Talk:Military and economic aid in 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I created this page as an NPOV substitute to the "Role of Syria and Iran" page. Things, there is no contribution, in spite of space being created for it, on this here. It should be here, presented in NPOV and sourced accordingly. I welcome the contribution regarding the US militayr support, but it is insufficient. SO lets please get out of our asses...--Cerejota 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I can write some more data. It will be a large piece of information though so if you can proof read it after posting that would be appreciated. This article was a very good idea- thanks. 82.29.227.171 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Equation of Israel & Hezbollah 2 Changes 3 Another section 4 Original research 5 August 18 and on 6 Moved text 7 Iranian admission 8 The ethics of providing support 9 What about humanitarian aid ? 10 Obvious 11 Far-Fetched 12 Military and *economic* aid? 13 more misleading edit summaries by Tewfik 14 Mention of Aid not in relation to the current conflict 15 Mainstream sources? 16 Tables 17 The article is supposed to refer to aid for this conflict… 18 From 11 September onwards 19 Please check the title of this article 20 Some real arguments against inclusion, please? 21 Compromise proposal on date ranges 22 Rename to Military aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

[edit] Equation of Israel & Hezbollah

Equating Israel and Hezbollah aid as if they were both valid is extremely misleading. Israel is an independent state, and is not subject to any sanctions. Aid to Hezbollah, however, is frought with problems. Several Western nations and organisations consider it a terrorist group and criminalise most aid, and the specific [military] aid from Iran and/or Syria which this page may discuss is in contravention of a Security Council resolution, while no such international directives have limited aid to Israel. These points must be incorporated into the structure of the page in order to present an honest, NPOV article. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We are recognizing that there are three combatants in this conflict.

Therefore, from the encyclopedic perspective they must be treated as equally as possible, and viewed narrowly from the perspective of being combatants in the conflict.

You are in fact confusing things: the relative international weight of Hezbollah and Israel are at best original research and at worse POV opinions.

An encyclopedia, to be effective, must try to be internally congruent: I cannot give Hezbollah equal weight as a combatant, and then for controversial reasons deny this equal footing in comparing the role of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the conflict. It is switch and bait: you establish a congruent neutrality only to change it later.

In other words, can't move the goal posts in the middle of the game...

Lastly, there is secondary reason for why this is not a good idea and diminishes the quality of the article: it fits perfectly well with the contested line of reasoning that legitimizes US intervention in the conflict but deligitimizes Iranian intervention (ie it pushes a POV). I would rather present the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions from them. That, my friend, is NPOV. --Cerejota 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of international weight. Hezbollah recieves support in contravention of a Security Council resolution. Israel has no such limitation on its aid. Moreover, US aid is non-notable in this context, especially alongside aid of the same order to countries like Egypt. Iranian aid to an organisation legally considered terrorist by many Western states is quite notable. An equation of these very different situations, my friend, is not NPOV. Tewfik^Talk 04:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few limits on aid to Israel. Restrictions apply on how they use the aid- this is why you hear the phrase "in self defense" so much. Britain also has the same restrictions and im sure a majority of other countries trading arms with Israel impose the same caveats. These restrictions are between the two nation-states concerned however.

This view of the legality of aid to Hezbollah stems from what? 1559? If you want to write a subsection on your interpretation of 1559 making aid to Hezbollah "illegal" go ahead. Far as I can see the article is about material aid give to the various factions not the legalities surrounding it.

"US aid is non-notable in this context" Trying to disallow a description of US aid to Israel on that basis is a joke. The USA is actively responding to requests for munitions and jet fuel, to name 2 immediate requests. This aid allows the IDF to operate in Lebanon. Not mentioning this aid to a combatant is meant to be serious in what context? The illegality of Hezbollah according to the UN?

It really does need to be described somewhere. Alongside aid to Hezbollah- a combatant against Israel- would seem to make sense. 82.29.227.171 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik: you of course revealed that you are unable to really support NPOV. As the above user states: "Far as I can see the article is about material aid give to the various factions not the legalities surrounding it." You are tying to figure out how to present your POV and NPOV, whereas true NPOV requires that we both retain context and focus on the task at hand. Your view that there is an implicit moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah is out of context, as this page is not a general discussion of Aid in the middle east but that of the present conflict, but your view that the USA's aid is irrelevant is ludicrous. We need to show facts, not hide them. We need to present these facts as NPOV. A fact is that Hezbollah recieves aid form Iran. A fact is Israel form the USA. Everything else is POV. --Cerejota 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW the description of Hezbollah itself as a terrorist organization is only supported by Israel and the USA, and to an abigous extent Britain. Some other countries condemn Hezbollah's armed wing and not its civilian wing (including the UN), and yet other countries support Hezbollah. Please pay more attention of the facts.--Cerejota 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Add detail in there regardless of this conversation, have not seen any convincing arguments against doing so. There is a lot more to add in, I did not overdo the historical aspect of the aid as it is substantial and would take up a lot of space. 82.29.227.171 16:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I remined when Iraq attacked Iran U.S. and its allies imposed armour sanctions against Iran but all of them also USSR and its allies armed Iraq. So there is an illegitimate unbalance in the world and also in U.N.. I'm sure U.S. would say Hezbollah must be destroyed if it could.

I think we can write on the basis of Security Council Resolution 1559 it's illegal to help Hezbollah but Lebanon, Iran and some other countries recognize it as a legitimate resistance againt occupation. So there isn't CONSENSUS among countries.

Also I agree with Cerejota:"We are recognizing that there are three combatants in this conflict. Therefore, from the encyclopedic perspective they must be treated as equally as possible, and viewed narrowly from the perspective of being combatants in the conflict." --Sa.vakilian 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly some elements on the Periodic Table are more "legitimate" than others in that some of them are only man-made lasting only a short period of time in a lab. However, this is not sufficient reason to keep such elements out of the list of elements. Articles on hezbollah discuss its legitimacy. Tewfik would like to go one step further and leverage legitimacy as a reason to discuss aspects of one side and dismiss the same corresponding aspects of another side; not content to simply call Hezbollah illegitimate or describe Hezbollah in ways that others might categorize it as illegitimate, it must also _be_ illegitimate on wikipedia, calling for exception to be made about how every issue involving it is discussed. His edits surrounding all of the conflict's articles have reflected this agenda.--Paraphelion 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated several times already, I am not directly questioning Hezbollah's legitimacy. I am noting that the international community has specifically discussed their aid, and called for it to be discontinued, in part due to their perceptions of its less-than legitimate nature. The vast majority of the debate centers on this, which I have amply sourced. You are asking that we grant equal discussion to both parties' aid, despite the focus and censuring on only one party's aid (with exceptions that I have noted, and included).

To the comment above: if Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are the only states that disagree, that would be consensus par-excellance. While the situation is far more complex than that, the passing of an SC resolution is reflective of consensus.

And to the edit summary by Wedian, when I said WP:Spam, I referred to the soliciting of twenty users (mostly on one side of the POV) not previously involved to take part. Tewfik^Talk 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

We do not list the media bias of Fox News, why do we for the Tehran Times? That's not support, that's media bias and it's something separate. Also, I'm changing "The regime" to read "The Iranian government". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another section

Propose a "Criticism of Aid" section as there appears to be a lot more of this surfacing now- particularly from pundits but also from political figures in USA. 82.29.227.171 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This article seems to be structured on principles of original research. An in-depth analysis of US support to Israel in the absence of mainstream sources that link American military support of Israel to this conflict seems to merely be a tool to somehow make charges of Iranian/Syrian support seem less problematic. Of course, those relationships have been a prominent part of the conflict, as well as being in contravention to UN SCR 1559. Additionally, Hezbollah is a nonstate which is classified to differing degrees by the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, as well as having its senior intelligence officer listed by the EU as terrorist. I am removing the sections that are not directly related to this. Please let me know if you disagree, Tewfik^Talk 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, you continue to wikilawyer and not assuming good faith.

First of all, the article was structured, by me as you well know, as a template, which could be edited by anyone. I have no issue with the removal of an empty section, but I do have issues with the removal of sources material by anyone. Your edits so far have been directed not at improving article quality, but at trying to push two POV allegations: 1) that no WP:RS or WP:V sources publish that israel recives military and political support from the USA 2) that Hezbollah as a non-state actor cannot be equated as Israel. The first is a blatant lie not supported by any source: even the US congress publishes the factual information on this aid, and this aid is extremely relevant to the present conflict. It is as relevant as Iranian involvment.

Now, you do raise some original research, such as the violations of UN SCR 1559, which is possibly why don't you just go ahead and add it to the article. If you can find sources for this go ahead and add them. I think you will, just not from the UN, which has not ruled on the matter.

Lastly I think your accusation of POV pushing is wrong, and uncivil. I do think thay publishing an NPOV encyclopedia requires that all relevant facts be published. It is not an attempt to "water down" facts, but to present them in an NPOV way. You seem to think that the fact that Iran supports Hezbollah is somewhat diminished because Israel is supported by the USA, but I don't think so. I think it shows that we respect our readers when we present to them the information so they can draw their own conclusions. That is what NPOV is about, not presenting analisis straight form Al-Manar or Haaretz. You seem to seek to diminish the quality of our article by seeking to hide sourced information, simply because it puts your original research into question.--Cerejota 03:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I note my objection to the claims of continuing wikilawyering and not assuming good faith, and I've posted a link to this page on the Mediation. Cerejota, if you have a problem with an edit I made, please just address that.

I never questioned that Israel receives US aid, only its relevance to this conflict (and thus this page) which could be demonstrated by linking to an RS analysis/presentation of these claims. That is why the bunker-busters and other relevant sections may be included. That is why Iranian/Syrian aid is extremely relevant.

While its non-state status is an indicator of its inequity in this comparison, the major difference is that Hezbollah's disarmament was indirectly called for in 1559, and it is listed by varying degrees as terrorist by several important actors (as I mentioned in more detail above), which make allegations of Iranian/Syrian aid that much more notable. Of course you are welcome to dispute my logic there, and at the end of the day, I'm more concerned with RS analysis/presentations of these claims.

Lastly, I'm at a loss as to what part of my comments you could construe as an "accusation of POV pushing," and I'm really not sure what you refer to with "water down," or why you think that I am trying to diminish the article's quality by "hiding sourced information." I really hope this ends well, Tewfik^Talk 04:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll begin by the end, to get that out of the way.

You said: This article seems to be structured on principles of original research. - Since I structured the article, and you well know this, this is the same as claiming I ws performing original research. I did no such thing, and as I explained in various talk pages all over, my goal with this page was the presentation of information that had been put into various places. I structured the page according to all the stuff available at the time. If editors have not moved info its not my fault. You failed to assume good faith, and wikilawyered by calling on "OR".

And a veiled personal attack at that.

My water-down comment is a paraphrase this you said "seems to merely be a tool to somehow make charges of Iranian/Syrian support seem less problematic". As I have previously stated, I have no love for either Iranian or Israeli parlamentarian theocracy, nor for efforts of the present political leadership in the USA to bring that style of government to the USA via Christian fundamentalism: I am a secularist radical democrat (small "d" am registered Independent).(yes, thats POV and OR, but since you allude to it I feel free to bring it to the table). So I have no vested interest in making Iranian (or Syrian, they secular but a dictatorship) support of Hezbollah less problematic. I do have an interest in having a great encyclopedia, and that means having the sourced facts of the roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the conflict. You continue to raise strawmen of POV issue which they aren't, and in the midst of a moderation procedure I can only think you either overlooked what you were doing, or a seeking to inflame matters after I did apologize to you for saying you mislead admins as a way to skew the proceeding.

By asking that we don't cite US support to Israel, you are trying to hide sources. The material is sourced. Simple no?

Now the other stuff, such as the relevance of US aid to the conflict, is POV pushing. Not only are there a number of sources (for example Reuters) that indicate that US aid to Israel has been accelerated and increased as a result of the conflcit, but the US congress has passed strong resolutions in support of Israel and these resolutions are not just symbolic, as reported in all major news wires and US mass media. It is not OR to present these facts. You claiming they are OR is simple POV pushing. Again I say: present the information in NPOV, and let the reader decide. Your response to that is a POV statement: the Iranian support is illegitimate, the US support is legitimate, so lets just talk about illegitimate support.

I addressed your concerns on the non-state nature of Hezbollah here, to which you din't reply. The entire body of sources, including Haaretz and Ynet, say Hezbollah is the main combatant in this conflict. As encyclopedic compilers under a set of rules we both know, our goal is not to perform or even present analysis, but rather facts.

When we do present analysis it's mainly in the form of debates in order to let our readers know such debates exist and allow them to perform original research. Now, if you want to create a section in Hezbollah's page on a debate on its legitimacy as combatant, sourced and presented as NPOV, go ahead. But that is not the goal of this article. The goal of this article, as a sub-article of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, is to present the facts around the roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors, and if we start to make POV value judgements (like support for Israel as legitimate versus support for Hezbollah as illegitimate) we will compromise NPOV. Its as simple as that.

Again, if you feel that the issues of legality and legitimacy of the combatants need to be addressed, create a section on that, or a subpage, and source it. And let the edit wars begin. Anything else is just soapboaxing your POV and using original research as an excuse for POV pushing. Amen.

Lastly, when I originally opposed mention of Iranian and Syrian support in the main article page, I argued two things: most of this support predated the conflict, and that it was going to snowball into a competition on who supports who, with nefarious results for article quality (mainly because it is beyond the scope of the specific conflict and part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict itself). Consensus emerged in discussions you where a part of that we had to address the roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors, and this means any and all non-combatant State and non-State actors, unless NPOV is compromised. You and many others didn't understand this, and this page is a result. I don't like it either, but it makes much more sense than having this as a section of the main page, or having only info on Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah, which is a blatant violation of NPOV.

I also hope this ends up better, but you continue to make inflamatory claims, ignore what I say, and push your POV, which cannot help at all.--Cerejota 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, let me address these 'issues' Tewfik originally raised and the deletions from the article of material I introduced [1]

On the detail I introduced:

1. Tewfik, you are in a minority of 1 on the issue and have already refused once to answer on the talkpage to previous queries raised by myself. Is it possible to work towards consensus instead of you acting unilaterally? Your actions were unilateral in the sense of first deleting reference to Israel, then detail on Israel, decisions you appear not to have consulted other interested editors on. I think the majority (so far 2 editors) would like to see it included at present.
2. Tewfik, considering there was a discussion on this page and you had no actually done any work on the article do you think it was right to just try and 'hijack' it for some point you want to make on the illegality of Hezbollah? Make your point in a subsection- no one is preventing you from doing that even though personally I think the point is rather pedantic.
3. Tewfik, you appear to have assumed badfaith on my part as a result of being unaware of the sources all of which are completely verifible. Being unaware of the sources does not mean information presented from those sources is "original research".
4. Tewfik, the detail on Israel is "indepth" because there is so much of it- it is well known at least in circles of people who take an interest. The "mainstream" information available online via DSCA [2] & the Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations site [3] is pretty accessible. Did you look at it?
5. Tewfik, your comment that the detail I included was "a tool to somehow make charges of Iranian/Syrian support seem less problematic" doesnt make any sense. I didnt see any 'charges' against Iran/Syria when I started writing. What work had been done on this support in the article? None.
6. Tewfik im suprised you doubt the relevance of US aid to Israel when it basically keeps the country afloat. Leaving that aside im puzzled that while removing the history of ESF & FMF for Israel you keep one of the most recent requests for support to DCSA [4] in the article. If its relevant that Israel is receiving jet fuel, then its also relevant that Israel is putting that jet fuel in US supplied bombers, armed with US weapons, and aeronautical systems designed in the USA.

On the articles structure:

1. Please note- the article is not a description of Hezbollah's illegality. The article title is quite specific and is the reason why I placed the detail on Israel in it. Now you appear to have a complaint against structure of the article itself Tewfik? Was this mentioned before?
2. Tewfik, it is inaccurate to portray the article as encouraging original research- detail on foreign aid to Lebanon, Israel, and to a lesser extent, Hezbollah etc is all publicly available from most nations (if you know where to look). Replacing the current theme with a theme focused on "Aid to Hezbollah" is rather a narrow brief given that there are a number of combatants in the conflict. Is it really the problem of other editors interested in the article as a whole that detail on aid to Hezbollah is masked in secrecy? That doesnt appear to be a good reason to prevent describing aid to other combatants in the conflict.
3. In the same way Tewfik, the title of this article is "Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" While the USA is not a combatant they are resupplying and funding a combatant- Israel. Without that direct financial and military aid Israel would not be fighting and that is a provable fact Tewfik. The figures I introduced demonstrated that very clearly.

Of course I am more than happy to link to the sources I gave so everyone can see this is not original research as Tewfik might suspect. With that in mind, and still assuming good faith on your part Tewfik, please provide a timely response to the points I raised along with some kind of justification for Israel not to be included.

The 'justification' for the deletion you have aired so far is fairly ramshackle (for want of a better word) and you appear caught up in some argument with another user, Cerejota, so I apologise if ive missed your reasoning. 82.29.227.171 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First in response to the anon- please keep your statements concise and as too the point as possible, and remember that brevity is very important if you want people to read your posts. In response to Cerejota-I think that much of your argument is based on straw men. I never got the impression that Tewfik was trying to suppress any source that explained American military and political support to Israel. I believe he was only stating (and I am in full agreement) that if you want any of your points to survive you are going to have to find sources that are in full compliance with WP:RS. Requests to do this cannot be dismissed as mere wikilawerying. It should be considered common sense that adaquate reliable sources are necessary especially for many of the contentious and controversial statements that you have written in this article. The sources that this article currently relies upon are either non-existant or do not really represent mainstream news outlets of any sort.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Silverburg, I tried brevity but the post was completely ignored (see above). This is not the first article i've noticed Tewfik deleting information out of with zero discussion and little credible explanation. He also appears to ignore the messages placed on his talkpage asking for explanation. Here, again, Tewfik has deleted sourced material from an article, an article he must think he has total domain over. Was the material I placed in the article violating WP:RS or WP:V? No. What is the explanation? 82.29.227.171 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, The Budget office of the federal government of the usa, Reuters, and other such outlets are RS. The starwmen is being built by others, not by me. The sources provided fully meet WP:RS and that is the fact. As to their relativive obscurity, some indeed are, but so are Haaretz and Ynet (essentially local media mostly known to those who live) and we use them extensively. Again, this is just an attempt to hide information, because the information meets veriafiability, reliable sources and is relevant. So please stop it, deal with it, and go an find some sources on the support of Syria and Iran that isn't Tony Blair (the pinnacle of neutrality and disinterest, I might add). --Cerejota 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I can guarantee that your posts will be much more likely to be ignored when you write at such length. People are turned off when others write essays instead of brief summaries describing what they take issue with or want changed. From what I can tell Tewfik was deleting content that was inadaquately sourced or that relied upon references that did not comply with WP:RS policy. When I first begin editing wikipedia I was also frequently frustrated when others would delete content that I spent time writing, however, in time I discovered that much of what I had written violated policies such as the above WP:RS or would be considered original research, at the time I felt that people were using unfair criteria to arbitraily delete my hard work, but you really have to understand that strict adherance to these policies is vital to the efectivness of wikipedia as a whole. If we could just include any unsupported theory as indisputable fact than wikipedia would quickly lose what reputation it has left.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, while the article may cite some of the great sources that you have just mentioned, before many recent changes the vast majority of the article was not supported by these sources, in fact much of the information was not supported by any sources, and usually if it was, it relied upon such references that do not qualify as reputable or reliable by any stretch of the imagination. By the way, I do not feel that your condescending tone is necessary, so please be civil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Silverburg did you check his edit? When he removed verified detail I placed in the article his comment by way of explanation was: "rmv artificial equation of details not related to this conflict" [5] Which means what exactly? Tewfik removed all the material cited via Congessional reports, DCSA, and the US Government. All sources which exemplify good WP:V & WP:RS. The detail didnt fit his POV and attempt to hijack this article, thats what youre supporting, not a delete of unverified material placed in the article. Material on the financial and military assistance given to israel is needed in the article, israel is a combatant, US material aid is vital to its capability particularly in a long campaign. 82.29.227.171 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article was essentially using at times reliable sources to support a novel thesis which is against policy. Namely, it was drawing a connection between American Aid to Israel, and the Israel-Lebanon conflict, although it might seem like common sense that Israel is using the aid in the conflict, we really cannot make such a link without a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of source are you looking for after ruling out the use of documents from Congress, the DCSA, and the US Government? 82.29.227.171 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the aid I highlighted and which Tewfik deleted. The same aid Silverburg claims it is unfair to assume Israel is using in Lebanon: The bulk of Israel's military arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. military aid programs. The USA has supplied Israel with:

• 226 U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter and attack jets,
• 89 F-15 combat aircraft,
• over 700 M-60 tanks,
• over 6,000 armored personnel carriers,
• scores of transport planes, attack helicopters, utility and training aircraft, bombs, and missiles of all kinds – air-to-air, air-to-ground, surfaceto-air, and air-to surface.

Do you see how ridiculous what you posted looks Silverburg? If you doubt how ridiculous it is ask yourself how IDF bombs get from bases like Miron to Beirut.

Please either you or Tewfik post a valid reason why the cited, verified, corroborated, "mainstream" detail on Israel's massive financial and military handout from USA cant go into the article. 82.29.227.171 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again I don;t doubt that the above figures are correct, but without a source that directly links it to the current conflict we really cannot imply a connection.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to 'imply' a connection between the size and strength of the IDF and US aid. The only people disputing a connection are you and Tewfik. The equation is simple:

• The aid Israel receives from USA makes up the bulk of their arsenal. They are using their arsenal in Lebanon.
• The aid Hezbollah receives from Iran makes up the bulk of their arsenal. They are using their arsenal in Lebanon.

You and Tewfik, are applying a double standard to the article to push your POV. Please provide an explanation of why source material which demonstrates the connection between the size and makeup of the IDF and US Aid is not allowed. You have put forth no arguments so far.

The sources directly linking US aid with the size and makeup of the IDF are as follows:

• DCSA requests
• Congressional reports IB85066 & RL33222
• US Government budget reports. 82.29.227.171 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid, its clear neither of you are going to try and defend this so I will just readd the detail back in. I've made the case for its inclusion with no plausible rebuttal so if you want it removed again the onus will be on you both to argue for its removal. 82.29.227.171 10:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Those details may belong at Israel-United States relations. I'm applying a "double standard" because major actors have listed Hezbollah as terrorist, and more importantly, have called for its disarming. If the UN Security council passes a resolution aimed at disarming Israel, then the US disdain for that resolution through continuing shipments of arms may be relevant. Do you think that there should be an article in the 11 September series detailing, side by side, support for al Qaida and for the US or UK? I left the details that were relevant to this conflict, but this is not the place to discuss the entirety of US support for Israel. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article deals with the financial/military "non-combatant State" support for those fighting. This article is not concerned with the illegality of Hezbollah or UN resolution 1559. The USA falls into the category of "Non-combatant State".

The USA has armed Israel continuously. Aid from the USA is the only reason Israel fields the military it does. You have not deleted the most recent DCSA aid, yet deleted a summary of aid for the last five years. That summary demonstrates that the arming of Israel by the USA is by long standing agreement and not, as you are trying to portray, in response to a UN resolution or the 'illegality' of Hezbollah. This is an agenda you are pushing. The makeup and size of the IDF is a factor in this conflict. It's makeup and size has a history and did not suddenly appear overnight just like the arming of Hezbollah didnt happen overnight.

To repeat myself, if the aid which Hezbollah is using in combat is relavant, so is the aid which Israel uses in combat. Israel is employing US aid in the form of arms in Lebanon, arms bought from the USA with American money.

And two last points; the detail I placed in the article is not the "entirety" of aid to Israel as you suggest but that suggestion alludes exactly to your agenda. And the 911 article analogy is just another strawman like the "unsourced connection" 'argument' used by Silverburg. I'll save myself the bother of even justifying it with comment.

Again, im reverting. You need to either come up with an argument applicable to this article, or stop your edit warring. RandomGalen 11:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It isn't up to Wikipedia to interpret international law, but to present a balanced account of the conflict and its participants. El_C 11:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also concur that US support of Israel must be included, for many reasons. I haven't been involved in this article, but I think that for it to contain an accurate depiction of reality, it must represent in some way the following realities (I'll leave it for the Wiki-collective to express these in some commonly acceptable way):

• Hezbollah is, simultaneously, a terrorist organization (1982, Khbar towers, Israeli embassy, etc.), a militia, and a legitimate political party within Lebanon. Hezbollah is allied with and armed primarily by Shi'a Iran, whose official policy is to destroy the state of Israel. Hezbollah is also allied with Alawite-controlled (but Sunni majority) Syria, but the intersection of sectarian interests here are much more subtle than those with Iran. Hezbollah are argued convincingly to be serving Iranian interests in deflecting attention from Iran's nuclear ambitions by their rocket attacks on Israel; therefore, Hezbollah is a de facto Iranian proxy against Israel and the United States. The efficacy of this approach is subject to debate, but it does appear to be very effective, for both Hezbollah and Iran.
• Israel is strongly allied and completely armed by the United States. Israel could not field the armed forces it does without the significant US support that it receives. There is also a strong economic support as well. Israeli actions against Hezbollah are argued convincingly to serve US interests in thwarting Iran; therefore, Israel ia a de facto US proxy. The efficacy of this approach is subject to debate, but it does not, to me, appear to be working very well, for either Israeli or US interests.

• Other reasons are US support revolve around US electoral politics. There are very effective carrots and sticks from The Israel Lobby that reward/punish with money and votes American politicians that support Israel. On the left, this is primarily due to organized, influential, and wealthy blocks of Jewish voters. On the right, this is primarily due to organized, influential, and wealthy blocks of evangelical Christian voters. Both sides communicate their support for Israel very effectively to the larger electorate, appealing to the idea of a Jewish democracy with shared ideals and Judeo-Christian culture in the middle east. Equally important, but downplayed, is the millenarian/end times theology of the Evangelical Christians.

• Hezbollah's background claims must be stated clearly as background: Hezbollah forced an Israeli evacuation from their previous adventure in LB, Israel did not withdraw from LB completely (Shabaa), Israel still holds thousands (what's the correct, claimed number?) of Hezbollah/LB prisoners from the last conflict, and Israel has not released the maps of the landmines they planted in south LB.
• Israel's background claims must be stated clearly as background: Israel withdrew voluntarily from LB under UN resolutions that Hezbollah be disarmed, it wasn't, and they continue to attack Israel with rockets and border incursions.

—AdamKesher 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with RandomGalen. If Iran's support for Hezbollah can be presented in this article, than U.S. support for Israel is completely relevant. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the exact number of Lebanese prisoners in the hands of Israel. I have looked up the figure on the internet but can find none.

I agree that foreign aid to Israel is relevant. There are two parties to this conflict: Israel and Hizbollah. Its as simple as that. --Burgas00 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. This article is about each participant in the war, the weapons used in it, and where they are acquired, regardless of why or how they are acquired or who thinks it is right or wrong. This article is not about the legitimacy of aid to either party, a distinction which is most assuredly a POV. There is a better case to be made that discussion of legitimacy is a complete non-issue, just as discussion of each side's desire to prevail in the conflict is a non-issue. The point of view of all participants of virtually any conflict is a point of view of a righteousness vs illegitimacy. Even if we could determine as fact that one side righteously obtained arms and the other did not, this would still not excuse inclusion of either.--Paraphelion 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a listing of all military and economic details of either Hezbollah or Israel. It is a place to present the notable aspects of their support. We aren't here to interpret international law, but the international positions vis-a-vis Hezbollah's terrorist nature and its disarmament make aspects of its aid, such as military supplies, notable. The same may be true of aspects of aid Israel recieves (and we can discuss where that limit may be), but a discussion of general aid to Israel is not notable in relation to this conflict. And I don't appreciate the WP:Spamming that RandomGalen engaged in, which certainly doesn't demonstrate any sort of consensus. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a listing of all military and economic details of whatever either side uses to fight the war, which has been obtained from other countries. All of this aid is notable. And in the case of Israel represents a large portion of its armament. It is rather predictable that according to you, the limits of what this article contains about Israel is up for discussion, however that of Hezbollah is not.--Paraphelion 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a listing of whatever each side uses to fight the war. For that one can see articles like Hezbollah rocket force or the pages listed in Category:Military equipment of Israel. I never said that the limits of what it contains for Hezbollah is not to be discussed (as in the case of the S. American allegations). However certain aspects of Hezbollah aid are more notable because of the international positions. If the Security Council issues similar statements calling for Israel's disarming, then the nature of this discussion would be different. Also, you reverted many things that are not controversial. In any event, I am reverting back pending discussion on these points. Oh, and I should repeat that WP:Spamming like-minded users isn't the same as WP:Consensus. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The title Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict suggests the article will describe whatever each side uses to fight the war which comes from another country. All of that is notable as it ties those countries to the conflict to some degree. There is no concensus, so we should keep the information in until there is, so that other editors may comment on what they otherwise would not be able to see.--Paraphelion 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Tewfik's agenda on the bearing of UN 1559 to the notability of aid to Israel. You need to stop acting unilaterally, consruct some kind of applicable argument, and stop the edit warfare. Your 'argument' is not convincing and should not be allowed to restrict the content and quality of detail in this article. If you can argue and convince those of us interested in working on the article then great. Suggest you wait for that to happen before you edit the detail out again. RandomGalen 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The title suggests, or should be changed to if it isn't clear, that the article will describe military and economic aid WP:Notable in the context of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. It is not supposed to be a detailed list of weaponry - I've pointed out the articles that do already do that. And with all due respect, it is not necessary for me to convince you; at the moment the burden is upon you to demonstrate that the content you would like to add (a detailed discussion of US aid to Israel) is notable using WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise the addition is based on your assumption that it is relevant, which is not how we operate, while the Iranian aid is widely reported as an important aspect in the conflict (Kerry, Bush, AFP, WSJ, The Times, ABC News, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Toronto Star; most of the stories about Israel focus on this). Additionally, it is extremely bad form to WP:Spam, and that does not constitute WP:Consensus. If you do present the proper sources and feel you must reinsert the detailed US Aid for some reason, please do so without reverting noncontroversial and minor edits that I've made. Thank you, Tewfik^Talk 15:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have demonstrated both in the detail you deleted and here Tewfik; the IDF is almost completey composed of aid and arms from foreign nations particularly the USA. Even its own homegrown weaponry contains large amounts of vital components from countries like Germany. This isnt in dispute, and its well sourced by US / EU government agencies. Your doublestandard is that Iranian originated military aid accrued in Lebanon over several years can be listed while US originated military aid accured in Israel cant. You are deliberately seeking to downplay the aid which Israel receives to fit your POV. Disputing a connection between the military aid Israel has received and its use in Lebanon is just silly.

The change to the title is an improvement, but tell me, is the description of aid to Hezbollah going to start from 6 weeks ago? If not why should the 5 years of aid Israel has been receiving since the last round of conflict be removed? A description of that aid shows how it is possible for the IDF to conduct its current campaign in Lebanon. Just as a description of military aid to Hezbollah since the last round of conflict ended shows how it is able to conduct its campaign. You are grasping at straws with that one.

As for the WP:SPAM, 'burdens', and WP:V please do not wikilawyer at me. The sources demonstrating the connections & figures are fine: the World Policy Institute is fine, the US Government is fine, the DCSA is fine. Certainly more reputable than "The Committee for a Free Lebanon" which is currently asserting so much information on Iranian military aid to Hezbollah in the article.

I'm just following the dispute resolution process. What else am I supposed to do? You cannot be reasoned with, have no coherent argument (or it morphs from one delete to the next), arent convinced by the opinions of peers concerned with balance, act in a unilateral manner, ignore the protests of other editors to stop, and persist in edit warfare. I consider you a minority figure, pushing a non-neutral minority POV about 1559 (or whatever), onto a totally straightforward article. With that in mind, and given your manner i'll persevere and look into the next step of dispute resolution. RandomGalen 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on your response, I would say you haven't understood my argument. There is no need for a detailed military history of either party. What is needed are issues that can be shown to be WP:Notable based on WP:Reliable sources. If you feel that the detailed US aid history is relevant, you could at least show that it is in the same order of prominence in the media as is the Iranian aid (which I sourced above). I have not questioned your sources of information, only their relevance here. If you can't establish that such a relevance has been reported, then that is WP:Original research.

Please don't throw terms like wikilawyering around. If you dispute that you engaged in WP:Spamming, I'll be glad to display the dozen or so difs (check your contributions if you forgot). And I should add that the use of WP:Sockpuppets is frowned upon, and at the very least is confusing to readers of this conversation. While you note on your User:RandomGalen user page that you are also 82.29.227.171, I would encourage you to pick one identity and stick with it. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with the belligerent manner. I have reputable sources, I have the connection established by Government agencies and research institute! Media sources can also be found to compliment this, as can the views of politicians from the USA and the EU but since you didnt even inspect the previous sources for verifibility whats the point in providing you with more?

As I was not logged in at the time of writing the above it left my IP address as signature. I am in the process of moving to total use of the RandomGalen ID, as noted on User:RandomGalen.

As for your argument, you lack one. All you have is a personal conviction that all Iranian/Syrian military aid contributed to Hezbollah in the last 5 years should be included, and all military aid to Israel in the last 5 years should be excluded. Signal your intention to either stop your edit warfare and engage with editors concerned with balance here, go to mediation or arbitration please. RandomGalen 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I came off as belligerent, as that is certainly not my intention. I don't question the reliability or verifiability of your sources, but their relevance to an article on the conflict in Lebanon (as opposed to the articles about US aid to Israel). I have shown that numerous media discuss the Iranian involvement in the context of the hostilities, but with the exception of specific arms deliveries/usage, I have not seen anything said about the US aid. If you could supply sources that discuss the US aid in the context of this conflict, that would show that there is a relevance to them, but other wise it is just based on the "gut-feeling" that they must be relevant, because it 'keeps Israel afloat.' Even if that were true, it is not an analysis for you or I to make, and thus the absence of sources making the argument means original research. Please address my specific arguments; I felt that I addressed yours (though if you disagree, feel free to show me what point I'm missing). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see there is an apparent double standard. I don't see why information from a disinterested research orginization like the World Policy Institute is rejected whereas information is accepted from controversial organizations like the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon and the Middle East Forum. Also, you, Tewfik, argue that only information on military aid relevant to this conflict should be included, but what is your argument with including the section on Resolution 1559, which mentions nothing of economic or military aid?? I find this puzzling. --Inahet 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself: "since you didnt even inspect the previous sources for verifibility whats the point in providing you with more?"

Leave aside the reports to Congress, Buget Committee, and DCSA for a moment. Check the World Policy Institute report which I cited in the detail you deleted. You appear totally oblivious to this report despite claiming to be aware of what I added to the article. Take note of the reports theme that aid to Israel allows the USA considerable leverage in its dealings with Israel as it did during the 1980s conflict in Lebanon.

As for addressing your argument, to repeat myself: you lack an argument. The sources of World Policy institute, US Government, reports to Congress, DCSA etc are impeccable and its only a brief summary- more can be added. I dont want to go to arbitration but if you want to continue your edit warfare and constant refusal to even inspect the material under discussion then you need to let me know where you want to take this- mediation or arbitration? RandomGalen 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The information that you, Tewfik, call original research was sourced by RandomGalen. Among the sources was a seven-page report from the World Policy Institute discussing, among other things, the military aid provided to the Israelis in this recent conflict. So it is not RandomGalen's fault that you did not analyze the information. The report also points out that there is a strong imbalace in media reporting of military aid to Hezbollah from Syrian and Iran and military aid provided by the U.S. to the Israelis. So "Media prominence," more spefically among most American and Israeli media, should not be a factor and can be a dangerous advantage for pro-Israeli propagandists. BTW, there is no evidence of sockpuppetry, it's called "use of multiple accounts" and there are legitimate uses, look it up at WP:SOCK. --Inahet 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear, but you seem to be missing my point. No one questions the reliability of Congress or DSCA, but I can show that the Iranian aid is a major factor due to extensive mentioning in reporting of the conflict (cited extensively above). Can you show the same for US aid? I haven't found any mention excepting the specific detail that I mentioned above (referring to individual weapons systems). The World Policy Institute seems like a relatively minor organisation, and in any event, it is one source (and even they note in their report the numerous discussions of Iranian aid), while a cursory search yields dozens of articles discussing the Iranian aid. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You lack a point. Numerous editors interested in the balance of the article have tried to explain this to you. Count them.

You claim a problem with verifibility. Numerous sources appear which establish a connection between the size and makeup of the IDF and foreign aid. Then you claim that not enough sources verify this connection or that they are "minor". When you get tired of that 'argument' you will no doubt revert to explaining how Hezbollah is illegal due to Res 1559- another pony we have all had a ride on. And so on.

I will take it to the next stage of dispute resolution, this is pointless. RandomGalen 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you aren't offended, but I'm going to repeat my points as clearly as possible, since you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

• I don't question the reliability or verifiability of the existence of US aid to Israel.
• I do question the relevance of that aid to the current conflict
• I have provided numerous sources demonstrating the relevance of Iranian aid
• You have provided 1 source which (I have a reservation, if this become important in the future) may demonstrate relevance of US aid, but it is not a major source, and still - you have not provided an evidence that the relevance is on the same scale as that of Iranian aid (again, lots of sources describe one and not the other)
• I'm not saying we treat Hezbollah differently because of 1559, but that the widespread debate shows evidence of Hezbollah being treated differently because of 1559
• The number of editors who posted agreement with you is irrelevant in light of the WP:Spamming that elicited their comment.

Please address these points, as they are the points that I am making. While I'm not against dispute resolution, I believe it to be premature. Tewfik^Talk 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll address them in arbitration as addressing them here gets me or anyone else making the same points nowhere (experience has shown that time and again). This process is now underway. RandomGalen 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping the US aid section as it was. I see from the above discussion that Tewfik has been trying to remove the US aid section from the article using several execuses. First, by claiming that US aid to Israel should be removed so as not to make charges of Iranian/Syrian support seem less problematic (which is why some other users accused you of having an agenda), then by stating that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and its disarmement was called for in 1559 so Iranian/Syrian aid is more notable which is an original research by Tewfik himself. In wikipedia we're supposed to list sourced information and not choose certain sourced information while ignoring others. Then at last, by asking to show that US aid to Iran has same order of prominence in the media as is the Iranian aid . Where exactly in policy is that part? If this was the case, then all wikipedia articles would be POV, showing only what appears more' in the media and ignoring the well sourced information because they appear to a lesser degree in media .I see that all facts regarding the US military aid to Israel are well sourced using reputable sources. If you still disagree, I suggest we use these two articles [6] and [7] by CTV and Reuters respectively to support the US aid section.--Wedian 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The terrorist designations and SC resolution create notability not because of my original research, as you say, but specifically because of the prominence in the media and other places (such as political discourse). The point is that by us making the equation, which is not mirrored in outside analysis, we (meaning the article) are engaging in original research. I'm not asking for what appears "more" per se, but proof of some level of prominence. I provided quotes from the US President, there was a quote from the UK PM, and the analysis that the Iranian aid played an important role was oft repeated in the various media. The same has not yet been proven for the totality of US aid, which in any event is covered elsewhere. The equation between the two aids that emerges from not taking the notability into account is an equally problematic result of reaching the conclusion on our own.

In terms of the sources that have been provided: I am not familiar with World Policy Institute, but based on their site and description here on WP, they hardly seem like they are at the forefront of the international debate. The CTV article is a word-for-word copy of the WPI report, so something seems fishy there. The Reuters report has thus far been the only media source provided that discusses the connection, but that still doesn't warrant the same (or what we've had until now, greater) discussion of the US aid, when the international debate is still clearly focused on the Iranian aid (which I demonstrated above, and I can clarify if necessary). If you think I failed to address something, feel free to point it out to me. Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of this article should not be about analysis of military aid to either party. It should just present the facts - what military aid is given to either side that is used in the war. All of it is notable since military aid bears upon how the war is executed and how it progresses and possibly who will prevail. An compariable example is the Periodic Table of Elements - all elements are listed here, not just ones that the media gives more attention to because they are "problematic", such as uranium or plutonium. We do not omit hassium just because the media or even chemical texts rarely mention it, and we do not call inclusion of hassium an original research analysis meant to show hassium is as "problematic" or whatever other subjective adjective you would like to come up with. BTW Calling one side's military aid "problematic" is certainly POV as only on side of the conflict view it as problematic.--Paraphelion 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a list - those exist elsewhere. This should be about aid that is notable in the context of this conflict. There are articles dealing with Israeli and Hezbollah arms, and it would be extremely unproductive to mostly duplicate them here. And no, it is not one side that views it as "problematic." As you noted a few lines previously, there as been much discussion in both the mass media and government circles (especially SC Res 1559) specifically about (and in the case of the resolution, limiting) military aid to Hezbollah. Tewfik^Talk 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should just be a list, but it should describe what each side is using to conduct the war and where they got it from if it came from if it's from another country. In adition to describing that, the article can of course discuss at length any kinds of resolutions or disapproval that any state or ngo has of any particular aid that is received by either side; presumably this would mostly be focused on Hezbollah. I don't quite get what you're talking about regarding "problematic". I thought you said Hezbollah's aid was notable because meda views it as "problematic" - minding the bulk of this media are sources from countries which probably aid Israel if not Israel itself. It is an entirely POV term to describe only one side's efforts or supplies as problematic; Iran and Syria probably considers anything Israel does as problematic.--Paraphelion 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I used quotation marks in reference to your use of quotation marks in reference to my usage - I can see from where the confusion arises.

As for the rest, this is not (or shouldn't be) a page describing the weapons used in the conflict. If that is at all relevant and isn't already covered by the entries on the Hezbollah rocket force and one of the IDF's subpages, it should be created as a separate page. My understanding was that this was dealing with the supply of aid to the parties, as its role in the conflict has been controversial. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could address my points. If no one does so, I will remove the sections that have yet to be justified as explicitly relevant to this conflict. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it describe military aid used in the conflict? Other pages might generally describe military aid given to each respective part, but not say whether or not it is used in this conflict. If it makes any difference, I think we could also mention that some or all of this aid described presently was not specifically given to Israel with the intention for use in an invasion of Lebanon or fight Hezbollah, if that is so - which presume is the case, but should be sourced. Some of it may be - as the semi controversial US-rush orders. I have seen some stuff about how US/UK knew about Israel's invasion plans weeks before it started - so perhaps some aid was given or rushed specifically for this? If there is a similar point to be made about Hezbollah's weaponry that could be made as well, but I presume Hezbollah wasn't given rockets to fire at anyone but Israel.

I had no understanding that this article was to be only about controversial aid, and in this case I have no idea how such a distinction is different from the "problematic" view point of the aid by media originating mainly from countries that label Hezbollah a terrorist org, aid Israel or is Israel itself.--Paraphelion 03:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a detailed listing if every weapon used or every bit of aid made use of. Assuming we actually had the sources, it would still be irrelevant to the debate. If I recall, the reason this article was created was specifically to deal with the reports of aid that figured so prominently into the discussion, both in the media and in the corridors of power shaping policy. This is directly reflected in 1559 and statements of various world leaders. In terms of any type of media bias, that can be countered by using media from around the world as long as they are reliable sources.

I again ask for a justification for the in depth analysis of US aid to Israel, despite its extremely minimal coverage in the aforementioned media and political debate. There is a difference between balance and artificial equation. The Iranian aid is central to so much discussion, and it should be discussed. The portions of US aid that are discussed (specific bombs etc, often in the context of general US support for hostilities) should be included here. And analysis that is not sourced, but included "because we have to discuss both sides" should not. Wikipedia is not the place for original analysis. I await reply, Tewfik^Talk 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what debate? I don't know what reason this article was created, I did not follow any discussion that lead to its creation, but am merely going by the article title. If the article is going to concentrate only on aid that that media focuses on and/or mainly discuss aid that Hezbollah receives, the article title should probably be changed. You say "This should not be a detailed listing if every weapon used or every bit of aid made use of.", but you don't really explain why, other than to cite reasons for why this article was created. When some random person reads this article, they are not and should not have to be aware of the idiosyncrasies of some prior debate between editors which accounts for why this article only focuses on only portions of what the title says it is about. Just because someone had some reason to create an article does not mean that reason dictates all that can be included in the article. As I have explained, I think it should include aid made use of, as other articles on the IDF or Hezbollah will not specifically mention what part of the aid is used in the conflict. And again, foreign aid is notable by default since it ties several countries to the conflict. I would agree that sections of the article, as currently titled, could further discuss what aid is being focuses on by the media, and other issues that I had mentioned before - so long as there are citations, of course. Also it would be nice to get some more opinions on this matter.--Paraphelion 07:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a good case for changing the title, which was only created a short time ago. You're right that a detailed analysis of the specific foreign aid used by both parties is not discussed elsewhere, but there are lots of things that aren't discussed elsewhere. The specific utility of this article is to record the discussion surrounding notable/controversial aid, which was removed from the main article due to space constraints. Also, I don't mean to sound unilateralist, but the nonnotable aid has been up for a long time without any reply to my arguments (I understand Paraphelion, that you are arguing a different point - the nature of the article). I'm removing the parts whose relevance hasn't been justified by published analysis, while keeping the parts which have been. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You say "there are lots of things that aren't discussed elsewhere.", but this was your arguement for why we should not include detailed foreign military aid - that it is already detailed on other pages. Furthermore, there are not "lots of things that aren't discussed elsewhere" for which there also exists an article named after exactly what we're talking about; that is to say, sure there are no articles which discuss Butterfly-Donkeys from Venus, but there is also no article titled that. There is a an article called "Military_and_economic_aid_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict" and yet there is no article where foreign military aid in relation to the conflict is described.

I am arguing a couple of points here - one is indeed about the changing of the title, provided there is a reason to. But I am also arguing that as it stands, the title of the article in literal terms expects that all military foreign military aid should be described here. I also made the point that all foreign military aid is notable by definition as it ties other countries to a conflict/war which has had tremendous media coverage. I am purposely not reading the surrounding debate about why this article was created, because I feel that is largely irrelevant, as I've said before; there is nothing about the title that suggests it will focus on "discussion surrounding" the aid, though I am not opposed to some of that being part of the article. There might also be a case for two articles, this one "Military_and_economic_aid_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict", and perhaps another specifically about the type of notable/controversial aspect you are focusing on.

Also - I will agree that a dry listing of military aid to Israel here is pointless if it is not accompanied by information about exatly how it is used in the conflict. And I would be OK with removal of such text until someone is willing to do research and cite that information, which will probably not be me, btw. Also keep in mind that if military aid to Israel is removed, then information such as Iran's 50-100 million to Hezbollah should be removed since it is not described in terms of being specifically related to the conflict. It would be nice if we could have perhaps a few more people comment here with different views since Tewfik and I have just about exhausted our viewpoints.--Paraphelion 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion you are right. The IDF is/was using the military aid it has received over many years, (just like Hezbollah), to prosecute war in Lebanon. End of story.

Consider Tewfik's own statement that the article: "should be about aid that is notable in the context of this conflict". Is anyone disputing that the IDF is employing military aid it has received in Lebanon? Detail on the use of F-15/F-16, MLRS, UAV, Merkava running on foreign components, APCs, BlackHawks, US munitions etc. wont be hard to cite. Is anyone able to dispute that this military aid was received to allow the IDF to act in defense of Israel? Isn't that what the Israeli Government claim the IDF have been engaged in?

As for your threats to remove the detail, you have already been asked to cease acting unilaterally. You have also been asked to produce an argument. So far, to avoid addressing the simple fact of the IDF using military aid its received, you have invented a number of strawman arguments- the sources are bad/minor, the media doesn't say so, resolution 1559/aid to Israel is 'non controversial', the crying wolf over policy violations, a hidden raison d'etre for the the article. None of these hold water. You have failed to make the case for removal of the detail. Asserting you have, like asserting policy violations, doesnt make it so Tewfik.

Paraphelion I agree on article changes but to reinclude political and military planning support which combatants have received. At least three independent sources now assert information on IDF/Israeli Government prior planning in consultation with the US government and military. RandomGalen 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 18 and on

Paraphelion: Again, you're right about the title, but keep in mind that it was created arbitrarily as a replacement for a previous one. The article's content shouldn't be dictated by an inaccurate title. In terms of which aid is notable, we cannot ignore the amount of discussion, both in the press and in the policy, about one side - Iran. To give equal prominence to the other side, US, without evidence of that prominence in published media, is not balance, but a degree of original research. This is really the key point, though I agree that we need more voices. RandomGalen: I'm sorry that you fail to see my argument; I'm really not sure how to present it more clearly. While I would certainly not act against consensus, there is no consensus for keeping at the moment. As far as I can tell, I have addressed each of your objections. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see various arguments, none have any applicability to this article. The article is concerned with military aid to the combatants, not media bias, not resolution 1559, not the illegality of Hezbollah, and not your agenda on minimising the detail of military aid to Israel.

The IDF is using military aid it has received to engage in conflict in Lebanon. Do you dispute that Tewfik, yes or no? RandomGalen 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of public debate, and policy regarding the future of the conflict has dealt with aid to Hezbollah, and not aid to Israel - do you dispute that? Regardless of your assertion, UN SC Res 1559, and now 1701, which both hold as goals disarming of Hezbollah in full or in part, are extremely relevant to the conflict. The statements of world leaders regarding aid to Hezbollah are also extremely relevant.

WP:NOR states that material cannot be included in an article if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? Please quote the reputable source that supports this case. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A description of either side's military aid that is used in the conflict along with citations is not analysis or synthesis and more than a list of elements on the periodic table of elements is analysis or synthesis. The article can of course include analysis on that information, and that is where WP:NOR applies.--Paraphelion 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why stop the listing of US aid at 2001. We have no way of knowing what part of the aid was employed. The logical conclusion would be the listing of all military aid for all parties from their inception (and maybe before that). Which is we can only make a comparison based on verifiable sources. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved text

I moved text on the UN SC council resolution from the intro to a new subsection in historical background in the main article page. It seesm to me that is info that belongs there rather than here, mainly because it predates the present conflict and is relevant background information.--Cerejota 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the whole text is relevant in the main page, it is no less relevant here. Tewfik^Talk 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The security council resolution is clearly relevant as it gives important backround to the article's topic. Many non-combatant states invoke the resolution when making their positions known.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is incompatible with placement in the main page how?--Cerejota 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Since it is relevant in the main page it cannot also be relevant here? I do not follow your logic. This article is about the role of non-combatant states in the current conflict. Many non-combatant states support Israel because of the failure of Hezbollah to abide by the reolution. Therefore the resolution is relevant to this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So your POV original research is better?--Cerejota 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, cite sources explaing that "Many non-combatant states support Israel because of the failure of Hezbollah to abide by the reolution". Now, you and I, we agree this might be fact, but it is not good to place here until it meets a certain standard of sourcing. As to the placing of the paragraph, it goes against the tone, structure and goal of this page: this page is not about the motivations in general, but of the roles in the specific, which obviously includes motivation if this motivation in froma realiable sources and in verifiable, but for a matter of coungrency should be connected to the facts of support, not a stand alone, borderline OR paragraph. Whereas the paragraph, placed in the context it was in the main page, was indeed relevant. Sorry, but I won't let POV drive quality to the ground.--Cerejota 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not original research. I could reference it if neccessary but since I am not adding anything it is not required. Plus if you would read the sources of the main article of the conflict that you so often quote you would quickly notice that there are references there that qualify as reliable sources and support my statement. Also, while you may feel that the section's incorporation goes against the generalized aestheics of the article that you have worked so hard to establish, I feel that its inclusion is necessary to establish backround.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian admission

When someone gets a chance, they could add this. Tewfik^Talk 06:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ethics of providing support

Whether they are state or non-state actors, if they provide combat support in a war they are classed a certain way. However, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on combat support.

When I was in the US army, only about 1 "soldier" in 5 actually was intended to fight. The rest were Combat Support troops, like truck drivers, cooks, clerks, mechanics, etc. In Vietnam (way before my time!), these guys stayed as far from "the field" as possible, in the "rear echelon" (another missing article). Grunts in the field called them Rear Echelon Motherf*****s (REMF's). --Uncle Ed 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about humanitarian aid ?

Is this something to be added to this article ?--imi2 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

imi2 look here for the article containing details of donations to help in the region International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 82.29.227.171 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks *S Then this current article is to not involve humanitarian aid, as I see it, as it's covered in the article U mentioned --imi2 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious

First of all this article needs MUCH more expansion, especially on the Israeli side. As one user put it, the United States keeps Israel afloat both economically and militarily so DO NOT tell me this is insignificant or that Iran and Syria are more significant. Just to comment on the fight between two users here, I do not see any reason why we should not mention US aid or, even more, deligimitze Hezbollah which is btw, whether you like it or not, a CREDIBLE organization in the vast majority of the world. Simply because the USA has it on its list of "terrorism" does not mean that suddenly wikipedia should deligitimize it and not treat it in the same weight as Israel, as some very POV (yes, Tewfik, it all comes back to you) user has suggested. Also, I spent time editing the part of the article on resolution 1559 (which I support btw) before realizing that it was to no, yes absolutely NO, use to this article. This article is extremely specific and concerns military and econ. aid to the combatants. So does Res. 1559 provide this aid? NO, so take it out, period. There’s absolutely no relevance to the article. In addition, Obviously, I’m not stupid and having read a majority of the discussion here, concluded, that not only is it not relevant, it is POV to even include it because a user is attempting to deligitmize Hezbollah in the view of the reader. This is against policy and NPOV rules. If the person who wrote it had the point of proving Hezbollah "illegitimate" this is not the place to do it, go write for Haaretz or something and do it there. Main point: much more expansion needed and don’t listen to a user whining and destroying the article (yes, Tewfik), the majority rules. Just provide sources and write ABOUT the topic. Doge120 04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far-Fetched

Read this, straight from the article that Guy Montag, an overtly pro-Israeli enthusiast to say the least, used to write his "hypothesis" about involving Hezbollah and South American drug trafficking. Please, POVers don’t overdo it with too overtly pro-Israeli propaganda and far-fetched statements from journals and magazines, three-quarters of the intellectuals haven't heard about and where the word "alleged" forms the entire basis of the author’s argument. Hezbollah is an Islamist Shiite organization so I would doubt that it engages in drug trafficking in south America, from all the places and all things....anyway READ : In June 2005, Ecuadorian security officials uncovered a drug smuggling ring led by a Quito-based restaurateur of Lebanese descent identified as Rady Zaiter. Under the auspices of “Operacion Damasco,” local security forces disrupted his syndicate, which stretched to the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East. Although LITTLE EVIDENCE has emerged confirming that Zaiter was anything other than a prolific drug dealer, Ecuadorian sources are emphatic that Zaiter had ties to Hezbollah and was in fact laundering money for the group [2]. OK, now there was only ONE Person involved and suddenly because he’s of Lebanese descent he has ties to Hezbollah? Not only that, but LITTLE EVIDENCE has emerged, this is preposterous, how did such a claim end up on the page of wikipedia for “major economic and military aid” to Hezbollah. There is a smear campaign going on by pro-Israeli unites in wikipedia in order to paint as bad an image as they can about the group. I will not get started about Israel because this is beyond the point now. But let me simply mention Qana and the destruction of Lebanon by the "Israeli democracy".Doge120 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It must be true, AIPAC have corroborating 'evidence'!!

"The press release also noted that Bekaa terrorists had traveled to South America, where they trained members of the Medellin Drug Cartel" [8] RandomGalen 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military and *economic* aid?

Or just military aid? The article's body does not seem to live up to the (renamed) title, certainly not to the lead's aspirations (beyond the title, i.e. political as well). Should it be renamed, or is there immediate interest in expanding on these area/s? El_C 05:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we had better choose now before the related events disappear from this timeline.--Paraphelion 05:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Hezbollah even receive "economic" aid? The majority of the debate seems to revolve around military issues in any event. If opposing evidence emerges in the future, we can always change back. Tewfik^Talk 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tewfik. In spite of your disingeneousness in this case, you well know that Hezbollah is also a civilian political party, and like all political parties world wide, recieve economic aid.--Cerejota 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you would drop the hostility, and no, I don't know that all political parties world wide recieve economic aid. Would you source this, or at least the part relating to Hezbollah per my question? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also would not assume all political parties receive aid from countries outside of the country it operates in. I think Tewfik was just asking an honest question, and he's offering discussion.--Paraphelion 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, as with military aid, if either party receives economic aid which is used in the conflict it is relevant. Now I do see one potential problem is that there will be reports about how much aid is given to Hezbollah from Iran, Syria and others, and this aid is sometimes just named without any mention of what is done with this aid, and some will assume, somewhat reasonably, in my opinion, that it of course has something to do with the conflict, since Hezbollah's budget is presumably not very big. Despite this, economic aid should not be mentioned here unless we can cite how it is related to the conflict.--Paraphelion 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I was thinking about the (civilian) economic aid given to Israel and Lebanon (i.e. suprlus dumped, now time to rebuild). El_C 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more misleading edit summaries by Tewfik

Tewfik edit summary for this edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_and_economic_aid_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=69761698&oldid=69742926 is an innocuous : "+refs" However, he has clearly changed content, adding speculative commentary while removing information.--Paraphelion 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop assuming that I am acting in bad faith. I wrote "+refs" when I restored the claim with the ref, because Cerejota had just removed the claim because of its lack of citation. Tewfik^Talk 04:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You also removed information. I do not believe your feigned ingorance of your own actons, considering that you first left an entirely misleading edit summary while removing information, and then after this is pointed out, you still make no mention of the information you have removed.--Paraphelion 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at it yet again, I noticed that I removed "however the UN has not pronounced itself in this respect," though I assure I didn't notice this earlier. In any event, while I will try to be clearer in my edit-summaries, I don't think there was truly anything wrong with removing it, as a full qualification of the assertion with the person's name and organisation was already included, it was just an addition of POV "balance" in my opinion, and hardly a major or controversial aspect of the article. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If I'm changing a lot of little things I will often do the same thing as Tewfik did- list the most major change and then add some kind of qualifier that indicates I am also doing a few other things as well. I really don't think Tewfik did anything very improper.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No surprise there that you also leave misleading edit summaries and that you also claim that you don't see anything wrong with it.--Paraphelion 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of Aid not in relation to the current conflict

Considering the title of this article I think it is safe to say that providing a comprehensive list of all miltary support that the US gives to Israel is irrelevant to the subject in question. I have kept the passages that refer to miltary aid in the current conflict but I have deleted everything else since it would be original research to tie in all the aid with Israel's operation without a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. IDF is dependent on these aids, and without these aids, such attcks that we've seen wouldn't be possible. These are sourced content and they're relevant to this perticular article, and they should be remain in the article. — Hossein.ir 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all that is original research, second of all it is not even logical. Israel spends 9 billion dollars of its own money on its military (meaning that this doesn't include the US aid) making it one of the best financed militaries in the world. The claim that they could not carry out an attack without American support is patently false, besides even if it was true, you have not provided a single source which ties the comprehensive list of aid to the current conflict, which means it is irrelevant to this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not original research. It's sourced content. Should I give a source for sourced content to make it super-sourced? I can't do this, if it's possible to do this. — Hossein.ir 08:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the aid isn't sourced, but rather that its relevance to this conflict is questioned. The WP:OR issue is due to its stating that material cannot be included in an article if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? Please quote the reputable source that supports this case (I'm partially pasting from my reply above). As of now, the sourcing has been minimal, while sourcing proving that the discussion of Iranian aid is relevant is in ample supply. I'm certainly interested in what you think, but its been quite a while since I presented this argument, and despite spirited discussion with Paraphelion, it doesn't seem that the criteria have been met. Tewfik^Talk 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not OR to present US aid to israel, even if chronologically previous to the conflict, as relating to this conflict, it is a simple fact.

Even so, this great push for "only as related to the current conflict" I belive to be a wrong approach and rather misguided. We include, in the main page of the conflict and in other subpages pleanty of information, see-alsos, ELs and other information from before the conflict, as part of the background information. By seeking to narrow the scope of this very much relevant page by excluding needed and factual information on the background of this conflict, we lessen the quality of the information.--Cerejota 10:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FOr example, using this incredible logic, the only information we can include in the Military aid to hezbollah section would be:

"On August 7, 2006, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Iran answered Hezbollah's August 4 call for "a constant supply of weapons to support its operations against Israel".[7] According to Western diplomatic sources, Iran will supply advanced Russian, Chinese, and Iranian designed Surface-to-air missile systems, in addition to Hezbollah's current stock of Iranian-delivered Strela 2 MANPADS.[8]"

Other sourced material was published during the conflict, but either refers to actions who predate the conflict, or are not certain as to date, which means it is OR if we assume they refer to aid during this conflict.

Needless to say, having this unorthodox and unusual position harms article quality greatly.--Cerejota 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Tewfik's POV. I can't understand how he calls this original research. It's related to this article. Mentioning the source of F16s that Israel had used during the 2006 war is related to this article, and its name. He's also removed my sourced, related content about Iran's aids, although the news was released in the time of conflict. The funny thing here's that the only remaining us aid in this article talks about the information US had gave to Israel about Iran and Syria military aids to Lebanon. Anyway, the same idea as Tewfik's can be used to remove all the contents of Hezbollah section. --Hossein.ir 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, please look at the total military aids of US. It's $19,509,734,000. It can not be ignored. --Hossein.ir 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the majority of material dealing with Iranian aid is discussed at length in the media, and is an important factor in political discussions (including in those surrounding the formulation of the various UN SC resolutions). This is amply sourced. Can you present sources discussing US aid? The only such sources I have seen relate to very specific incidences, which are included here. And if we suddenly don't need sources, then why stop at 2001? How can you know that only aid up until 2001 is relevant? Maybe the entirety of aid is relevant. My point being that no source establishes that this specific aid has anything to do with the conflict, and that its presentation here without citing outside analysis (alongside mention of Iranian aid which is subject to such sourced analysis) creates original analysis, like I quoted from NOR above. I apologise if I accidentally removed any sourced claims you made - that is not my intent. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You can read this. It's originally from Democracy Now! [9]. Also, considering this fact that US is the greatest supporter of Israel and funded multiple billions of dollars to Israel evey year, including US aids is necessary. BTW, I couldn't find any article in Fox News that describes the role of US in Israel's war against Lebanon. All these articles are Lebanon war's SPECIFIC.

• Israel Violates Law on U.S. Weapons in Mideast - from Inter Press News Service
• U.S. Arming of Israel: How U.S. Weapons Manufacturers Profit From Middle East Conflict- from Democracy Now!
• US up in arms over Sino-Israel ties - from Asia Times Online

--Hossein.ir 12:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your attempt to research the issue Hossein, but I have to point out that the sources you supplied still don't justify the current detailed discussion of US aid. As the Asia Times piece is from 2004 and doesn't discuss this conflict, the fact that we had to dig out Democracy Now! and Inter Press Service articles at best demonstrate that the discussion is only held by non-mainstream organs. For such a discussion to deserve the representation it is getting now would require many articles from mainstream sources, which the Iranian aid is documented in (as well as in many political statements, including those relating to the drafting/passing of 1559 and 1701). It may not be fair to Iran, but the reality is that there is much more discussion accorded to its actions than to the US's in this regard. Wikipedia isn't about the truth (as terrible as that sounds), but is just supposed to be a reflection, warts and all, of the world - no more and no less.

I really feel bad about reverting as you've put some work into this (and I know how difficult and time-consuming it is to find good sources), but until the mainstream sources appear, I have no choice. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are ignorant of US media, but "Democracy Now" probably has more people who follow it than Haaretz. It is most decidedly a mainstream source, even if it is to the left-of-center. Inter Press Service is also a legitimate independent news service, that while small compared to giants of the news agencies, is notable enought to warrant inclusion in wikipedia, and is used by many local newspapers and news media accross the world as sources. I am sorry, but you are simply wrong in both counts. Those are WP:RS, and there is no way you can argue otherwise. I quadruple, quintuple dare you to prove they are not mainstream sources. Hell, it is certainly more mainstream that Little Green Footballs and other such unreliable sources you push in other pages... Can't have it both ways Tewfik... sources will question your POV just like they will question mine, and thats no reason to exclude them.--Cerejota 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Tewfik insists in not allowing reliably sourced material that is relevant to this article, both by questioning their reliability as sources and by narrowing the scope of what is relevant to an exagerated level, I have removed all material that fits his definition of what should be included in the "Hezbollah" section. --Cerejota 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My point continues to be that there is nowhere near the same amount of discussion. The Iranian connection is widely discussed in many mainstream media, as well as being specifically discussed by the principals regarding the formulation of res. 1559 and 1701. And while I dispute that Democracy Now! and IPS are mainstream sources, even according to your understanding that they are, do you really believe that two mentions by such minor organisations justifies the same weight as that of the Iranian connection? If it was indeed such a mainstream discussion, I would think it easier to find many sources that support it.

I'm also unsure of what Haaretz has to do with anything, and I never 'pushed any unreliable sources in other pages,' as you say [nor have I ever used "Little Green Footballs" as a RS for anything other than itself]. I would appreciate if you limit the argument here to the matter at hand, and if you think that I've done something inappropriate elsewhere, you are free to notify me on my Talk and I will discuss on the relevant page. Also, I don't know how you can possibly justify your mass deletion from the page, but based on your edit summary and comments above, it seems like you were doing so to make some point about a perceived logical inconsistency in my argument. Let's please just deal with the issues here in an appropriate manner. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You may have reasons for your mass deletions, but other editors doesn't agree with your POV. you're continusely deleting sourced content. If you're talking about the relation of these with the main article, 2 above links(without considering the 3rd, that is somehow old) is enough. Even one source is enough, but I've gave you two. :-) --Hossein.ir 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. Israel is completely dependant on American money and free technological support for its powerful military. It is also completely dependant on American vetos at the UN to prevent sanctions being imposed on it for its violations of the UN Charter (with respect to the right of refugees to return to their homes and with respect to annexing territories acquired by war). This is not a point of debate. This is common knowledge that should be included in a wikipedia article on the conflict. Just as Hezbollah gets a significant amount of support from Iran, as does Israel from the US. If estimated annual aid from Iran to Hizbollah is included, then the estimated annual aid from the US to Israel MUST be included if this article is to be have a NPOV. --Amin123 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge is usually a tell-tale sign of OR. To the extent that there is widely published information about the US-Israel relationship, it should be included at Israel-United States relations. Tewfik^Talk 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream sources?

Their recurring demand on coming up with what Tewfik and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg consider mainstream sources is ethically and logically unacceptable.
On the English language Wikipedia, for contributors at least having a reasonable understanding of English, it is easy to find sources in that language. The countries in which this is the native language, have strong political ties. Thus nearly all sources that can be readily cited, and the only ones Tewfik seems to accept as mainstream, are going to be biased towards USA points of interest and thus USA points of view, regardless whether topics are at world scale considered of major importance or not, and whether these views are (in general everywhere considered) correct or not.
There is nothing ethically wrong about that. It is however very unethical, not to recognize this logical implication of the language of this encyclopedia, and demand citing an equivalent number of, let alone only mainstream, sources for opposite or otherwise deviating points of view. There are also sources for instance in muslim countries and in China that are considered mainstream there, few of the readers of the English Wikepedia, and even fewer of its contributers, know these sources, or are able and willing to read these. Therefore, it is important to realize that not the number of the sources or the number of its readers is relevant, just the reliability of a source is.
Notability of a specific issue cannot be established for matters that are followed in the whole world, because one simply cannot become aware of the content of the largest part of the publications in the media all over the world. It is sufficient to demonstrate that well reputed publications on the issue exist.
It is natural for the English Wikipedia to have more and more elaborate articles on issues that matter to its readers; it is not acceptable to treat those matters, especially those that involve non-English language countries and people as well, based on what is considered mainstream or noticeable to (native or not) speakers of English. — SomeHuman 26 Aug 2006 00:31 (UTC)

I agree with you. Tewfik reasons are not related to wikipedia guidelines, and I think mass deletion of sourced, related content is against wikipedia rules. -- Hossein.ir 13:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

This article isn't a data dump for any information about weaponry supplied to various countries, but is specifically about aid related to the conflict, as the title says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The capacity of an army, is at least as much helped by weaponry deliveries before a conflict, as by those during it. If upon a conflict, deliveries are stopped, this would have political and on the long run military implications and should definitely be mentioned. In this case however, deliveries by and to parties as you had unilaterally deleted from the article, are continued or even increased during the conflict. As the data are relevant for the conflict, you do not have the right to remove referenced data from the encyclopedia: if you would have acted out of good faith, you would have started a new article like "Military and economic aid to Israel and Lebanon in the advent of the 2006 conflict" and put a link at top of the current article: "For aid in the advent of the conflict, see ...". An action as your deletion of by yourself undesired content without preliminary discussion, is blunt vandalism unless you were misguided. In that case, I'm sure it will not happen again. — SomeHuman 27 Aug 2006 10:43 (UTC)

This is that article. And there has been much preliminary discussion. Your contention that all mainstream English-language sources have a pro-US bias is a sweeping, nonfactual generalisation. In any event, you have supplied two admittedly non mainstream sources. Consider: if the debate was as widespread as you say, wouldn't it be much easier for you to provide sources? How many UN Security Council Resolutions discussed US aid to Israel in terms of the conflict? Two (1559 & 1701) deal with aid to Hezbollah. Despite your suggestion that myself or SlimVirgin are somehow acting out of bad faith, you have still not shown who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict (and you seem to have deleted several sourced claims in your last restoration - please be careful next time). Tewfik^Talk 13:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments were given, in edit comment for deleting parts that cannot be taken serious in the article: accusations of one party or its military equipment supplier against the opposite party in a conflict is called "propaganda". Such needs confirmation from unsuspected sources, or (as another accusation that is still in the article) by the opposite party itself. The references you accuse me of deleting do not corroborate the accusations, just that the propaganda statements were made. Propaganda does not belong in an encyclopedic article (unless as sample on that subject, thus not here). That is nothing to be careful about.

I did not state that all mainstream English language sources have a pro-US bias, that is a conclusion you draw. Best read what exactly I stated in the section Mainstream sources.

Do you realize that over the years, several proposals in the UN to condemn Israel have been blocked by a US veto, and how many resolutions had to be weakened simply because the UN countries knew these would otherwise be vetoed by the US? Is your question "How many UN Security Council Resolutions discussed US aid to Israel in terms of the conflict?" then merely naive? The question does imply that for you, only a UN Security Council Resolution can provide admissable information for this article. I do not think you can have read that in a Wikipedia guideline.

I did not supply any source whatsoever for this article. I don't see how then I can admit to have supplied two non mainstream sources. If you are referring to the two sources mentioned for the tables that you, Tewfik and SlimVirgin insist on reverting out of the article, while here above claiming still not [to have] shown who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict, then I can only conclude that any source, regardless its reliability, that does not fit your preposition, must for you be non mainstream and destroyed. Since Wikipedia has absolutely no rule that allows only mainstream sources (let alone what you consider to be such), and since you do not provide any argument that questions the accuracy of the data delivered by proper sources, I will consider another elimination of the tables containing those data, as purely intended vandalism. — SomeHuman 28 Aug 2006 01:57 (UTC)

We report claims as claims; Wikipedia is about verifiablity, not truth (yes, not truth). Which is why I discussed the UN SC resolutions in my comments, though merely as a reply to you I should point out that everything you said goes both ways: positions that the US wanted but could not support in the council were also dropped - that is diplomacy. In any event, I never said that we cannot use nonmainstream sources, however such sources cannot be used to provide equal (or in this case, greater) weight to arguments countering positions that are supported by a wide array of extremely mainstream sources (and I was not referring to you in terms of the "admission," I will try to be more clear in the future). Good day, Tewfik^Talk 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article is supposed to refer to aid for this conflict…

…accroding to the title. Dumping statistics about annual US aid to Israel, Iran, Egypt, or Kazhakhstan for that matter is out of this article’s scope. Aid rendered to the participants for this conflict, such as the US’s shipping weapons through England or Iran’s sending Zelzals to Hezbollah should be the only content. -- Avi 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed and argumented in section 'Tables'. You do not define either when precisely or by which country's ports aid must arrive. Any weaponry that is made available for use in this conflict matters. You have repeatedly vandalized the article, as warned against here above and again on your talk page. — SomeHuman 28 Aug 2006 03:33 (UTC)

I thank you for not reverting. We are not making an accounting of weapons - that is original research. Rather we must present arguments made outside of Wikipedia. Whatever side one may identify with, there are many media sources that discuss the Iranian aid directly, as well as the statements made by the US and UK leaders, as well as the statements of the framers of resolutions 1559 and 1701, which put them into the context of that aid. Whether it is fair or not, the same attention has not been given to US aid to Israel. That we don't see it discussed extensively in mainstream sources, but only in these partisan sources, means that the same weight cannot be given. It would not be fair to equate the two levels of coverage. That doesn't mean that nothing criticism dealing with US aid shouldn't be included, only that it be included in proportion to who says it. The widely reported critique of the shipments through England and other such issues should be (and are) included. I hope that we can continue to engage in constructive discussion in the stead of revert-warring. And again, please do not refer to my actions as vandalism - there are very specific definitions pertaining to that. This is a content-dispute. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, "only that it be included in proportion to who says it" ?!! A clearer declaration of intentional decisive POV will not easily be found on the Wikipedia. I revert and go to sleep and do some work. You can again take personal ownership of the article for some time, or leave the content in so that others have an opportunity to form an opinion. I do not revert-war: you destroy content; that has nothing to do with discussing content, but is vandalism. — SomeHuman 28 Aug 2006 03:55 (UTC)

Say the policies on reliable sources and no original research. We cannot give equal weight to vastly unequal sources, and to repeat the relevant NOR quote from abaove (again), "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." I'm not sure what POV you see there, and I'm sorry that you chose to continue reverting. Tewfik^Talk 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by dumping, Avi annual aids? It's reasoneable that 19,000,000$ aid from 2000 to 2006 is used in this war. Where did F16s that Isreal used came from? It's sourced and related to this article. Please don't remove it.

Hossein.ir 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know which planes where used and when they were purchased? That is your opinion, your supposition, your theory, or, in other words, your original research. -- Avi 14:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but that sounds a bit weird. Suppose I give you $10,000 for your birthday with the explicit purpose for you to buy a new car. 1 till 5 years later you actually buy a new car. In an article about your new car, it is not to be mentioned that I ones gave you that money, because it cannot be proven you actually used that specific money (or part of it).--Van helsing 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

His point (I think), or at least mine, is that there is no objective way to know that this specific money was used, versus any other - we could just as easily only include aid for the last 6 months as the last 6 years because while it might "make sense" to us, there is no way of verifying which aid was relevant. That is why sources are necessary. It is not our job to figure out what might make sense, but to present verifiable information. Lots of media, politicians etc., talk about the aid to Hezbollah. Hardly anyone discusses the aid to Israel in this regard. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given enough sources, but as you know, nothing but Israel and US military top-secret documents can PROVE this in a way that noone can disagree. But, right now, in wikipedia, we don't have access to such sources. Because of that, we use news sources, and books that are available for anyon. I can use your own words to justify removing all the content about Iran aids, but I don't, because I think it's your POV, not wikipedia guidelines .BTW, I don't agree with you when you say: "Hardly anyone discusses the aid to Israel in this regard", because even in US and Isreal, there are news sources and others talk about this. Democracy Now, for instance. And in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabi, and almost all of the middle east was talking about this. And with these sources, It can't be called original research. I tell you again, it's obviously natural that you can't hear anything about this from Fox News.

Fars News:

• Noam Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine 2006-08-08

Asked if he believes that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon is legally and morally justified, he said, "The invasion itself is a serious breach of international law, and major war crimes are being committed as it proceeds. There is no legal justification."

He continued, "Sufficient evidence is their tolerance for many years of U.S.-backed Israeli crimes in Lebanon, including four invasions before this one, occupation in violation of Security Council orders for 22 years, and regular killings and abductions. To mention just one question that every journal should be answering: When did Nasrallah assume a leadership role? Answer: When the Rabin government escalated its crimes in Lebanon, murdering Sheikh Abbas Mussawi and his wife and child with missiles fired from a U.S. helicopter. Nasrallah was chosen as his successor. Only one of innumerable cases. There is, after all, a good reason why last February, 70% of Lebanese called for the capture of Israeli soldiers for prisoner exchange."

• Supreme Leader of Iran Condemns Qana Massacre 2006-08-02

Why and for what reason did the lives of those innocent children, those fragile and exhausted bodies, and the small and frightened heart end in such a cruel manner? Why were the distressed hearts of their mothers and fathers so cruelty wounded by the bloodthirsty Zionists and their bigheaded and arrogant American supporters? What is the logic and rationale behind twenty days of relentless bombing of Lebanon, twenty days of atrocities on a massive scale, destruction of nation and killings of its civilian population, and the disaster such as the massacre of Qana, to make the world that claims to be civilized, the United Nations, governments and organizations that profess to be advocates of human rights to remain so callously cold and uninterested? How long should the Islamic world tolerate existence of the scheming and evil Zionist regime? How long should the Islamic governments allow aggressive and arrogant America to have a free hand in this sensitive part of the world?

• Asefi Stresses Israel's Belligerent Nature 2006-08-20

Asefi further pointed to the Untied States' unilateral approaches and the autocratic policies of US President George W. Bush in the face of the Middle-East as other factors contributing to continued crisis and tension in the region and stressed the need for an urgent shift in the US approaches and policies.

• US, Israeli Plots for Lebanon Defused 2006-08-11

Tehran's interim Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani stressed here today that Hezbollah has defused all the plots the United States and Israel hatched for Lebanon. He pointed out that the US and Zionist regime intended to suppress Hezbollah as their first objective, while they also favored companionship of England and some other states. He said despite the strong emphasis and attempts by the US and its allies to remove Hezbollah, the resistance body has been resisting the Israeli assaults for five weeks now.

• [Zimbabwe Calls Israeli Actions State Terrorism] 2006-08-04

Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister stressed that massacre of civilians in Lebanon and Palestine by the Zionist regime sets a perfect instance of state terrorism. He said the US support for Israel to continue the slaughter of on-military people in Lebanon is "unacceptable and unbelievable." He described the Israeli army measures as the clear exemplification of state-terrorism against civilians.

• Evaluation of 24 Days of Zionists' Invasion of Lebanon 2006-08-06

On the international scene, Israel is the most hated entity in the world more than ever before and the situation is rather the same with the US and Britain due to their non-stop supports for the Israeli regime. As the strategic allies of the Zionist regime, the US and Britain are now facing with global hatred and anger, specially from the side of Muslims. This has caused the US to refrain from direct involvement in the war to relieve the Zionists from their present agonies and entanglements.

Hossein.ir 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort that you've obviously expended, quoting numerous stories from a single Iranian news site is not teh same as quoting heads of Security Council member states, the resolutions they passed, or numerous wire services etc. If the argument is so widespread, then you shouldn't have trouble finding many mainstream sources to support it. I'm not sure why you keep referring to Fox News, as I've never quoted it, much less mentioned it. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't get the idea. Some news sources, like Fox News censor the news. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not American, so I'm not supposed to find news sources from US. But I can present enough sources from all over middle east, and I think It's reasonable. US aids Israel, so it seems reasonable that most of the news sources agree with the governments and claim "It's a good idea". So, why did you remove that parts again? --Hossein.ir 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that quoting the same "semi-official" Iranian news agency five times (including the opinions of the extremely nonmainstream Noam Chomsky) is equivalent to the widespread discussion in both American and European independent news services, such as the AP and Reuters. And again, I never once mentioned "Fox News," though I'm not sure why you think that Fars News Agency would be more objective than an independent organisation, whatever its criticisms. Consider that if you have to work so hard to find credible sources, maybe that means that the argument you are presenting is not actually mainstream. Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-offical? Is it a guess? No, your guess is wrong. It's an independent one. And no, they're relevant to this page.

Hossein.ir 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Reuters has described it as "semi-official". According to the BBC, it is affiliated to the Iranian judiciary." You can find the article-links on the WP article that I wikilinked above. Anyways, if you have to quote the same source five times, then there's a good chance that it isn't a mainstream argument. Tewfik^Talk 15:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hossein.ir, please stop reverting without proper sourcing. Again, five links to Fars News Agency does not establish that this is a widely discussed position. Tewfik^Talk 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From 11 September onwards

There are other sources rather than Fars News if you look better. Democracy Now is not Iran's official news agency. Even now, I can't even understand your reason for mass deletion of sourced, and related content. Do you have even a source that shows Israel did not used great US military aids in the conflict? I've given you multiple sources that shows this. I repeat:"The same reasons as yours can be used to remove all the content about Iran's aids". Also, quoting five times doesn't reduces reliablity of the fact. Thanks.--Hossein.ir 09:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fars News is the first independent news source of Iran. [10] --Hossein.ir 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The only sources presenting a discussion of the US aid to Israel are a solitary wire report (either AP or Reuters - I couldn't find it though it is definitely listed above), a Democracy Now! and IPS report, and the coverage in the Iranian Fars News. This is opposed to numerous stories about aid to Hezbollah in the AP, Reuters, and elsewhere, not to mention comments by US and UK heads of state, especially in the context of authoring 1559 and 1701. The lack of parity between the sources illustrates quite clearly that the vast majority of debate centered on the Hezbollah aid, and not on the aid to Israel. Again, consider that if the debate was really equal, it would be much easier to find equal sourcing for the argument about aid to Israel. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you don't even read discussions, and you're repeating your POV. There are a lot of news sources out there, but as one source is enough, and I gave you multiple sources, your reasons does not conform to wikipedia guidelines. First, you should prove with a reason based on wikipedia guidelines that quoting multiple sources for the content and its relevance is needed. Talking about wikipedia guidelines is not reasoning. Talking about "original research" does not make an article "original research" or whatever. If you think so, you should give justify your idea. And also, I should say, again, that the same reasoning can be used to remove all the content about Iran's aids, because most of it is no related to this conflict. What do you say about this, and why don't you remove it either?--Hossein.ir 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The same cannot be said, because the aid to Hezbollah is widely discussed in mainstream sources, something that is not true of the aid to Israel. WP:NOR states that material cannot be included in an article if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? So far, there is a solitary Reuters story, coverage from Democracy Now!, IPS, and Fars News. The case about aid to Hezbollah has been discussed much more widely across the mainstream media, and by prominent world leaders. I'm not sure what else I can say on this subject. Tewfik^Talk 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Reuters story, coverage from Democracy Now!, IPS, and Fars News". This is called multiple sources, and with these the fact that Israel is armed by US should be included here. So please stop reverting without reasoning. Cheers --Hossein.ir 08:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's show out some news sources, again, and again. Although it's not necessary.

Rice takes a page out of Machiavelli 2006/07/29

Washington’s shameful support for Israel has reached a climax over the past few days. It has expedited the delivery of precision-guided missiles to Israel and blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire after more than two weeks of war, a move which is unprecedented in the history of the Security Council. This brazen policy has reached such extremes that some U.S. congressmen have even demanded an apology from Iraqi Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki for his condemnation of Israel’s brutal attacks on Lebanon. Yet, it would have been surprising if Maliki had said anything other than what he said. They are so disrespectful that they wanted Maliki, the leader of an Arab state, to endorse the attack.

U.S. has given Israel green light to continue assault: Lebanese MP 2006/07/29

“Today, the United States has given Israel free rein to continue its massacre and destruction in Lebanon to show what is happening in the country is the will of the U.S., to which all countries should bow,” he told the Mehr News Agency in a telephone interview. The Zionist regime’s hostility is in line with Washington’s goals in the Middle East, he noted, adding, “With this approach, the U.S. just creates more enemies for itself.”

Now please add Mehr News to all those above. Hossein.ir 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of freedom of the press in Iran? Mehrnews is based in Iran, and likely can not report unsanitized truth, unfortunately. -- Avi 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we're talking about something opposite. Fortunately, it's in iran, and it can talk about the fact that "Israel is armed mostly by US aids". As I'm Iranin, I'm supposed to use Iranian news sources, but I'd also given news sources from US and other countries. So, why do you still keep on removing facts about US aids? And If you really belive in what you're talking about, why don't you remove Iran's aids either? Considering your reasons, It should be out of scope either, because it's not related to this specific conflict.--Hossein.ir 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are still trying to imply that the discussion about general aid to Israel was a notable part of the conflict, while it is several orders of magnitude removed. That aid exists is not being denied, and there is a wikilink to Israel-United States relations, which is dedicated to the subject. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not trying to do this. I'm doing this. The wikilink is also suitable, and we should add more content there; But right now, considering many sources that talked about the issue, I revert it again, because it's related to this specific article--Hossein.ir 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the page. You have not provided any evidence of this being widely discussed. Whether you believe they are biased or not, the media has more widely covered one side more than the other. And whatever you may think about the US and UK governments, they have specifically framed two UN SC resolutions in reference to one side and not the other. We are supposed to just tell what happened, even if we don't think that it is fair. Tewfik^Talk 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting without reasoning. We're not talking about what is fair and what's not here. We're writing articles, and telling what's happend. That's all. So, either give us enough reasons for mass deletion of sourced, and related content(rather than repeating answered dabates), or stop reverting.

Please read this talk page Hossein, reasons have been given. Your additions of years of previous aid is out of scope of this article. -- Avi 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. I suggest you to have a look at the given links. --217.219.18.80 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's comments Media, Lebanon & U.S. - Israeli Brutal Operations --217.219.18.80 12:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if Noam Chomsky is who we need to go to in order to source that position, then we should not include that position. Hossein.ir, please justify the additions with the appropriate sourcing per the extremely lengthy discussion above. I'll be happy to clarify any points, but the major issues are all represented already. Tewfik^Talk 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Read it, again:

I've given enough sources, but as you know, nothing but Israel and US military top-secret documents can PROVE this in a way that noone can disagree. But, right now, in wikipedia, we don't have access to such sources. Because of that, we use news sources, and books that are available for anyon. I can use your own words to justify removing all the content about Iran aids, but I don't, because I think it's your POV, not wikipedia guidelines .BTW, I don't agree with you when you say: "Hardly anyone discusses the aid to Israel in this regard", because even in US and Isreal, there are news sources and others talk about this. Democracy Now, for instance. And in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabi, and almost all of the middle east was talking about this. And with these sources, It can't be called original research. I tell you again, it's obviously natural that you can't hear anything about this from Fox News.

The fact is that you don't even read given sources. You try to find a way to label them. "Boy, it's from Iran, OMG it's Noam Chomsky", etc. It's not reasonig. It's POV.

--Hossein.ir 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attention please

I do not have the time to get personally involved in this case. It would cost me too much time to follow everything properly. But. STOP THE REVERTING. Those who continue reverting will at some point be blocked from either this article or from Wikipedia in general. End the reverting and DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE. In the meantime, revert to last version which everybody agreed on. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We should hear from an administrator(ofcourse, someone that's not him/herself involved), otherwise it's not possible to reach to a result.

Hossein.ir 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems some people want to push their POV with redirecting multiple editors here, and reverting repeatedly.

Hossein.ir 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Once an administrator makes one edit to this article, Hossein, they fail your test . Regardless, your continued additions of material that is not germane to this article is, I am afraid, a classic example of POV pushing. If you would like to add this to the Foreign relations article, or carve out and start a new article about US military aid to Iran, then by all means do so. But any aid not directly supplied for this conflict does not belong here, and your continuing to push it into this article will be viewed as vandalism. Thank you. -- Avi 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"your continuing to push it into this article will be viewed as vandalism". This is a personal attack. If anyone looks at the talk page and the article, he/she will see that you and Tewfik are removing related content, with repeating answered debates again and again. US military aid in recent years are used in this conflict, and sources I've given shows this. What do you mean by "aid not directly supplied for this conflict"? Do you mean that Israel has a seperate military resource for this conflict and others? Your reason seams funny to me. But I can understand this. This is called POV. Keep cool. Cheers. --Hossein.ir 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I am afraid you are missing the point. I am not arguing that your information is not true, but that it has as much bearing on this article as do claims of Iran's using children to clear minefields in the Iran-Iraq war. A significant number of editors and admins have toldyou this now, and you are the only one persisting in trying to add information to this article that des not belong. Please stop, that is vandalism. Also, that is not a personal attack, but a statement of wikipedia policy. If you would direct your zeal to creating a parent article about overall information about American aid to Israel, you would be doing yourself and wikipedia a good turn. But this article is not the place for it. Thank you. -- Avi 13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what vandalism is? Repeatedly reverting sourced and related content from the article, and whenever you're encountring 3rr, asking help from friends. "this article is not the place for it". You're wrong. Mentioned aids are used in this conflict, and they should be here. You can read my discussion, as I don't want to repeat myself, but you didn't answer me, Do you mean that Israel has a seperate military resource for this conflict and others? Your reason seams funny to me. And don't talk about other's opinion, as many people here disagree with you. Cheers.

--Hossein.ir 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very simple. This article is about aid given for use in this conflict, not all aid that has been given in the past five years for which it is feasable that one round of munitions was used. For example, the Zelzals were first used in this conflict, they belong. The US-made cluster bombs used belong. The shipment to Israel that went through Galway? that set off that brouhaha in England belongs. The Syrian munition pieces found in the rubble belong. Data from 2004 appropriations is out of scope. Rather clear. Thanks. -- Avi 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very simple.
Your rule: Data from 2004 appropriations is out of scope.. "Zelzals were first used in this conflict" (but were supplied before) Self contradiction. I agree with you when you say "This article is about aid given for use in this conflict". --Hossein.ir 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check the title of this article

I am talking about the part "in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The current version by Humus seems fine. This only treats aid in the 2006 conflict and not other periods. If this is indeed the issue, I do not understand what the 'Palestinians' here are complaining about. Current version looks completely NPOV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. Mentioning Iran's aids(although there's a great doubt about it and Iran's governments have refused military aids. Iran officials say that Iran's aid is limited to diplomatic and spiritual aids) through all the years is not related to this article. "Current version looks completely NPOV", in youre point of view. Please read WP:NPOV. "I do not understand what the 'Palestinians' here are complaining about". It's because you are using your own view on editing wikipedia articles. Please talk about the issue, not calling others 'Palestinians', etc, as I'm not Palestinian but you're a jew from Israel. I respect jews, but anyway you can not use your POV here. --Hossein.ir 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My POV is completely neutral. This article is about aid in the current conflict. Not about aid in 2005, 2004, 2003 etc. Those years are not treated regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah either, so why should they be listed for Israel? Only the current conflict should be treated. If you want to mention aid to Israel in the years preceding this, you must also mention aid to Lebanon and Hezbollah in those years. Otherwise, it is POV. Further, as you can see from the ', 'Palestinians' is a figurative term here - just to make it easy, I'll refer to the pro-Israelis as 'Israelis' and the pro-Palestinians as 'Palestinians'. And I have no non-neutral POV. I am not here to protect the interests of the Zionists. If you accuse me of having a pro-Zionist POV (after taking note of some things on my userpage and reading through this site which explains my thoughts on the matter), that constitutes anti-Semitism, because I have no such POV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you want to mention aid to Israel in the years preceding this, you must also mention aid to Lebanon and Hezbollah in those years". Oh, you've got the idea. This is what I'm talking about.

"This article is about aid in the current conflict. Not about aid in 2005, 2004, 2003 etc". If it's used in this conflict, it should be mentioned. Otherwise, please remove "annual aids" from Iran& others. But, I think even if you want, you can't, because some members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism want to push their own POV in wikipedia. It's a pleasure to see some members of the project here:

• User:Humus_sapiens
• User:Avraham
• User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
• User:Jayjg added byHossein.ir at 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Active contributer of Judaism and related articles, but not on the list:

• User:Tewfik

Hossein, you are mistaken on this count, Tewfik^Talk 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I contribute to Judaism related articles as much as you Hossein. Unless you mean MidEast issues, in which case I could list you here as well - please keep this about the edits and not the editors.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, I only want them to respect wikipedia guidelines, no matter which group or religion they belong. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 13:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose setting a definite line. For example, 1 January 2006. Any aid to any of the parties involved before that date does not get mentioned. Any aid from after that date does get mentioned. How does that sound? I do not know when the US starts its financial year with regard to foreign military assistance funds etc. It would be most logical to let the article start with that date, the one preceding the beginning of the conflict. I vaguely remember that this might also be 1 October of 1 November. Could also be 1 January. I will try to find out tonight. Hossein, would you agree to this? --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Avraham says: "This article is about aid given for use in this conflict". This seems to be a good rule.And I think your rule doesn't work: "1 January 2006. Any aid to any of the parties involved before that date does not get mentioned". In this way, we are implicitly considering Hizbollah and Israel unarmed before that date. Isn't it strange?

Hossein.ir

Yes, that is very strange. But it seems to be the only way to get you guys to COOPERATE instead of FIGHT each other. A clear line needs to be drawn regarding which things can be included and which can not be included. I invite anyone who has a better idea for where to draw this line to make themselves heard. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What goes in should not be based on date per se, but on its being discussed in relation to this conflict (and I urge anyone new to this discussion to review above, as this has been fleshed out in detail). In short, WP:NOR states that material cannot be included in an article if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who has built the case that American aid to Israel is significant in this conflict? There are numerous mainstream sources discussing aid to Hezbollah (a brief listing can also be found above - it includes the wire-services, newspapers, including even the heads of state of the US and UK, especially within the context of their coauthoring 1559 and 1701). The only sources presented above [after weeks of discussion] which focus on aid to Israel (besides the limited events which were widely published and are already included in this entry), are a solitary Reuters piece, a Democracy Now! piece, an IPS piece, and several articles from Fars News. The absence of mainstream sources means that the discussion of aid to Israel was not nearly at the same level of prominence as the discussion of aid to Hezbollah, and thus giving it the same (or more, as the extensive table does) prominence here based on what we think should be constitutes at the minimum original research. Please, lets stop reverting out of this neutral version (and for the record, I'm not a member of Wikiproject Judaism), Tewfik^Talk 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Absence of mainstream sources" is your opinion. This is not included in WP:NOR, and it seems you're interpreting wikipedia guidelines as you want. And about involving in Wikiproject Judaism, this is not bad or good or anything, I wanted to show that you're editing in a perticular way to push your own POV, that is not neutral. You're saying this again and again, so read it carefully. WP:NOR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." What do you mean by mainstream? the discussion is about a "reputable sources", and all the sources I've mentioned are reputeable. Additionaly all the sources that are used for the content are reputable.--Hossein.ir 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote. People's backgrounds and personal interests vary. By that logic, if someone's a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union, he must be... what? Please, don't make this personal. Leave anything personal (including POV) out. We are all wikipedians and we are here to improve WP based on WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)\

I'm not judging you by the project you involve, I'm doing a reverse analysis, showing your interest in editing according to your POV that is not neutral. The nice thing here is that User:Jayjg is also a memeber of Wikiproject Judaism, and this shows what's happening. --Hossein.ir 10:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

POV - says who? I think judging others by the project they are involved in is exactly what you are doing. And where are we going now with this mysterious "reverse analysis"? What's next, banish certain categories of editors? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"banish certain categories of editors?" People who're not involved in the project, isn't it? This is what's happening. A member of the project locked the page that was reverted last time by another member. So, what this means? --Hossein.ir 11:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

what this means? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

exactly: "banish certain categories of editors". --Hossein.ir 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some real arguments against inclusion, please?

I regard the argumentation *against* inclusion as hollow, and I do not see the need for compromises involving arbitrary dates (January 2006) etc.. For the moment, I will blind out the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism and related editors (including admins) are well represented here. I will call them and other editors that object to inclusion of US aid "opposing editors". Arguments against inclusion of past US aid seem to fall into at least four categories:
1. Size issues:
Obviously, Wiki is not paper.
2. Balance issues:
Hezbollah's arsenal and aid is described based on what common reliable sources deliver, while IDF's arsenal now seems to consist of jet fuel and precision-guided bombs. So while opposing editors complained about balance issues *with* the US aid, we now have a serious problem *without* the US aid.
3. Relevance of past aid for this conflict ("Is pre-200x aid relevant in this conflict?"):
The article states that...

• Iran provides between $50-100 million annually
• Hezbollah received Iranian-supplied weaponry, including 11,500 rockets and missiles already in place
• three thousand Hezbollah militants have undergone training in Iran

These statements obviously do not bear any timestamp. According to the argumentation of the opposing editors, they must also be removed, since relevance of "annual" and "received" aid for this conflict cannot possibly be verified. Obviously, if we did that, we would end up with an article citing only jet fuel and some PGBs. Moreover, the article states that

• 50 [Hezbollah] pilots have been trained in Iran in the past two years

Opposing editors seem to have no problem with this statement, although it mentions aid over a two year timeframe (and disregarding the fact that Hezbollah did not attack using war planes).
4. Allegations of original research ("Who says that any past aid was used in this conflict?"):
It is widely [11] reported [12] that [13] Israel used UK/US-made helicopters and fighter jets in the 2006 conflict.

[...] F-16s, F-15s and Apaches have been used extensively by Israel in the recent attacks across Lebanon and Gaza, which have resulted in more than 500 civilian casualties to date. Last week Kim Howells, a Foreign Office minister, said the British embassy in Tel Aviv "has confirmed reports that Israel is using F16s in its incursions into Gaza and Lebanon".

So, please, can someone provide some *real* arguments against the inclusion? Thanks. Kosmopolis 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal on date ranges

Would it be possible (and acceptable) to:

1. Write a short section that explained that Israel and Hezbollah obviously developed and maintained their arsenals prior to the outbreak of hostilities, and explaining (briefly and with cites) to what extent Israel's and Hezbollah's existing military hardware depended on foriegn aid (funds, smuggling, etc). This section could also link to articles with more detailed explanations of Israel's and/or Hezbollah's military organization.
2. With the pre-conflict information on both sides segregated and limited, the majority of the article could focus on aid during the conflict.
3. If there are reliable sources, maybe the article could also have a short section on aid to Israel, Lebannon, or Hezbollah meant to aid in rebuilding military stockpiles or civilian assets damaged during the conflict.

Thoughts, TheronJ 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is an attempt at conspiracy mongering (and its talk page is a strong evidence) and is unworthy of a serious encyclopedia. Is there Military and economic aid in World War I? Military and economic aid in World War II? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about date ranges. To the extent that this page is going to reflect anything, giving equal weight to a discussion of aid to Israel when the vast majority of discussion focused on Hezbollah is simply misleading. Tewfik^Talk 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that what you consider "the vast majority of discussion" is the vast majority of US- or Israel-based media outlets. In this case you're right, the vast majority was focused on Hezbollah. Kosmopolis 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the vast majority of media outlets all over the globe focused on Hezbollah, including Europe and even parts of the Arab world.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the concept of foreign military aid came to birth when the US had to give up their isolationism after WWII, at the beginning of the Cold War. The idea of foreign economic aid dates back much earlier, btw. Kosmopolis 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard that before and I don't see how it could make sense unless you are specifically talking about American foreign aid, but to argue that the concept of foreign military aid did not exist before WWII is simply not factually accurate, do you have a reliable source for this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is an undeniable fact that the US was a major aid donor to the UK and to the USSR during WW2.

Back to the topic. I think this should be either a subsection or a subarticle of article Hezbollah. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Surprise! After unsuccessful attempts here, Kosmopolis created United States military aid to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I am not responsible for your education in international relations, but you may start with Diplomacy (Kissinger 1994) or study Bismarck. In case I'm wrong: Thanks for correcting my statement. Humus, I don't know where you get the idea that the US donated their stuff (which is the meaning of FMA). Anyway, these issues are not relevant for the discussion at hand. I left you some notes above, please comment on those, too. And which section should be a subarticle to Hezbollah? Kosmopolis (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that Bismark and Kissinger argued that foreign military aid did not exist before the end of WWII? I have a strange feeling that Bismark was not aware about World War II (probably not WWI either), I also think that your statement might very well confuse Louis the XVI after he sent military Aid to the fledgling US during the American Revolutionary war, or FDR after he signed the lend-lease bill, in fact I believe it would probably confuse the 4 billion or so people on the planet that have enough knowledge of history to understand you have not made an accurate statement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, Moshe...Louis XVI. entered the War of Independence himself and allied against Britain. No foreign military aid, whatsoever. And Roosevelt signed the Lend Lease Act, indeed, but where do you get the idea that he gave away his stuff for free? The relevant words are "lend" and "lease"; same mistake as Humus here, sorry. I recommend this CRS briefing as a reality check: [14]. You may also start with Diplomacy (Kissinger 1994) or Bismarck (btw, it's Bismarck). Please comment on the issue, now. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your twisting and turning the actual definition just so you don't feel you are wrong, regardless this tangent has gone on for too long as it has minimal impact to the actual matters at hand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, it was you who tried to prove my assertions wrong. Some see the Lend Lease Act as the beginning of US foreign military aid, while the debate about repayment issues and reverse lend-lease appears to contradict that idea. The Truman doctrine, on the other hand, is a safe bet. However, don't waste your time searching for examples in any pre-WWII period anywhere in the world; instead provide your comments on our issue. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one the went off on a poorly thought out tangent. Anyways, I've already said that I don't see any reason to discuss this anymore, we can move on here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Military aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I've just created Humanitarian and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which outlines humanitarian efforts and the evacuations. Since there is nothing but military aid left here anyway, I propose a rename. Kosmopolis (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of financial aid. The rename would be unsuitable.--Patchouli 07:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)