Talk:International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Imported discussion from main article

[edit] Separate page needed?

Should we move international reactions to a separate page, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings#Too_many_international_statements --Pifactorial 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think there should be a nice summary of international statements (from the involved parties and big players) with a split-off to a more complete list. On a similar subject, since Wikipedians tend to dislike bulleted lists, think the list should be converted to a table with cells for "Nation", "Spokesperson", and "Statement" to make things uniform? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is one of the only solid parts of this article, since there is no room for editors themselves to put their sleazy "spin" on it.. Dan Carkner 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, there is clear spin in the existing article. The only country that has held Lebanon responsible for Hizbollah's actions is Israel.

[edit] Bosnia

About the article, I am wondering what Bosnia's reaction (bottom of the page) to all of this is doing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.169.203 (talk • contribs)

It's one of 2 European Muslim countries and a recent victim of a war, why not include it? To me it's probably a more valid reaction/opinion than that of other countries working more of a political angle..Dan Carkner 03:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Next to all the other countries of the world. --Cerejota 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Bosnia entry gone? It disappeared form the International reaction page? Why? ariddles
Clevelander removed it because it didn't have a reference. Sijo Ripa 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
...and I couldn't find any other news source to confirm it. It was added by an anon, so I assume that it wasn't too credible. However, nothing's for sure and maybe it was indeed reported. -- Clevelander 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Page Created

A Seperate page for Int'l Reactions was created as of 07:12, 14 July 2006 by Siqbal. Copying discussion on the matter to talk page for that article, please continue all discussion on the matter there. --darkskyz 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Should reactions be arranged in way that is more standardized and readable? i.e. under each state list the position, name and quote, such as this:

(flag)United States:
President, George Bush: "blah blah blah" (citation)
Scretery of State, Candy Rice: "Yadah yadah yadah" (citation)

and so forth?

Also, could someone cleanup the refrences as much as possible? Try not to have 1-2 sources for each quote but rather 4-5 quotes per source, and use english sources as much as possible? --darkskyz 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Standardized is difficult. Sometimes 1 government is making seemingly contradictory statements at the same time eg. Iraq FM & PM, and Egyptian President's comments dont appear to be sticking to one particular line. But if it can work like that good but context of where and when a statement was made is important too eg. Arab League meeting. 82.29.227.171 10:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The international reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel.

after reading the actual reactions of world leaders (both arab and non arab countries) the language seems to be a little harsh towards israel and easy on other parties. i saw very few countries that would actually fit that statement.

I'm not sure how I would change it however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.207.29 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 July 2006(UTC)

This article can hardly be said to be POV, since it is just a collection of statements. Regarding the correctness of the sentence: The international reaction to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis has mostly been a general condemnation of what the leaders consider to be a harsh response by Israel1., it should be easy to verify from the text below. --Battra 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The disputed phrase should apply to at least EU, the Vatican, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, Italy, Russia. Since statements from more than 30 countries are given, I agree that the sentence should be changed in some way. --Battra 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I now adapted the statement and someone else apparently dealt with the below-mentioned problem. Hopefully the POV banner can go now. Harald88 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead in sentence is extremely bias against Lebanon. Only Israel has claimed that Lebanon shares responsibility for Hizbollah's actions. It should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.112.57 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that Denmark and atleast some US officials share that claim. --darkskyz 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia

Technically, Armenia is in Asia ... but I'm a little reluctant to change it, for fear of initiating some conflict. WilyD 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, isn't Indonesia in Asia too?--213.65.178.19 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Armenia is at least partially part of the European continent. (For instance it's a member of the Council of Europe) Sijo Ripa 22:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Armenia is considered part of Europe for cultural reasons. However, Indonesia is usually considered part of Asia, so I think at least that should be corrected. -- Clevelander 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's correct. Armenia gets to be part of European activities for historical reasons, but is located entirely within Asia. I don't think anyone considers it not Asian, though. Just as Cyprus is allowed to join the EU, even though it's entirely within Asia. Indonesia is also one I missed - different sources have it split across the two continents or entirely in Asia, so it's harder to call, but most Indonesians live in Asia, capital city is in Asia, et cetera. WilyD 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Other than its Geographic location it's European by any other definiton, similar to Cyprus or Georgia.--Eupator 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone confirm the Swedish translation?

Sweden

The minister of foreign affairs Jan Eliasson said (translated) "The military offensive of Israel is an extremely dangerous escalation of the situation in the region". He condemned the attack of Hezbollah, but said that the line of proportionality in the reaction had been crossed. "I am deeply critical to that the civilian population has been affected."

I noticed it because the last sentence sounds a bit awkward to me, but I don't want to change it because it could be a good translation, and my grammar ear isn't pitch-perfect. It comes from here and the source appears to be the first 3 paragraphs of the minster's response. TransUtopian 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Swede, I can guarantee that "I am deeply critical to that the civilian population has been affected." is a translation word by word of the Swedish "Jag är djupt kritisk till att civilbefolkningen drabbas.", except for a change to past tense. Maybe "I am deeply critical of the civilian population being affected." is how it should be written? I'll leave that to someone with better grammar. --Battra 10:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Battra. I changed it to "I am deeply critical that the civilian population is being affected." since that sounds more right to me, but I'm not 100% sure. TransUtopian 11:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UN Resolution 242?

Is the UN Resolution referred to in the United States entry ("Frist also said that the Lebanese government should uphold its responsibility under a United Nations resolution to make sure its territory isn’t being used for Hezbollah or other groups.") United Nations Security Council Resolution 242? It's related, but I don't know if that's the one he's referring to, or a more recent one. TransUtopian 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive he is reffering to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, but this is my speculation. He might just as well been reffering to all or part of the various resolutions related with Israeli-Lebanese conflict. --darkskyz 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to International dimension of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis?

I suggest such a move for the following reason. There are several international consequences to the crisis, which however are not that relevant to be mentioned broadly on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis page but are nevertheless significant. I had in mind (besides the current "international reaction") the international evacuation efforts and the oil price effect.

[edit] Sri Lanka??

Sri Lanka's reaction is listed for some reason under Europe, not Asia. Also, there is no citation and the respose seems strange, is this for real? is there a source for it?

[edit] Canada

"Canada sides firmly with Isreal" No wonder it's a conservative goverment...--166.87.255.131 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No crap, Stephen Harper and his parties are Republican Juniors... As close to the GOP as the canadian federal politics would allow them (and stay popular).

Sounds like he's heard the grumbling at home and is getting a little more measured himself. I updated with his most recent comments. Fishhead64 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the article because I was unable to find anything about it at either CBC.ca or Globeandmail.com: Another chartered by the Canadian government was apparently attacked by Israel fighters. Minster of Foreign Affairs, Peter McKay, asked the Israeli Government to investigate the act. Stearnsbrian 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Should opinion polls of citizens' views fall under Reaction by Citizens or by Reactions by National Representatives? The reason I ask is that if it does indeed fall under Reaction by Citizens then there should be a change of the internal title besides just "demonstrations"

[edit] Armenian entry could cause dispute?

[Inahet's diff] says "I'm going to revert your edit, I consider your edit to be accurate, but I know that it will cause some dispute, which should be avoided". I have nothing against Inahet and am not very knowledge about this, so why might statements from 2 Armenian government press releases cause dispute sufficient to remove them from the article? They seem authoritative for their country, and the text in a once-over seems accurate. TransUtopian 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should take a closer look at my edit, I didn't remove the Armenian reaction , I just placed it (along with the Turkish reaction) back under the Europe heading. --Inahet 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, my concern is that people will dispute over whether Turkey and Armenia are part of Europe or whether they are part of Asia etc. so to avoid all that, I think we should just keep these countries in the Europe section as that is the accepted of the two.--Inahet 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, forest for the trees. I noticed the Turkey addition, but not the Armenian move. Whoops! <embarrassed> Sorry about that. TransUtopian 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's okay, don't feel embarrassed, it happens to all of us. --Inahet 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] divided?

"The international reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict have been divided, with most leaders condemning both Hezbollah and Israel."

This first sentence seems a little weird. If most are condemning both, then reactions are not all that much divided, are they?--Paraphelion 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "mixed" because it's not the world that's divided per se. To be more specfic, it's the Arab world. -- Clevelander 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Under the demonstrations section, I think that instead of noting that anti-Israel rallies occured in specfic Arab states (e.g. Syria, Iraq, etc.), we should just note the rallies that took place throughout the Arab world. It would be less complicated. -- Clevelander 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is less complicated about it or any other advantage that outweighs the loss of information.--Paraphelion 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What would be lost? If we specfically cite the Arab states in which rallies have occured, then I don't see a problem. -- Clevelander 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

I noted that there is no documentation showing that AMCITS must pay for their evacuation. Are there any official USG documents or statements specifically saying that evacuees must pay for their own departure? 199.200.252.17 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the transport to Cyprus is free. but the US will not be picking up the tab for flights out of Cyprus to the USA, etc.... However, loans will be available. that is what i read a few days ago. --72.20.207.29 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As per CNN.com 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act mandates this payment. I'm looking for the specific text. 199.200.252.17 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how long my colour commentary of Bush munching a buttered roll while talking to Blair would last. About 12 hours, I see. The detail was in the linked AP report, by the way. Fishhead64 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help ensure that the US section documents 1) US gov support for Israel, 2) US gov efforts to discourage a ceasefire, and 3) US gov opposition to US public opinion. These 3 points are undisputed, but a few posters keep deleting them. Thanks, FightCancer 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I readded details on the US house vote and AIPAC reaction (deleted without explanation), there appeared to be some tampering with the polling data also so you might want to look at that. Thanks 82.29.227.171 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current tag

I added the current tag. Hope it isnt controversial :D--Cerejota 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evacuation of foreign nationals

Someone create a page with nations evacuating from Lebanon, please lets start moving the info in this page there, so we can list it as the main article in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I edited the intro paragraph here to reflect this change. Thanks.--Cerejota 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

yes it would be great. i don't know how many brazilians are there but i just read in the newspaper (just under the picture of all burnt kid) that 7 brazilians already were killed by jewish forces (including 2 or 3 children) and the government will also send an airplane to bring other brazilians home. that's an intersting fact because as a brazilian i usually never see brazil in any kind of problem caused by foreign war (just the civil daily war).

[edit] Right to self defense

we all know the hipocrisy of this term, we all know the right to self defense stopped just where indiscriminated murder started, and that the israeli are killing tons of people and keeping themselves unharmed (if you make a proportional calculation) so the wikipedia cannot take this as a personal opinion. Reading the article you find it clear that this is also wikipedia's opinion and that is not right.

Could you reference this comment? It's not in the intro. Fishhead64 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UN Security Council resolution issue

On Saturday [July 15, 2006] the United Nations Security Council again rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon.

The above was copied from the article. While it does reflect word for word what is written in the Democracy Now footnote link, I believe Democracy Now's summery of what happened is inaccurate. Based on this link [1], it appears the UN did not actually reject pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate cease-fire as in a majority did not vote against any resolution making such a call. The issue seemed to be a failure to agree on the text and U.S. apposition to any UNSC action at that time. The quoted statement should be rewritten in the article --Cab88 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. According to your source, "United Nations Security Council held closed-door consultations late Saturday on the mounting violence in Lebanon but failed to reach agreement on a statement that would have called for a ceasefire." Are you concerned about the choice of words between "failed" and "rejected"? The UN is not a democracy. It's more like a US jury. If any "permanent seat" member vetoes a proposal, the proposal fails. In this case, that one permanent seat was the US. Perhaps it would've been more accurate for Democracy Now! to have said United Nations Security Council again considered pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon, but failed after the United States unilaterally vetoed the measure.[1] Is that preferrable?
My concern was with the word "rejected" which implies that majority opposed calling for a cease-fire, which does not seem to be the case. "Failed" is a better word as their was an effort to call for a cease-fire but it was blocked by the U.S. --Cab88 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO it does not imply a majority. Again, the UN does not function like a democracy. It's more like a jury. When something happens at the UN, or fails to happen, it's often because of one member--not a majority. It's incorrect to infer a "majority" when thinking of the UN. Regardless, I urge you to consider the source and not Democracy Now!. The Israeli magazine Haaretz reports, "The UN Security Council on [July 15, 2006] again rejected pleas that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon after the United States objected, diplomats said."[2] "The U.S. was the sole member of the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all at this time, [council diplomats] said."[3] IMO, DN is a very fair and highly critical news org. FightCancer 12:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue that I have is that the UNSC clearly had a wanted to call for a cease-fire of some sort, save for the United States, but could not come up with a resolution the US would have accepted, if they would have accepted anything. It would be better to spell out in greater detail that they tried to agree on a text to call for a ceasefire and US opposition killed it. The current text paints too simplistic a picture of what happened at the UNSC, and is IMO potentially missleading. --Cab88 11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US officials say Rice's visit to Beirut intended to show support for Lebanon

On associated press (now copied by many): AP main article. relevant part:"It was her third visit to Lebanon and was intended to make a show of support and concern for both the Saniora government and the Lebanese people, administration officials said.". --fs 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The quoted sentence is not in the linked-to article. According to another source, 'On Friday [July 21, 2006] Rice described the plight of Lebanon as part of the “birth pangs of a new Middle East."' [4] FightCancer 12:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The article or url was probably altered, you can see its information still being here and here (and others). Those articles reported what US officials said at some point, and in actuality, as all major media reported yesterday, Rice transferred to Lebanon the same demands Israel had. i.e., no big deal other than an interesting piece of information about what some officials at a point 'said'. Besides, Hezbollah is not Lebanon so it shouldn't surprise. --fs 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
True, other articles say that. So providing a link to one of them would be fine, IMO. However, I would also like to include what Rice actually said--in addition to what some nameless administration officials said her intent was: 'On Friday [July 21, 2006] Rice described the plight of Lebanon as part of the “birth pangs of a new Middle East."' [5]

[edit] US Evacuations / Out of Date

This .mil page: [6] says that on the 23rd of July, only 3,994 US citizens were left in Lebanon. Also, in addition to the M/V Orient Queen, they also used the M/V Ramah and M/V Vittoria M. [7]. I'd simply update it myself, but this info is already 4 days old. --0g 14:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US House Resolution 921

I just readded details on this and the AIPAC reaction to it in USA section. For some reason itwas was deleted [8].

Some of the polling results appear to have been "reinterpreted" too- not edits I put in but maybe someone is looking after them. Good idea if everyone keeps an eye on their edits to prevent this sort of stuff 82.29.227.171 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


After leaving notice on Comrade438's talk page that I put the details on H.R. 2921 and AIPAC response back into the article, he proceeded to remove the AIPAC details. Since he/she is deleting my comments from their talk page heres my response that appears there now:
Amusing, except the support of a lobbying organization (for said resolution) hardly has any relevance in an article discussing the reaction of the United States government. While it’s somewhat amusing to watch your attempts at painting some vast Zionist conspiracy within the said page, the reality is that the information has no value what so ever besides to further incite unwarranted and pointless conspiracy-theory laden edit wars. Tell me, do you have plans to include the reaction of political organizations, however small, for every nation or only those which fit your scheme of Jews controlling the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade438 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for deleting my comments on your talk, and failing to respond to my highlight of your selective DemocracyNow crediblity problem. I'm afraid that AIPAC lobby influence on US foreign policy is common knowledge. See The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Given its influence, and satisafaction at the result of H.R 219 its entirely relevant. Particularly when their estimation of US support might be considered in conflict to the poll results you also messed about with. Take it to the talk page. 82.29.227.171 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comrade made further changes removing the AIPAC detail for a 3rd time. His/her changes dont have anything to do with the conflict, US reaction to the conflict/situation, or even US foreign policy in the region [9]. Reverted his/her changes for a second time. 82.29.227.171 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Except they have nothing to do with the article at hand. You’re attempting to impress your point of view that the supposed Israel lobby somehow has influenced the government of the United States and its’ policy towards Israel and the conflict. I’ve once again removed your unfounded addition as it has no place in the context you’re trying to suggest it does in this article. If you wish to include the relevant link by all means do so, however Wikipedia is not a place for rampant speculation and conspiracy theories. The section in question is the position of the United States government, not your personal comments trying to link a political lobbying organization within the US to the over all reaction of the United States. Comrade438 27 July 2006
Thanks, I think the reaction of AIPAC is entirely relevant. The lobby does exercise considerable influence on US foreign policy as I hope the article above illustrates (assuming you looked at it). I havent made any "unfounded" statement or any "unfounded" connection- the political body of USA is connected to various lobbying bodies and as I said previously- its general knowledge.
I'm not aware that the section is to do with the government reaction exclusively, but perhaps if that is your concern you can explain why you removed the original comment about H.R. 219 in your initial deletes? Surely a House resolution is part of governmental reaction? It didnt seem to be an issue to you then. I also notice that polling reports continue to appear which dont appear to have a lot to do with governmental reaction either. It also includes comment from the Canadian government.
I left 2 vandalism notices on your talk as I see no evidence that your concern is content or relevancy. Will now attempt to revert back to include the details for the AIPAC lobby. Thanks 82.29.227.171 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Of course. The Jews control everything after all. However, to include allegations of political influence in the United States alone is unfair; where are your additions of influence peddling organizations elsewhere? Your attempts to engage an edit war aside, I must disagree: Such information, regardless of your opinion or its supposed accuracy doesn’t belong on this page. The very nature of the “Israel Lobby” and its’ real influence are controversial in their own right, to then make judgments based off unproven and hearsay is simply expressing a one-sided POV. Your edits suggest only one conclusion to be drawn by the reader: that the United States is somehow under the sway of this group. This is unacceptable in what is supposed to be a ‘fair’ encyclopedia. Regardless, do protest for unprotection. --Comrade438 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverts, vandalism warnings, page protection over non content dispute reported here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 82.29.227.171 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Its fine to disagree, but you have yet to produce anything by way of argument against including the details for AIPAC- a lobby group that works closely with all parties in USA and the administration. Your initial complaint was that its non-governmental information- this appears to have completely evaporated. You acted without consultation and indication of what you were doing when you originally removed the AIPAC & House Resolution details [10] then removed both AIPAC & House Resolution details again claiming "Given the article is discussing the reaction of the United States government, such information is unwarranted" [11]. At this point I alerted you to the fact that you were removing HR details, since then you appear to be rushing to invent some rightwing antisemitic (you have yet to use the actual term) agenda on my part. An agenda on my part which you have a hard time cobbling together because it doesn't exist.

My edits don't invite the conclusion you claim. Detail on AIPAC's reaction does add further background to the political events in USA, the Resolution and pressures the government is exposed to- just like the rest of the section. To try and deny that lobbying isnt an integral part of the body politic in USA is nothing short of laughable. Not referencing the lobby and its activities makes no sense- its inconceivable that AIPAC wouldn't seek strong congressional support for Israel during a conflict- its a given. Therefore AIPAC's reaction to congressional support does belong in the mix of events taking place during the period. This is particularly true when AIPAC themselves claim widespread support amongst the US public for Israels actions.

As for your retort: "Very good spamming. Bravo. Having fun in Belfast?" [12] Is that meant to indicate a threat along the lines of "I know where you live"? I'm trying to work this out with you but doing things like editing in a provocative way [13], implying I hate jews or am advancing a 'jewish conspiracy', engaging in an edit war and refusing to give any coherent explanation about what you were doing on talk pages, or in comments [14] isnt exactly helpful to your argument of being worried about content or relevancy. 82.29.227.171 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Out of line This is preposterous. The AIPAC mention is completely legitimate, and Zionist accusations are totally inappropriate personal attacks. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Added unanimous Senate passage of S.R 534 and refered to it in AIPAC reaction reinstated by lorek85. 82.29.227.171 00:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one." [15]

Like I said- its common knowledge, also note the article points out the pressure that is exercised on the admin via the 2 resolutions. I will prepare a small section detailing reaction of AIPAC and Christian Right Religious Lobby groups. 82.29.227.171 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Comrade438 removed the text again so will wait until that particular issue can be resolved. 82.29.227.171 10:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarian Aid & Military Aid

Does this aid belong here?[16] Same question for military aid.[17] 82.29.227.171 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Israeli bias in the UK sections

The only picture accompaning the UK reactions section is a pro-Israeli rally, despite the fact that support for Israel is a fringe opinion in Britain. The opening paragraph of the same section makes much of Blairs opinions on the matter, without mentioning once how unpopular he and his decision is. This seems to be editorialising to make the general opinion of Britain look different than it actually is

I'm going to find a picture of an anti-Israeli rally to give a more representative view of British opinions. Damburger 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I see any pro-Israeli bias... but additional pictures are always appreciated. Tchadienne 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Its more because in Britain the general opinion is pro-Palestinian more than it is pro-Israeli: the picture suggests that most Brits supported Israel, when that was not the case. 82.28.12.101 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Split proposal

Could we split this into two articles, one on the "International reaction to Operation Just Reward" - where the majority of the info here will remain, and the other under the more general title of "International reaction to the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon conflict" - which would include diplomatic statements like the one issued by the Chinese Government in reaction to the accidental killing of their delegate? Tchadienne 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict?

Did we mean International inactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict instead? Let's have a vote to rename it! *evil grin* __earth (Talk) 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Request

I understand the main article was getting a bit long, but splitting the international reactions article into four different articles seems a bit unnecessary. Perhaps we should merge the content back into one article and clean out some stuff to make the article shorter. But please, four grand-daughter articles seems silly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. We dont delete information, we add it ad infinitum. --Striver 23:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, we delete information all the time. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when there is something wrong with the information. --Striver 14:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. There is so much information flowing around, that merged pages are gonna be just too long to be useful. --imi2 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
i disagree with merging. There are roughly 6.000.000.000 people in the international community outside of Lebanon/Israel/Occupied Territories. Four articles to divide up different ways of representing the points of view or actions of those 6.000.000.000 people seems a rather small number. Which types of representation are more important depends on one's POV. To retain NPOV, we need to retain the different POVs which are expressed and documented externally to the wikipedia. Boud 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We absolutely must merge the four back together. In general, this relatively minor conflict has far too many subpages. Look at Gulf War for example, or doezens of other analagous pages. TewfikTalk 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of merging the articles. The current set-up is goofy, and to make things worse, the article titles aren't following the Manual of Style. Also, the "6.000.000.000 people" argument is seriously flawed. --MZMcBride 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am totally in agreement of remerging the articles. It becomes comes confusing otherwise. Merge the articles. --Bizwhiz 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also *strongly* agree with the proposal. The sub-sub-articles had no life of their own and no discussion and were in danger of becoming outdated much too fast. See the lead for the new structure. I will propose WP:SD for the sub-sub-articles. Of course, this article now has to be significantly reduced in size (as well as the humanitarian), but this task is much more easy to handle without the sub-sub-article clutter. Kosmopolis (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info

On that note, here are yet more reports from the Main etc:

Leader of the Canadian Bloc Québécois party, Gilles Duceppe, was criticised for his August 6th participation in a pro-Hezbollah rally in Montreal by Israel's ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker.[2]

As well as Hollywood's reaction. As it stands, I'm not sure where they should go... TewfikTalk 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Protests

In the article there are only references made to pro-Israel protests in the United States, and none to the protests denouncing Israeli action.

I believe there should be reference made to the thousands that protested against Israeli action in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and D.C., rather than only references to the pro-Israel protests.

There is also no mention of US politicians speaking out against Israel. In an interview with 'Der Spiegel' magazine on August 15, 2006, former President Jimmy Carter is quoted as saying: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.