Talk:Israeli-Lebanese conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Merge to Arab-Israeli conflict

This conversation has been moved to Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict by Kendrick7 03:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following line:

Lebanon has long failed to control militancy within its borders, and Israel has had a history of using force in Lebanon in response to militant attacks.

It is opinionated. Also, Lebanon is claiming to be a democracy with rights for militias and to bear arms, muh like the US constitution and it's second amendment stating that organized millitias are a right of the people. Millitia members are Lebanese by citinzenship, anyways. So saying Lebanon has failed to control militancy is inherently wrong, since the militia is Lebanese or made up of Lebanese.

Yes, the militia is Lebanese. What about it? That doesn't change the fact that Lebanon has failed to control them. cacophony ◄► 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Israel-Lebanon relations

This article is misleading, in that it implies there has been an ongoing, continuous conflict between Israel and Lebanon since 1948. In fact, Lebanon's role in 1948 was minor, Lebanon sat out of the 1967 war, and the Israel-Lebanon border between 1948 and 1968 was quiet (as I understand it, even unguarded). The seeds of the recent conflict lie in post-1968 developments, particularly the "state within a state" created by the PLO and the 1978 and 1982 Israeli invasions which turned the Lebanon Shiites against Israel. What should be done (as suggested by User:Mikkalai) is to rename this article Israeli-Lebanon relations. A model could be Indo-Pakistani relations: that's an example of two countries with "relations" marked by bitter hostility punctuated by several outright wars, yet no one says there is a single "India-Pakistan conflict" going back to 1947. Along with the move, we should change the focus of the article somewhat: summarize the wars but take this out of the Military history Project, and include other important topics like the Israel-Christian alliance. Sanguinalis 04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

<str>The lead is very misleading as it currently stands and needs to be re-written.</str> The internals of the article do cover most of your other points, though I'd appreciate more data on the Isreal-Christian alliance. -- Kendrick7 05:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead. The problems between Israel and Lebanon are, IMHO, a lot more complex that the border dispute over Kashmir, which if it doesn't have its own article probably should, but that's just my two cents. -- Kendrick7 06:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
True, there had not been continual active shooting war between Israel and Lebanon since 1948. Yet the two countires have been legally at war for all of that time, though for long periods there have been a ceasefire in force and more ot less observed. And are you aware that since 1948 the border beween the two countries has been closed to civilian passage,and that the only Israelis who enetered Lebanon since there is an Israel are soldiers who came on the business of war? An Israeli with an Israeli passaport showing up in Lebanon is an ENEMY by Lebanese law and will be treated accordingly, and the same for a lebanese showing upin Israel. It was like this also in the relatively quiet period between 1948 and 1968. It was not like this, as far as I know, between India and Pakistan. So, I think the term "Israel-Lebanon conflict; is correct. By the way, if you look up the Hundred Years' War you will find considerable periods when the English and french were not actively fighting, but historians regard it all as one long war and I think they are right. Adam keller 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Wikipedia:Recentism comes into play -- no one today would even consider renaming the Hundred Years' War to English-French relations. -- Kendrick7 20:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. The articles about the subject here in Wikipedia report Israeli farmers doing their business peaceably on their lands over the Lebanese border, as well as the Lebanese interaction with Israeli industry/economy during the early 1980s (pre Gemayel agreement I believe). In any event, that isn't necessarily a valid criteria for this type of article. It may be acceptable as a collection of miscellaneous information on the subject (or not), but any attempt to craft it into a continuous and coherent event would probably be original research, as it does not seem to be an analysis that has been made outside this community. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam keller seems to have forgotten all about the "Good Fence". Israeli farmers did business over in Lebanon and during the occupation of southern Lebanon (as a Security Zone), Lebanese civilians from the Zone were able to cross the Good Fence to do business in Israel and if I remember correctly when Israel was withdrawing from Lebanon, there was one report on CNN in which Israeli farmers were interviewed and they said that they were sad that they would no longer be able to hire seasonal workers from Lebanon to pick fruit and such. There was also an article in the Economist (in 1999 around the time the SLA withdrew from Jezzine) in which it is noted that ice-cream sold in Jezzine (before the withdrawal anyway) had packaging in Hebrew - obviously from Israel. Also one of Robert Fisk's books notes how the Israelis did more than just militarily occupy Lebanon in 1982. All of these events cannot be accurately covered under the heading "Israel-Lebanon conflict". Sanguinalis uses Indo-Pakistani relations as an example of a possible model to follow. Sanguinalis also states that no talks of a single "Indo-Pakistani conflict" going back since 1947, which is true, but there is an article Indo-Pakistani Wars. If we follow those two examples there could be a larger overall article detailing Israeli-Lebanese relations including war (1948-1949), other conflicts involving Israel and Lebanon (1978, 1982, 1982-2000, 2006), the armistice (1949) peace initiatives (1983), unofficial trade, travel and the Good Fence, the Security Zone, the Israeli-Christian Lebanese alliance (including the aid given by Israel to the Phalangists and other Christian groups - such as weapons). Of all these topics actual conflict is only one part. I would suggest that there be an article on Israeli-Lebanese relations with a sub-article on Israel-Lebanon conflicts (note the plural which will be explained in a second) or the renaming of this article to Israel-Lebanon conflicts (along the line of Indo-Pakistani Wars) and the creation of a separate and related (and linked) article on Israel-Lebanon relations. The reason for having Israel-Lebanon conflicts as opposed to the current name is because there is no long standing single conflict between Israel and Lebanon from 1948 to present. It is true that they have never signed a peace treaty, but then neither have Japan and Russia, the two Koreas or India and Pakistan (although the Simla Agreement is pretty close to one). Israel and Lebanon did sign an armistice in 1949 which is heralded the end of the '48-'49 war (if not the beginning of peace). Meanwhile India and Pakistan have only variously signed ceasefires. With Israel and Lebanon all the conflicts after 1949 had nothing to do with the first war and in fact Lebanon wasn't actually a participant so much as a battleground. The 1978 and 1982 conflicts were essentially Israeli-PLO wars (and also an Israeli-Syrian war in 1982). Lebanon never played an active role. The conflict in the Security Zone was an Israeli-Hezbollah war as was the 2006 conflict (which may actually have involved Lebanon itself since Hezbollah was now in the Lebanese government - but that is debatable and I don't hold much faith in that view since the Lebanese government declared neutrality). So for the 5 conflicts that occurred across the Israeli-Lebanese border only 1 (arguably 2) actually involved Lebanon itself, the rest were carried out between Israel and various Palestinian or Lebanese non-state militias and Syria. That doesn't even include the various Israeli airstrikes on supposed PLO militants in the 70s and the Israeli special operation in Beirut during the 70s (again directed at the PLO). So there is no single "Israel-Lebanon conflict".72.27.26.143 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to at least follow Sanguinalis' suggestion in part. TewfikTalk 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the truth?

Another point of view. Has many truth. --195.56.231.17 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


The link is not there. but there is no "another point of view here" wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased fact.

I can assume it's hebrew/Israelite Propaganda. in which case: NO, it is not true. I'm not trying to be anti semetic here, just Blunt, You cannot believe what a Jewish person who goes to temple or whatever says about this issue, The temple's stance is a flood of Propaganda, saying that Palestine dos'nt exist, there was no one there before Israel, the Arab groups want to take over Israel and hate jews. this is ALL propaganda, helped out by the U.S. government, which is semi-fachist/mis-informing.

BUT: we cannot have a biased point on wikipedia. so whatever...

CchristianTehWazzit Was HERE!!!

[edit] Katyushas

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-6RZPCR?OpenDocument

The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon. Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and IDF: While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shab'a farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks.

I hope that this clears up the issue of the Katyushas, TewfikTalk 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. As the Washington Post (datelined Beirut) and Haaretz disagree, I'll just quote your above source. This would clarify Hezbollah violated the treaty here. -- Kendrick7 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing the line you quoted as well as "Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks." The previous line talks about an exchange of fire "between Hizbollah and IDF," so that when it says "it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl..." it does not seem to be referring to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilian targets (that probably cannot be inferred until the very last sentence). TewfikTalk 21:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to use the previous version, with your permission, as it seems to describe accurately the sum of these sentences. TewfikTalk 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The UN document clearly says Hezbollah was launching rockets toward IDF positions, which happened to be near Israeli towns. I'll try for a compromise, but I think that doc says it better than I could. -- Kendrick7

I'm not sure what you mean: it seems to me that "Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns" means both. It is a separate sentence than that which discusses the "exchange of fire." Let me know... TewfikTalk 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are replying to my most recent change. I assume this sentence ("Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns") refers to exchanges of gunfire; there is no more compelling reason to assume it refers to rocket attacks. Though exchange of fire is open to interpretation, as I would hope the article would be too. -- Kendrick7 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see - I had totally missed that nuance, but I see that you have represented it in the article's text. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian Exodus in background

I've been going back and forth with User:Tewfik on this for a while, and we've come a long way towards a compromise. I believe, however, that the Palestinian exodus should be mentioned in the background because it did contribute the the demographic shift in Lebanon, and it explains one of the main reasons why the Palestinian refugees would be calling for Israel's destruction. The background as it currently stands makes it sound like the Palestians are refugees from Jordan, and not Israel, and is therefore completely misleading for a reader unfamiliar with the history of the region. Tewfik seems fixated on the idea that the PLO arriving in Lebanon was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War but I can't figure out where he gets that idea from the civil war article. -- Kendrick7 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue that the PLO's arrival was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War, as there were demographic tensions in Lebanon from its founding, predating the arrival of any Palestinians. What I do contend is that to the extent that the Palestinian presence in Lebanon was one of several factors, it only became such after the arrival of those expelled from Jordan in the Black September, including many PLO. These points are also made in the Wikipedia articles on the Civil War and Black September, which make almost no mention of the 1948 refugees (I say "almost" because though I did not find any reference, I may have missed a minor point). Again, while I don't dispute that the '48 refugees may have played some role, quoting them in the first line attributes a direct role not asserted elsewhere, and can generally open the door to quoting every indirectly relevant event. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would concede, but you have left me with a gloss that is inaccurate. But this can be remedied by cutting the background back from '48 to a farther year in the past since then. -- Kendrick7 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow - what is innacurate? In terms of the argument, are you saying that the '48 refugees are as directly effective of the Civil War as the Black September ones? Cheers, TewfikTalk 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Demographics of Lebanon claims that most of the 400,000 or so Palestinian Refugees living in Lebanon today are descended from the refugees that fled there in 1948, and that figure today represents 10% of the population. The background section of the 1982 Lebanon War says: "After the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon became home to more than 110,000 Palestinian refugees from their homes in present day Israel" in 1948 and says at the time the civil war started in 1975, and the total number of refugees, after Black September, was 300,000. Even if the population of refugees didn't grow at all for 27 years, that's still one third. And yet, seemingly, that 2/3s from Jordan, which you seem to imply left Israel in 1967, managed to almost completely intermarry (and then die) with the 110,000 already there by time for first sentence I wrote to become correct. So the population must have grown. So the first wave of refugees could easily have been half of the wave that arrived 27 years later. Demographics of Lebanon estimates Sunni's today are 25% of the Lebanese population. Lebanon Civil War says one of the main causes of the war was the shift in demographics. Surely, shifting the Muslim to Christian ratio by 10% one way or the other would be a large part of that. -- Kendrick7 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I really appreciate the relevance of these numbers to the issue at hand. Lebanon had demographic worries from before its independence, but there isn't really evidence that the '48 Palestinian population was an immediate factor in the upheaval of the Civil War. The one factor (mentioned three times in the Civil War article, as well as in the results section of the Black September article) which seems to be stressed as being a major contribution to instability is the arrival of a population expelled from Jordan (which may well have been mostly there from 1949, but its not directly relevant), especially the large PLO infrastructure. If you agree with this, then we are only arguing about how direct an event should be included; if not, I suppose we can both go searching for sources, though I feel that the WP articles I mentioned before (of course WP isn't an RS ) are a fair representation of the most common positions. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not either saying the Palestian exodus or the arrival of the PLO was an immediate factor of the Civil War. I'm saying they "expedited, if not caused." "Expedited" because I believe that these factors sped up what would have happened anyway, and you seem to believe it would have happened exactly as it did either way. Now some people could believe, perhaps, that Lebanon would never have crumbled but for these factors, and as no one can say, I added "if not caused" for balance.
But look also at Lebanon Civil War. Let me quote you the graph where it first mentions Black September:
The Shi'a militias were slow to form and join in the fighting. Initially, many Shi'a had been drawn to the Palestinian movement and the Lebanese Communist Party, but after 1970's Black September, there was a sudden influx of armed Palestinians to the Shi'a areas. The Palestinian movement quickly squandered its influence with the Shi'a, as radical factions ruled by the gun in much of Shi'a-inhabited southern Lebanon, where the refugee camps were accidentally concentrated, and the mainstream PLO proved either unwilling or unable to rein them in.
So, Shi'a were forming militias in support of the Palestinian cause before Black September, and according to that, actually left the movement afterwards, going off to form the militas which would start the civil war. Perhaps the militancy of the Palestians rubbed off on the Shia Lebonese? The PLO is an umbrella organization formed to unify a diaspora of resistance groups; just because they had their headquarters in Amman, doesn't mean they didn't have a branch office already in Beirut. Why? Because of the exodus after the 1948 Arab Israeli war. Is your main argument just with the demographic issue? -- Kendrick7 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My argument is totally not about the demographic issue - I'm tried to explain why it isn't necessarily relevant. I do believe that the '49 Palestinians were a factor, but only indirectly, alongside many other factors. The effect of the expelled of Black September was probably even magnified by the earlier presence (and there was definitely some PLO in Lebanon already), but to the extent that the Palestinians were a factor, it was mostly due to Black September. I think these passages from Lebanese Civil War illustrate the point:

  1. (in the Shia militias section) "The Palestinian radicals' secularism and arrogant behaviour had alienated the traditionalist Shi'a community, but simultaneously presented a model for revolutionary politics that appealed to the young of Lebanon's poorest and most downtrodden community."
    • This is in the next paragraph from the line you quoted above, and I think reading the two together supports my contention.
  2. (in the The Palestinians section) "The Palestinian movement, which had relocated most of its fighting strength to Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan in the events known as Black September in 1970, was formally under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - by itself undoubtedly Lebanon's most potent fighting force."
  3. (in the The PLO and regional conflict section) "As a result of the Cairo Agreement brokered by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1969, the Lebanese were forced to allow a foreign force (the PLO) to conduct military operations against Israel from their own territory. The PLO were granted full control over the refugee camps, but soon much of southern Lebanon fell under their effective rule. As fighters poured in from Jordan after the Black September destruction of the PLO's apparatus there, the PLO's presence became overbearing to many of inhabitants of these areas."

Anyways, these are just a sign of what is probably a wider held opinion, and at the end of the day, the contention that the '49 exodus affected the Civil War on the same order of magnitude, should probably be verified from a legitimate outside source. If it can be, then I suppose my perception would be in error. Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, stike much of the demographic argument from above -- I was relying on the old background section for 110,000 Palestinians fleeing Lebanon for Jordan in 1970s, but that was apparently an editing error by whomever put that figure there -- that's the widely reported figure for 1948, an unlikely coincidence. Most sources I've seen put the post-Black September number closer to 3,000. I untangled the opening sentences though. -- Kendrick7 23:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. It was this edit by User:Iorek85 that single handedly relocated the migration 110,00 people from 1948 to 1971. Oops! -- Kendrick7 23:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't at all follow your demographic argument. The main question I have for you is why you see the general Palestinian influx into Lebanon as being any more of a destabilising factor than any of the other groups' presence and demographic record (Shia, Lebanese Sunni, Christians, Druze). The only clear destabilising factor being mentioned is the arrival of the post Black September groups, and no mention of the '48-9 Palestinians as a factor is made in the Lebanese Civil War. I would appreciate if you could somehow find a source for your assertion. I also can't help remembering your early statement that you didn't want to give people an opportunity to 'just blame Israel' - if the original Palestinian influx is no different than any other, then that is exactly what is happening. Please let me know, as I am extremely uncomfortable with this (currently unsourced) statement's inclusion in such a prominent place. TewfikTalk 05:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have already removed from the article any assertions that Palestinian immigration had anything to do with the Lebanese Civil War. -- Kendrick7 17:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems you just did the opposite - I am now thoroughly confused. If you agree that the Palestinian exodus wasn't a cause for the civil war (which you seem to reaffirm in your edit summary), then why did you just revert to a version that implies just that? TewfikTalk 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you reverted to a version that said that, I didn't -- Kendrick7 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think my last edit should eliminate the possibility of confusion. -- Kendrick7 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I said: The arrival of Palestinian militants expelled from Jordan in 1971 exacerbated preexisting tensions surrounding shifting demographic trends in ethnically fragmented Lebanon, which helped lead to the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). These events combined to create a power vacuum in Southern Lebanon which various unchecked forces calling for Israel's destruction exploited to launch cross-border attacks to the south.

You reverted that to: The Palestinian exodus in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinian militants from Jordan in 1971 after the events of Black September made Lebanon's southern region the home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Demographic trends unbalanced what had been a Maronite Catholic-Shi'a Muslim majority nation and led to the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). These events combined to create a troublesome border between the nations: various unchecked forces within Lebanon were coordinating attacks against Israel and calling for its destruction.

If one of them directly ties the Palestinian exodus to the unrest in Lebanon, it seems to me to be yours (if you disagree, then please explain to me your reasoning). And if you agree that the influx of 1948-9 Palestinians was not necessarily a direct factor, then why discuss it? This isn't a history of the Palestinians or of Lebanon, but just a summary of the conflicts between Lebanon and Israel. Not to mention that those two assertions are unsourced at present. TewfikTalk 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All the sources are provided in the article. Like I keep telling you, this article isn't about the Lebanese Civil War. The first sentence relates to the third sentence. The second sentence relates to the thrid sentence. They do not relate to eachother. -- Kendrick7 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not about the Civil war - I don't understand what relevance the 1948-9 Palestinian exodus has towards the conflict between Lebanon and Israel. The destabilising role was played by the post Black September militants, and not the general population. Before the PLO, the general population doesn't figure into the conflict in any prominent manner either. At best one could talk about their role in the Beirut stage of the hostilities in the 1980s, but that would not be more prominent than any of the other ethnic groups. As I said before, I question even the simple demographic statement that there were 100,000s in Southern Lebanon. Its article makes mention of it as being a Shia-Christian area; there are only three Palestinian camps in S. Lebanon out of 12 overall. I'm just completely confused now as to why you think we need to make mention of them. 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the article from a source which says Israel was attacking Lebanese villages as early as 1968 in response to Palestian attacks from within Lebanon. The exodus is relevant because it explains the cause of the breakdown of relations between the two countries which led to the subsequent invasions. I don't know where you get the odd idea that there are only 3 camps in southern lebanon; here's a map of the camps as of 1999, which shows a majority by population are in southern Lebanon by that date, and I count 10. But OK, I fixed the lead so as not to imply they all settled in the south. -- Kendrick7 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mashriq map seems to define camps differently, but it is still 9 of 30. The UNRWA count is 3 camps in Southern Lebanon out of 12. What I still don't understand is how including the 1948-9 Palestinians explain the cause of breakdown of relations between Israel and Lebanon, as you argue above. Lebanon was a staging ground for anti-Jewish attacks before the founding of Israel, and like all of the Arab countries in the area, it officially declared war as soon as Israel was officially declared a state. That seems like the reason for breakdown in relations. Subsequent invasions all followed conflict with the PLO elements, and not the general Palestinian refugee society, which was obvious in the 20 year [relative] quiet between '49 and '69. Let me know, TewfikTalk 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Lebanon was a staging ground for anti-Jewish attacks before the founding of Israel" Really? Do you have a cite for that? So you are claiming the civilian refugees provided no material support for the militants fighting for the refugees right to return home? -- Kendrick7 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While it isn't really relevant to this discussion, I don't mind sourcing my statement (right column - I also read it of Fawzi Al-Qawuqji's attacks, though they aren't explicitly stated on WP and I haven't the patience to check that at the moment). I am not and need not claim that the civilian refugees provided or didn't provide aid. But if possible aid is the only reason for their inclusion, then you must see clearly why I feel they do not belong. In order for them to be included, there needs to be evidence that they were a major factor in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. I accept that the PLO types from the late 60s and beyond were such a factor, but there is no proof that the 1948-9 refugees played such a role. And while I accept that the Palestinian presence was a factor in the general demographic mess, there is no evidence that it was more than any of the other groups. I would be glad to see you source these assertions, but I have never heard them before. Please let me know, TewfikTalk 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick7, here are some sources about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon which you may find helpful in putting an end to this dispute: [1] [2] [3]. Kosmopolis (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Tewfik, Guerillas live their lives among a certain populace, and are supported by that populace. Where do you think the militants got their food, water, clothing, shelter, mates, families, religious services, new members, etc. from? To not mention their clear base of support is to imply that they recieved their support from the Lebanese, or somehow were semi-immortal beings fed from heavenly manna for fourteen years (and the 18 year Israeli occupation was merely to prevent them from rising from the dead). Your own source on page 4, under the heading "Fatahland" says the PLO recruited from the refugee camps. -- Kendrick7 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to recruiting from the camps, they had at various times close support from the Shia, Druse, and even some Christian groups. They were supplied in part by Syria, and their "mandate" is believed to have come from Egypt - should we include all of these (we probably should make mention of the Syrian occupation, but that is a separate point from its support here)? The 1948-9 refugees have not been shown to have had the same effect on the conflict as [for example] the Palestinian militants, and they are not more influential in this regard than any of the other ethnic groups in Lebanon. Unless this can be explicitly sourced, it just seems to be an independent analysis, and I honestly am not sure of why you feel so strongly that it is so. Let me know, TewfikTalk 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"The 1948-9 refugees have not been shown to have had the same effect on the conflict as [for example] the Palestinian militants" The militants were being recruited from the refugee camps, in much the same way, say, the French army is recruited from among the French; what makes these militants unique is their stateless nature, due to the refugee status of the people they were being recruited from, which is why it bears mention in the lead. -- Kendrick7 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They obviously weren't all from the camps, and especially pre the influx of PLO from Jordan in the 70s. Again, there were many other bases for their support - need we include them all? This isn't an article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Would you also like to list extended background for the Shia, Druse, and Maronite sects in this short background? TewfikTalk 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course they weren't all from the camps, and that is why I have always mentioned Black September in Jordan in the lead. If you have evidence that the Palestian militants did not get their food, water, clothing, shelter, mates, families, religious services, etc. primarily from the same source as their fellow refugees please add them. Otherwise, I fail to see why you feel this should remain a mystery to the reader. -- Kendrick7 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Have have expanded the post-1948 section of the article with information from this article which explains in great detail, and with its own cited references, the emerge of guerilla forces from the refugee camps. -- Kendrick7 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that such a relationship existed. Of course, you would first have to argue that such a relationship was relevant to their being included. If the only reason that you feel the 1948-9 refugees should be included is because they were a sole source of supplies (which I dispute) to the later (1969-70...) PLO forces which actually caused notable and unique instability, then they should still not be included. If you concede that they played no direct role in the instability (at least not unique from that of the other ethnic/religious factions), then they are no different from a dozen other groups/events that are a step or two removed from directly influencing the conflicts. And as the introduction you keep adding includes them in the context of demographic instability (made Lebanon home to 100,000s of Palestinians), it would seem you need to establish how they were unique in that respect - something that also hasn't been done. As for the link that you provided - it is a bit lengthy - I would much appreciate if you could point out the specific passages you feel are relevant. TewfikTalk 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Tewfik, you may at your discretion use the one sentence I quoted verbatim from the Le Monde article as a search parameter to locate the relevant section I'm citing. "The Palestinian resistance movement assumed daily management of the refugee camps, providing security as well as a wide variety of health, educational, and social services." -- Kendrick7 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of course there is a direct link

Tewfik, you refuse to acknowledge the connection between the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Hezbollah resp. the current conflict, so I compiled some relevant passages for you to consider. After reading them, it should occur to you that there is more than enough justification to include the refugees in Lebanon prominently in the lead. Kosmopolis (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Imad Fayez Mugniyah, a Shiite trained by Fatah, left the PLO in 1982 to join Hezbollah in Lebanon, serving as a bodyguard for its spiritual adviser, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. He is reported to be Hezbollah's chief of operations and even the overall commander of Hezbollah's armed wing. Some experts say Mugniyah is particularly committed to the Palestinian cause. "Mugniyah's focus is Israel and to achieve that he joined forces with Hezbollah," says Abdul Hameed Bakier, an analyst for the Jamestown Foundation. "Any affiliation Mugniyah has would be to serve the Palestinian cause." [4]
With Israeli tanks and troops amassing on the border with Lebanon, the military leader of the terrorist group Hamas threatened yesterday that if Jerusalem makes good on its promise to march its army to the Litani River in Lebanon, the Palestinian Arabs will join Hezbollah in its war against Israel. "There is no battle on the ground to occupy Lebanon. If this happens, God forbid, every Lebanese and every Palestinian will defend this land because this is an Arab land and all will defend it," Khaled Mashaal said in an interview published on the Muslim Brotherhood's Web site. [...] Should Lebanon's 400,000 Palestinian Arabs join the battle with Hezbollah against the Israeli army, they would provide a historic irony. In 1982, Israeli troops invaded Lebanon and succeeded in driving out the Palestine Liberation Organization [...] [5]
Sidon normally has a population of about 300,000, 90% of them Sunnis. Now it has an extra 70,000 displaced people. The newcomers are Shia and the crisis has not only forged Lebanese-Palestinian solidarity but cooperation between sects. [6]
(No RS, but insightful nonetheless) Hezbollah is led by sections of the small-scale Shiite bourgeoisie [...], who have no interest in a “jihad” to “liberate Palestine”. Their interest is in gaining a larger share of the pie in Lebanon [...]. At the same time, the oppression suffered by the Shiite masses at the hands of Israel, and the fact that they live in the same impoverished regions as half-a-million Palestinian refugees, has given rise to strong feelings of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, as well as the view that the Palestine “peace process” will not be complete without solving the problem of the refugees in Lebanese neighbourhoods. [7]
"We are ready to strap explosives to our children and send them to Israel," said Naim Mussalmani, 35, a farmer who fled the village of Shaitiah, on Tyre's outskirts. [...] "The Government of Lebanon is not taking care of us properly," said Mr Mussalmani. "We have to look to our Palestinian brothers, who are refugees of Israeli aggression themselves, to help us out. [8]
Lebanese Palestinians to join Hizbullah - Palestinian gunmen in Lebanon are set to join the fighting against the IDF, the leader of the Fatah faction in Lebanon, Sultan Abu al-Aynain, announced on Tuesday. [...] "We are interested in defending our camps and we will fight with honor to preserve our dignity," [...] The Fatah leader was speaking shortly after Israeli missiles fell near the Rashidiyeh refugee camp near the city of Tyre [...] "Once the Israeli enemy comes near our refugee camps, the Palestinians will have the courage to fight against this ugly aggression." Palestinians in Lebanon have so far stayed away from the current conflict between Israel and Hizbullah and almost none of them have been asked to join the fight against the IDF. Hizbullah consists largely of Lebanese Shiites, while all the Palestinians in Lebanon are Sunnis. Meanwhile, several Palestinian armed groups on Tuesday heaped praise on Hizbullah for "stubbornly and courageously" resisting the IDF forces in Lebanon. The groups expressed readiness to send Palestinians to join Hizbullah in the battle against Israel. [9]
President Emile Lahoud: 'Hezbollah Freed Our Country' [...] Lahoud: [...] As long as the conflict between Lebanon and Israel remains unresolved, no international force will help, however large it may be. The problems smoulder on: the undetermined status of the Schebaa Farms, the Lebanese prisoners in Israel and above all the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. [...] We have today around half a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, their birth rate is three times higher than the Lebanese. That is a time bomb. It is the basic problem of our country, it led to the outbreak of civil war in 1975 and still remains unsolved today. Everybody today is talking about UN resolution 1559, but nobody mentions resolution 194, which recognizes the Palestinians' right of return (to Israel). Lebanon is small and can't integrate the Palestinians. [10]
Hezbollah now serves as an inspiration to Palestinian factions fighting to liberate occupied territory. The party, in turn, has embraced the Palestinian cause and has said publicly that it is ready to open a second front against Israel in support of the intifada. [11]

[edit] Rewritten lead

I have completely rewritten the lead. Please let me know if you find any of the assertions there unsupported by the cited sections below. -- Kendrick7 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick7, good work as usual. I have just two (hopefully) minor issues. You wrote that the Palestinians *left* Israel, but that they were *expelled* from Jordan. While I am sure that there were also voluntary leavings in '48, something to the quality of "fled or were forced to leave" may describe the situation more accurately. IMO, "left" only indicates migration. You also wrote that Israel was "using force in Lebanon in response to militant attacks." When I was researching for the original version, I stumbled upon many sources indicating that militant bases were also attacked by Israel in preemptive strikes, to avoid future attacks. The current version suggests that Israel was exclusively reacting to attacks, which seems to be somewhat inaccurate, too. Cheers. Kosmopolis (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I have sufficient cause for relevancy for the motivations of the 1948 refugees to be spelled out in the lead. Someone wishing to learn more will simply have to delve. I'm not too familiar with charges of pre-emption against Israel in this matter. You could say there were responding to the fear of future attacks, but ultimately their fear of future attacks is a response to actual attacks however long in the past. Without definitive treaties or clear violations of such agreements, it's difficult to point to any one incident and say who started it. -- Kendrick7 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Within Yards, Fence-lined Road

Newer details on the "crossing the border" ambush: On July 12, two Israeli Humvees passed within yards of a Hezbollah ambush point. It was a hollow carved in the underbrush, just above the track used by Israeli military patrols. The hidden Hezbollah camp was stocked with food, water, radios, rifles, antitank missiles and diagrams detailing the insignia and size of Israeli military units. The Hezbollah fighters aimed and fired at the Israeli convoy just after 9 a.m. along a remote bend in the fence-lined road.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001688.html 194.215.75.17 --

Thanks! I've started updating Zar'it-Shtula incident with this info. -- Kendrick7 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

this article needs more information about the conflict that occured over the summer.

[edit] Name

I think the name should be adjectival: Israeli-Lebanese conflict --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC) like Israeli-Palestinian conflict --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this disagree with policy? — George Saliba [talk] 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a policy for articles on adjectives, not for using adjectives in article titles. I agree with the move. —Nightstallion (?) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Right you are! My mistake. :) Which policy actually deals with whether to use the adjective or noun form in articles such as this one? — George Saliba [talk] 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a bit late, but in reading through this article, I'm not sure that this name change made any sense. A large part of this conflict involves foreign actors - Palestinian groups operating within Lebanon; Syria and Iran backing Lebanese militias. The name Israel-Lebanon seems more appropriate, as a lot of the parties mentioned in this article aren't legally or ethnically Lebanese, but mearly live in or operate out of Lebanon. — George Saliba [talk] 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

it is the same. The current form is only grammatically more correct. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
but I concur with you on the political sense, maybe this whole article is a bit incorrect. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it be the Arabian-Israeli conflict? I really don't see how grammar comes into play here, as much as I dislike inherent disclarity of stringing nouns together in English generally: always reminds me of Brother Francis stumbling across a sign reading "nuclear fallout shelter" and wondering what a fallout was and what it needed shelter from.... -- Kendrick7talk 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There already is an Arab-Israeli conflict article (Arab being the correct term for someone from Arabia I believe). What a tangled web we weave. By the way, just out of curiosity, why it is grammatically wrong to use nouns when titling events? I was under the impression that the adjective form was only preferred when we didn't have a specific noun to use (i.e., Palestinian due to no nation called Palestine, Arab due to no nation called Arabia). — George Saliba [talk] 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested quotations

From [12]:

"On July 12, Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah held a press conference carried by Lebanese Hezbollah TV Al Manar:" ...

[Nasrallah] ... no shackle will remain in the hands of people in the occupation prisons. Today is the day of loyalty to Samir al-Qintar, Yahya Skaf, Nasim Nisr, and all brothers, detainees, and prisoners in the occupation jails. ... Second, the reason for today's operation was one-upmanship within the enemy government during the previous prisoner exchange. We reached agreement during the previous exchange, according to which Samir al-Qintar, Yahya Skaf, Nasim Nisr, and others would be released, but one-upmanship within the enemy government and the vote taken � you may recall it was 12 to 11 � excluded these men from the deal. The one-upmanship which obstructed that operation led to today's military situation. Today I advise them not to bargain with one another and benefit from all past experiences. ... The operation was originally named "Freedom for Samir Al-Quntar and his brothers" The title was a bit long and they said that from a technical point of view let us shorten it to "True Promise" for the promise was made to Samir and his brothers. I would like to tell Samir and his brothers: You are on the verge of being freed. The question is a question of time. Negotiations, and discussions will be held and we will overcome this difficult stage.

I believe my gloss is accurate. -- Kendrick7talk 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't see that the quote says their demand is that Samir Quntar must be released. The name of the operation was originally "Freedom for Samir Al-Quntar and his brothers", and the reason for the operation was that Nasrallah claimed that Israel had broken a previous deal to release Quntar and other prisoners. From the same link: "These prisoners that we hold will never go home except in one way: Indirect negotiations and exchange. That is it. No one in this world can return them home, except through indirect negotiations and an exchange." As this article says: "Nasrallah did not specify whose freedom he demanded in exchange for the Israelis -- three Lebanese men held by Israel, or some of the more than 8,000 Palestinian prisoners." I think the wording in 2006_Lebanon_War#Beginning_of_conflict is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vints (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The sentence there says: "Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to seize Israeli soldiers and swap them for convicted murderer Samir Kuntar, convicted spy Nasim Nisr, Ali Faratan, and Yahya Skaf, whom Hezbollah claims was arrested in Israel (Israel denies this)." Are you quibbling that this isn't a demand for release as much as a demand for a prisoner exchange? I don't see that as a major difference, but I'll change the wording if you'd like. I think your source and my source are clearly covering two different exchanges with Nasrallah; I suspect my source, an interview with Hesbollah's own TV station, was intended for domestic consumption, while yours -- a general press conference -- was intended for more international consumption, where perhaps Nasrallah was purposefully more vague as to which prisoners (Lebanese, Palestinian, perhaps others) he was talking about. Just a theory, but I don't find politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths particularly shocking. -- Kendrick7talk 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not quibbling about the difference between demand for release and demand för an exchange. In my opinion, neither 2006 Lebanon War nor Nasrallah's press conference says explicitly whose freedom they demand. Vints (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's admitted a gloss, but I don't think I'm reading anything into the text here. Suppose I wrote "My friend Lenny and his fellow countrymen Bruce, and Squiggy are thirsty. I am therefore launching an operation called A Soda Pop for Lenny and his brothers." and then later wrote elsewhere, "This operation has been launched to make some people non-thirsty." Even though someone with only the second note might be mystified as to exactly who those "some people" might be, I don't think, given both writings, there would be any doubt as to exactly who those "some people" are: Lenny, Bruce, and Squiggy, although it isn't "explicit." -- Kendrick7talk 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to write about the facts and let the reader draw the conclusions. Vints (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a patently obvious conclusion. In an article that's providing an overview of 80 years of history, I'm disinclined to spend a paragraph explaining your personal quibble over semantics; the article doesn't pretend this is an exact quote. At the same time, this demand by Nasrallah is relevant to the article as it ties a lot of the history together. As this speech and this part of the conflict is now a year and a half old, I'll try to find newly published secondary dead-tree sources which reach the same obvious conclusion. Otherwise, I'll file an RFC. In the meantime, please suggest a gloss that would be acceptable to you here. -- Kendrick7talk 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's correct English but "Hezbollah promptly demanded the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel, including Samir Kuntar and an alleged surviving perpetrator of the Coastal Road massacre..." could be changed to "Hezbollah promptly demanded the release of prisoners held by Israel, mentioning Samir Kuntar and an alleged surviving perpetrator of the Coastal Road massacre...". Vints (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)