it's non-authoritative, of course)
  2. your inference - and WP editors are not to infer nor to qualify authoritative sources' assertions, lest by other authoritative sources.
--tickle me 06:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This interpretation is POV and we shouldn't write this text in the article. I beleive they calumniated Nasrallah. They blamed him for anti-semitism but actualy he is anti-zainism. There is no evidence Hezbollah bother or hurt Jews who aren't related in Israel like Iranian Jews. Although if they wanted, they could do it easily. --Sa.vakilian 06:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is POV - it's the Point of View of authoritative sources, which we are to cite. What we are not to cite is our POV. "I beleive they calumniated Nasrallah": it's completely irrelevant what you believe, and it doesn't matter if you agree with authoritative sources: you are an WP editor. The POV tag is unwarranted, and posted ignoring elementary WP:POV policy. --tickle me 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't write view of editors of some newpapers and sites as if it is the evidence that shows Hezbollah wants to kill all Jews.--Sa.vakilian 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you hear his speeches, Nasrallah has always called Israel the "Zionaist state" and never the "Jewish state". CG 07:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: if that is what notable newspapers believe to be true, we are to cite it per WP:RS. Besides, Nasrallah is being quoted verbatim. You're not to delete or defame well sourced info based on your POV, which ought never to interfere with WP articles. Your editing here shows blatant disregard and ignorance of WP:POV, WP:RS and WP:OR. I don't know how to put it more clearly: your opinion on what Hezbollah does or does not want is completely irrelevant. You are not to edit according to what you choose to believe.
@CG: You fail to understand the most basic WP principles as well - you infer from what he allegedly never said - you are not to do so: it's WP:OR. This is utterly disheartening. --tickle me 08:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If you search in the web, You'll find that most of the sites say anti-semitism and anti-zionism is equal or they have close relation. This is their Idea and we can't say this is the idealogy of Hezbollah. So you can make a section about some ideas about Hezbollah and write it there. But we can't write this interpretation as Hezbollah's idealogy unless we find a quotation which clearly shows this.--Sa.vakilian 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Basing inferences, which we are not to use anyway, on unspecified web searches is a mockery of orderly academic, WP related, or any cogent evaluation. Nasrallah holds Jews to be "a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment." You'r welcome to find that non anti-Semite. However, you're not to mislabel sources because you don't fancy to believe Nasrallah's own words - which happen to be refreshingly clear and unambiguous. And if the New York Times interprets quotes like this:
  • "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
  • "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."
  • "Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”
  • "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."
as "genocidal thinking", as most will, you are just free to disbelieve the obvious - not to (dis)qualify this directly by omission or indirectly by POV tag. I really would appreciate if you'd not deny those of Nasrallah's positions which he happily, proudly, and publicly holds - it amounts to WP:POINT. --tickle me 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian's editing has been very valuable to this article - a few weeks ago the article was highly skewed towards the anti-Hezbollah POV and his challenging of unsubstantiated conclusions, with his additions of material regarding Hezbollah's non-military activities have been very useful. I don't really care whether Nasrullah's attitudes are labelled 'anti-Zionist', 'anti-Jew', 'pro-Arab' or whatever. I just want to see direct quotations and authoritative analysis that will help me understand what Nasrullah & Hezbollah are all about. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to value these contributions as "direct quotations and authoritative analysis". I don't: it's jaw-gaping POV and utterly unwikipedic by any conceivable standard. And so were the other edits I contend. Two goods don't make up for one wrong, much less for many. I'm having a legitimate beef with this ongoings, and I don't value blurb thrown in the middle to water issues. I couldn't care less for last week's edits. We don't get awarded goodwill points to go wild unhindered, once an agenda demands it, to wit:
UPPERCASING, repetitive phrase-mongering, suggestive ellipses, mapped to example.com for want of even the most spurious of sources? I'm accustomed by now to specious manipulation, but what's that supposed to be? WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, or just a stone age agitprop seminary ...mock-up? Heck, there's not the least pretense left of WP centered intentions anymore. And nobody minds around here. --tickle me 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This was missing: Sa.vakilian's "authoritative analysis". Sv is a wikipedian, as such he *is not* to analyse, but to *find and quote or relate accurately* analyses. Moreover, whatever he does, writes, thinks: it's *not* authoritative for WP - *ever*. The preceding is the essence of WP policy linked above, which is openly mocked here. --tickle me 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Attacking "Sa.vakilian's authoritative analysis"? Referring to my post? If you actually read my post, you will not find this statement in anything I've said. Please refrain from personal attacks, in any case. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I forgot to put link last time(Hezbollah official website). But I corrected it. --Sa.vakilian 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)moved here by --tickle me 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an official Hezbollah statement - it says what it is, by whom and when. That is an anonymous archive search result page, I labeled it accordingly. An official Hezbollah statement on this has yet to be found, lest they should amend that page. --tickle me 05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Tickle me - I just read through this thing.. Can we please put down the arms, get back to business, stop pointing out every WP policy violation? I can not eat breakfast without violating at least three WP policies. But it seems that arguing semantics does little to help this article along. Can we start over? Clearly and concisely spell out what you feel should be added, altered or removed? Cause at this point, I am frankly confused but want to help. Cheers, Mceder 03:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I just edited some vandalism attempt that wrote on the main description 'MURDEROUS ISLAMO-FASCIST PIG' organization, or something like that. Someone should check the history and see who's the one doing it. Thief12 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other types of vandalism have also been occuring, people have been removing statements of fact such as "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization." While that type of statement is often mistaken as POV, in cases like this it is a statement of fact and should not be removed.

Considering only three countries in the world has actually labeled Hezbollah as a whole, a terrorist organisation, the statement "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization" IS POV (namely the US, Israel and Canadas point of view). That is why we refrain from making blanket statement, and rather state WHO thinks they are terrorist. Calling an organization terrorist is not a fact since the definition of terrorism is hardly clear cut and factual.
On the other hand, I do not think you will find the line stating that they are NOT a terrorist organisation even though that is the POV of many countries.. Mceder 12:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I think the whole article is quite POV, but more importantly simply poorly written! There are at least three references to "Hezbollah is considered by Lebanon to be a legitimate resistance movement". Once is quite enough...
Why somebody remove this sentence "which result in killing innocent people[1] but not others. For example" from this part
"Hezbollah has denounced some acts of terror which result in killing innocent people[2] but not others. For example, it condemned the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but not the attack on the Pentagon.[3] It denounced Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt[4], and the murder of Nick Berg[5]. However, it expresses support and sympathy[6] for the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamist groups responsible for suicide attacks and armed resistance in Israel and the Palestinian territories. "
As you see it makes the meaning clearer. I added Hezbollah's definition of innocent people to make the meaning clearer.--Sa.vakilian 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all. The section title is Allegations of specific terrorist attacks. There is nothing specific referenced in the quote from the Robin Wright article. This snippet should certainly appear somewhere in the article, but not here - and not three times, either! It is currently quoted in "Ideology", "Allegations of specific terrorist attacks" and "Rebuttals of terrorist designation". Once would be quite enough - I suggest the last section is most appropriate. JiHymas@himivest.com 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I merged this part with "Rebuttals of terrorist designation" .--Sa.vakilian 09:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The structure as it was and as it is again makes perfect sense to me: there is a section regarding specific allegations, there is a section regarding general allegations (or specification) and there is a section for rebuttal (which looks really weak, by the way : you may wish to spend some energy looking for something a little stronger). I suggest that major changes to the article structure not be made until they have been discussed here ... and by "discussed", I mean that a suggestion should be up for at least 24 hours before action is taken. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My dear friend many people have editted this article and some of them don't pay attention to this page. I propose you to improve this part. I think you can do it well.--Sa.vakilian 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of holding you responsible for other people's actions. I'll only consider you responsible for your own actions. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write that part(Designation as terrorist organization ). I've only tried to improve it. Of course this part is very disputable. I prefer to move it to a new article and write an abstract instead of it.--Sa.vakilian 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

References!

  1. ^ Inside the Mind of Hezbollah by Robin Wright, The Washington Post, July 16, 2006
  2. ^ Inside the Mind of Hezbollah by Robin Wright, The Washington Post, July 16, 2006
  3. ^ Wright, Robin. "Inside the Mind of Hezbollah", The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2006-08-01. 
  4. ^ Hezbollah's condemnation of murder of civilians in Egypt and Algeria is described in Saad-Ghorayeb, p. 101.
  5. ^ Usher, Sebastian. "Muted Arab reaction to Berg beheading", BBC News. Retrieved on 2006-07-27. 
  6. ^ The Brunswickan Online. "Hizbollah promises Israel a blood-filled new year, Iran calls for Israel's end". 

New Subsection : Links to Hamas ?

We have an entire section with 'Links to other armed groups' in the title and the only group mentioned is Al-Qaeda. I suggest we start another sub-section called 'Links to Hamas' which should be much more interesting. We could start it off with a quote from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33566.pdf

Hamas. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, suggested that the Hezbollah operation might provide a way out of the crisis in Gaza because Israel had negotiated with Hezbollah indirectly in the past although it is refusing to negotiate with Hamas now. He said that the only way the soldiers would be returned would be through a prisoner exchange. Although Hezbollah and Hamas are not organizationally linked, Hezbollah has acted in some ways as a mentor or role model for Hamas, which has sought to emulate the Lebanese group’s political and media success. Hamas’s kidnaping of the Israeli soldier follows a different Hezbollah example. Hezbollah reportedly also has provided terrorist training for Hamas, and the two groups share

the goal of driving Israel from occupied territories and ultimately from Israel proper; both maintain close ties with Iran. and see where it leads.

What do other editors think? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This editor agrees, noteworthy and interesting - as long as it is factual. Mceder 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They're the baddest motherf**kers, and not in a good way. --66.218.13.28 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added Al Manar broadcasts from 2004 to present thanks to Memri.org. This is Hezbollah's official tv station and they pretty much show Nasrallah calling for the outright destruction of Israel and America with the caviat that this war will end when the Zionists leave the region and America discontinues it's relations and policies with Islamic nations. He said it not me.

Hezbollah's connection with Hamas is strictly an alliance against Israel. Arabs living inside Israel are Sunni population and Hezbollah are Shiah. If Israel were ever destroyed, and I imagine even sooner, Hamas and Hezbollah would kill each other the exact same way that Iraqis do today, and probably one of many reasons Iraq and Iran fought so miserably for so many years in the Iran-Iraq War Labaneh 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian has put a minor edit on this section with an edit note "Please brief this quotation". What parts of the quotation do you feel are extraneous? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Israel

We can write a new section about relation, operations and negotiations between Hezbollah and Israel.--Sa.vakilian 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article's about Hezbollah & Israel anyway. What are you proposing? To move other sections into an 'Israel & Hezbollah' section? Or to fill this section with new material? If the former, which sections? If the latter, what topics for the new material? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Manar broadcasts

These were added in the revision of 16:45, 4 August 2006. I haven't looked at them - the titles certainly look inflammatory, but if it's Nasrallah speaking for himself on his own TV station then I see no reason to reject them out of hand - quite the contrary! I am concerned about the titles and the short descriptions of content: Are these taken from Al-Manar or are they editorializing? Also, is the clip that claims to feature a "young student" of any relevance? Young Students can say anything they want - and usually do - without any significance. It would be a lot more to my taste if these clips were included in the article as citations for statements that were better integrated into the text, e.g. (assuming the content descriptions are accurate, if a little POV) "In May, 2004, Nasrallah called for 'Death to America' (ref)link to clip(/ref)" in the Ideology section. Any other thoughts? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


JiHymas, this section fits in perfectly under media relations.

Minimizing the affect that mass media has on millions of people, particularly inciteful histrionic speaches calling for the death of Israel, America and the West, does an explanation of Hezbollah a tremendous disservice.Labaneh 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, this plays into a wider issue of Hezbollah, Iranian, Iraqi, Egyptian and Palestinian Mass Media inciting children:

A Lebanese Girl's calls on the Muslim world to beat the drums of Jihad and reconquer Jerusalem

Jews Turn into Apes and Pigs in an Clay-mation Film for Children on Hizbullah TV

Mothers of Hizbullah Martyrs Are Very Happy And Want to Sacrifice More Children on Hezbollah TV

Young Child Doesn't Want Peace with the Jews

Inciting Palestinian Cartoon for Kids

Adult Sheik explains martyrdom for children.

I added an abstract from Al-Manar article.--Azmanet 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think following part should add at wikiqute not wikipedia. Of course it shouldn't be written at the Almanar section.--Azmanet 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
(Click Link to View Video Clip [1])

Let me repeat: Minimizing the affect that mass media has on millions of people, particularly inciteful histrionic speaches calling for the death of Israel, America and the West, does an explanation of Hezbollah a tremendous disservice, and furthermore, does a tremendous disservice to the world at large.Labaneh 20:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A greater disservice to the world at large is sloganeering and poor argument on such a subject. Nobody on this talk page or in the article is minimizing anything. This is only reasonable, because no argument emphasizing "the affect [sic] that mass media has on millions of people" has yet been made or referred to. Posting links to inflammatory video clips is not an argument or even a reference to an argument. If you insist on having the article say something like "Al-Manar incites violence and creates misery; if it didn't exist then the world would be a better place" then find an authoritative source who has made that argument and cite it. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas, I'm not going to cite half the world that thinks that terrorists are indeed...terrorists! I'm not going to because some schmuck is just going to delete it as POV. This is the essense of fact, if you want to change the headings to nasrallah says have a nice day then do it, but don't delude yourself to thinking he wants anything but the destruction of the US, Israel and the West.

Media in the Arab world is Inciting, inflamitory and incorrigable. It is the distilled essense of Propaganda in every way - far more than Fox, CNN or any other Western network that gives a tinge to the left or right. Western Media doesn't call out to "kill every last one of them until they concede to our way of thinking" It doesn't have cartoons for children showing Arabs making some halal food with the blood of Jews. It doesn't have children crying out BUTCHER THE ARABS. Arab media demonizes the Jews and the West in these ways. They have music videos on killing the US in every way and to every audience, and this inciting language is a piece of the larger conflict.Labaneh 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the broadcasts should be moved to the Al Manar article. --Coolintro 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They were moved there but they were removedLabaneh 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Marine barracks bombing

I modified the sentence about this a bit to make it NPOV. I think that to denote it as a terrorist act is very POV. I deleted the sentence that it is widely regarded as the start of modern terrorism. I think that that claim should be sourced. Count Iblis 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked your change. According to the referenced 1983 Beirut barracks bombing article, it is thought to be one of the first instances of suicide bombing, but the article provides no citation to support that argument. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of counter-examples if I tried! As far as being terrorism ... well, the American judge called it terrorism, http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/ , so while we can argue POV, at least we can argue authoritative POV! JiHymas@himivest.com 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! The ruling of the judge could be included in the reference list. Saying that a US judge ruled it to be a terror attack is not POV because then any possible POV refers not to the actual event (the bombings) but to the judge making his ruling... Count Iblis 00:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Too Long

This article becomes too long. Please move some part of it to a new article.--Sa.vakilian 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of duplication of statements (e.g., resolution 1559 is mentioned roughly 1559 times, despite having its own article) which could be condensed, but I don't really see any good candidates for sub-articles. Any ideas? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Source Material

I haven't read this thoroughly yet, but it's testimony to the Senate titled "Hezbollah: Financing Terror Through Criminal Enterprise" with lots of references. A first glance suggests that it's got a lot of background that will be useful for the article. On the web at http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/LevittTestimony.pdf JiHymas@himivest.com 06:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are Hizbollah

Who are the people that constitute Hezbollah both the military and political wing? The organization looks to be a national group but, the media is describing as a regional group made up of people from all over the mid-east.

I've heard reports anywhere from 4-20 cabinet members are outright Hezbollah members. THAT list woulds probably be the most helpful to us - everything else is speculation since the Hezbollah are such a tricky bunch. They are state sponsored by Iran, heavily harbored by Syria, and have forced themselves into Lebanon with the help of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. They have their strongest presence in those areas. There is a Hezbollah Iraq faction, but it's no where near as powerful as the one that's been bolstered and training in Lebanon for 6 years. Outside of that it's difficult to tell where they are because if they make their presence known, they risk being quashed by various interests: either Western or Sunni. They probably have a medium to light presence in the Americas, Asia/Australia and more heavily in Europe. Their army has been estimated from 1000-5000 strong.Labaneh 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact Tag on 'Cabinet positions due to confessionalism'

I have seen no argument that Hezbollah's cabinet positions are a direct result of confessionalism, so I've put a fact tag on this statement. It is my understanding that the current government is, basically, a 'government of national unity' and that Hezbollah was invited as they have significant support in the population, confessionalism or no confessionalism. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The confusion comes because the Lebanese government was never given a chance to do anything but fight (or aid) corruption. The cabinet was sort of a unity government, but under complete duress of the Hezbollah:
The Maronites have their own villages, commerce and weaponry, only relying on the Lebanese government for kickbacks and corruption. The Christian communities have been so devastated by the last civil war, that they don't care what government they empower, so long as they have peace in their towns.
The Druze are in a similar situation, except there has been a slight rebellious attitude from the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who has been outspoken against Hezbollah's actions. On several occasions, Nasrallah has called Jumblatt's comments outrageous and said that Jumblatt's blasphemy might cause a civil war. It is understood in Arabic that this is a clear threat against the Druze population, since religeously, the Druze would not attempt to dominate over another culture.
On the other hand, The Hezbollah, is a well oiled machine. Externally funded by Iran, Hezbollah has it's own agenda, the least amount of corruption and a focus on Islamocentric 'social programs' in the Shiite community. Their role in the weak Lebanese government is simple: dictate the few terms Hezbollah really cares about: attacking Israel, growing the Shiite community, controlling the media and quashing dissent. Hezbollah's true strengths come from their victory in terrorizing not Israel, but the Maronite and Druze populations. As long as the Christians and Druze let Hezbollah do whatever it wants, they live in a quazi-comfortable understanding - the Maronites and Druze let Hezbollah attack Israel (and keep quiet about it, even support it at times) and Hezbollah would overlook their Christian and Druze counterparts, for now. Labaneh 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the infamous sentence "due to confessionalism", and must now admit that it is maybe not the optimal formulation. My point, which I believe should be stated, is that Hezbullahs presence in the government not is due to ordinary parliamentarism, where a majority or the largest minority group form a coalition based on political allignment. With the confessional system, the different religious groups have to cooperate and share the power- thus it is easier for groups like Hezbollah to get a relative important degree of influence. But please feel free to reword the sentence. Bertilvidet 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the statement of reasons why Hezbollah's in cabinet and reworked the section to reduce duplication of ideas. JiHymas@himivest.com 18:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

al-Qaeda listed as Shi'a

"Russia does not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization[137], but it does list other radical Islamic Shi'a groups, such as Islamic Jihad,[138] as well as al-Qaeda." - This sentence is incorrect as al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group. --Coolintro 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite correct, of course, I've fixed it. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Civilized country"?

but the United States, Canada, and Israel and most civilized countries deem it a terrorist organization.

What does "civilized countries" mean? So I'm just wondering if this expression could be offending, since it puts other countries into the not-yet-civilized countries group. English is not my mother language, so it could be just my misunderstanding. --Pura 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see that?! -- Szvest 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If such a formulation occurs I believe it should be treated as vandalism. 1) Labelling some countries civilized in contrast to others is deeply racist, and 2) the statement is inaccurate as the mentioned 3 countries are the only ones actually deeming it a terrorist organization. Bertilvidet 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if that happened but i just suspect the poster is just trolling. -- Szvest 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, someone vandalized the page. I fixed it.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Had I read the whole artile, it would be very obvious that it was a work of vandalism. Sorry, I should have been more careful. --Pura 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that Israel is at war with Hizbollah, and the USA is Israel's ally, is it relevant that these countries label it a "terrorist organization"? Calling your enemy names is extremely common in warfare, and "terrorism" these days pretty much means "we don't like them" with the US administration; we might as well quote bomber pilots shouting "assholes" as they pull the trigger. What really counts is the organisation's status according to international organisations (UN), isn't it? dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just 'calling your enemies names'. This has a very practical effect on third parties (who, for instance have to certify that the bank account they've just opened for a customer is not for a Hezbollah customer) as well as for Hezbollah itself - no banking in the States, no visits - and for its supporters (ask that guy in North Carolina who got 150 years in jail for donating $3,500). The practical effect of the designation by the US far exceeds anything the UN could do. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll chage the bit about Australia listing it as terrorist (in law). Australia only lists the "External Security Organization" as terrorist - chiefly because it claims it has intelligence on attacks outside the Israel/Lebanon etc. - Immanuel_Goldstein

We are doing a great job

Its time for some self-praise, buddies. We have really improved this article substantially in a way that could set example, avoiding edit wars and having good debates without uncivility – and this has been about a very controversial organizations in a period of war. Just see how the [looked one month – and more than 2.000 edits - ago]. Keep up the good work! Bertilvidet 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, I totally agree with you. I have seen quite some edit wars here on Wikipedia and I am very happy to see that such a delicate article like this is being handled in such a rational way. Good job, everyone. Lets keep it this way. --Splette Image:Happyjoe.jpg Talk 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving August 7

I've moved all headings that do not have an "August" date in them somewhere to a new archive. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)