Talk:Operation Grapes of Wrath

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.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Numbers in Summary don't match numbers in main article

I don't know which ones are the correct ones, someone with a source should fix this. Joncnunn 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Background Section

In the third line the words "in Southern Lebanon" were added in, the previous sentence stated that Israel invaded Lebanon making this second mention of the location to where they withdrew redundant. The words "launched" in the next sentence were reverted to "responded with"; I made this correction because, as the Wikipedia page for the war in 1993 states: "In late June 1993, Hezbollah launched rockets against an Israeli village, and the following month attacks by both Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine killed five Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers inside the occupied territory. These actions are generally considered to have been the catalyst for Operation Accountability" it then sites a Globalsecurity.org briefing. The word "launched" implies that there was no previous provocation, sadly in they cycle of violence in lebanon during this period both sides engaged in multiple acts of provocation.

In the next sentence an edit was made deleting a reference to Hezbollah's targeting of civilians and the addition of the words "their allies" in regarding the SLA. To the first point, Hezbollah has made no secret of their rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns so I see no reason why we should, I included a source to clarify that point. Later in this section of the paragraph it is mentioned that Hezbollah "occasionally" bombed Israeli towns; previous to signing accords that prohibited this tactic it was the stated tactic of Hezbollah... reading the amnesty article on the peace accord makes it clear that in writing the accord this was no mystery:

 In particular, the "two parties commit to ensuring that under no circumstances will civilians be the target of 
 attack and that civilian populated areas ... will not be used as launching grounds for attacks." Israel further 
 agreed that its forces "will not fire any kind of weapon at civilians or civilian targets in Lebanon", and Hizbullah 
 agreed "not [to] carry out attacks by Katyusha rockets or by any kind of weapon into Israel."

So to downplay Hezbollah's role would be folly, but one must mention their claim of legitimacy (which is just as tenuous as Israel's). To the second, if we are to write "Israel's allies" before a mention of the SLA Wikipedia would then be forced to write "Iran's Allies" before every mention of Hezbollah. A click on the link to the page about the SLA will make their alliance clear and arguments as to how closely or distantly their were allied can be had there.

The next sentence began without introducing the subject (a simple "The" before Israel probably would have sufficed) and continues to mention Israel's bombing of civilians. While personally I believe the reports of HRC and Amnesty and that this was Israel's overall strategy , this is not the universal position, the United States and Israel maintain that the targets of Israeli shelling were legitimate military targets. Just as I noted that Hezbollah defines their targets as legitimate, it is worth mentioning that Israel does the same. In order to maintain the NPOV of the article I think we must represent that both sides are have been cited for targeting civilians, regardless of personal feelings of legitimacy, leading up to Operation Grapes of Wrath. Nquartey 22:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House in Nabatiye

This was discussed extensively in that article's AfD. It is one attack out of thousands carried out during the operation, and while tragic, is not notable enough for it's own subsection under "results". It is certainly not a well known "result" of the Operation. The incident is mentioned in the section which discussses civialian casualties, so no information is left out. Giving it its own subsection gives it undue weight. Isarig 15:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the result is well known for middle eastern people, it's only that the western media did not cover this story because the Qana massacre overshadowed this event. The notability can be measured by heavy civilians loss during an attack, so please before repeating things considering "notability" consider checking NGO reports about incidents. Incidents some may call not notable without any concrete facts backing this idea. --Banzoo 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If it was "well known for middle eastern people", you'd be able to show it's notability - in terms of press coverage, academic literature citing it, etc... As it is, you have exactly ONE NGO report which mentions it. It is so non-notable that it is described generically as "attack on a house". The specific civilain losses you refer to are noted in the article, but this event, tragic though it may be, is not important enough to warrant a seperate subsection under the "Results" section of the operation. Isarig 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Notability is not how western medias covered it. And I would like to know the way to measure the "Notability" that some tag what they want and remove this tag from the thing they want. The high number of victims is not enough to show the notability? and please check before reverting : there were 2 NGOs which is enough since those are the amnesty and the human right watch. This is notable enough to get subsection in this article, even though this article got an entire Section in the amnesty report. So please be objective and dont express you personal point of view. --Banzoo 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
One aspect of notability is certainly how it was covered by western media. If an event was only covered by local media, then by definition it is a local event, of little interest outside the local region. Compare and contrast the level of coverage of the Qana shelling, or even the coverage of a more recent event, in which Israel killed 14 bystanders as a result of a attack on the house of a Hamas terroris, with the level of coverage this non-notable event received.

As to your specific sources: the HRW source does not list this incident in a seperate section. It mentions it in passing. On th eother hand, it dedicates an entire section, compised of 8 full paragraphs, to "Indiscriminate Attacks in Northern Israel" - are we going to create a subsection for each one of these paragraphs in the article? Isarig 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find in the cited section an attack that costed a comparable amount of civilians life during the agression of Operation Grapes of Wrath. HRW article have classified events by type, not per notability. What makes such event "notable" is the amount of Human life cost. The event was covered by arab media (not only local), hence a population of 200 million citizen, count NGOs, so one can find thousands of articles that wont get that much "notability" in WP. Even if we supposed that it was a local event, wikipedia is full of articles that consider only a community (e.g. small snub icosicosidodecahedron, Amos Ori, Ichud, Rabin automaton, Mush zone, ...) so before continuing arguments, I would like to know the "notability" note for such articles, yet nobody tags those for merge (and certainly not for deletion)... Maybe because of wikipedia being a source of information that's growing exponentially, so when a user will search for something will reach it whatever it was asking for. As for notability please read Wikipedia:Notability carefully. --Banzoo 00:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So the number of dead is a measure of notability? 9 people were killed in this attack. A couple of days ago, 5 people were killed and 2 others critically injured in a car crash in the Bronx [1]. Are we going to have a WP article called Bronx car crash? Are we going to have a subsection called Bronx Car Crash in the Car accident article? 3 days ago, at least 3 people were killed and 28 injured in a building collapse in Bandra, India [2]. Will we have a WP article for this event? Will we have a subsection in Bandra for this event? And it goes on and on. The incident you mentioned is targic, no doubt. But it just went through an AfD, and the overwhelming consensus was that it was not notable enough, and should be merged here, which it was. You are now trying to circumvent the AfD decision by giving this incident undue weight. It takes a lot of nerve, or rather, blatant POV-pushing, to use an HRW report whose subject is 'MILITARY OPERATIONS BY LEBANESE GUERRILLA FORCES", and which is dedicated to accusing Hezbollah of "Indiscriminate Attacks in Northern Israel" as well as "Terrorizing and Targeting the [Israeli] Civilian Population" and 'Violations of International Humanitarian Law', as a source for establishing the notability of an Israeli attack, mentioned once in passing. The fact that there are other Wp article which may also deserve to be deleted or merged somewhere is no jsutification for adding more such non-notbale info. If you feel Amos Ori is not nitable enough - by all means, put the article up for deletion, but don't use his non-notability as an excuse to push your POV here. Isarig 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A car accident is not even comparable to a rocketed house during which a whole family have been killed since in the last one Laws of war have been violated. I dont find a table where they enlisted what "notability note" some event should get to have the right to be as an article in wikipedia, or as section in some wikipedia article, or subsection and so on ...
The laws of war do not grant immunity to civilain targets from which military activity is taking place, as was the case here. Please stop disrupting this article. Isarig 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding facts cannot be called disrupting the article by any mean. Please choose your words carefully. I suggest to read Fourth Geneva Convention before throwing irrelevant judgement just to bias the article. --Banzoo 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are not adding facts, you are giving a non-notable incident undue weight by placing it on equal footing with the entire results of the operation. The incident is noted, in its proper place, among other mentions of civilian casualties. Please stop disrupting the article and trying to circumvent a consensus of opinion as discussed in the AfD for this incident's previous article. I am well familiar with the 4GC - perhaps you should read them. Not every case in which civilains are killed during battle is a vioaltion of the 4GC. Isarig 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe your knowledgne is not enough, try to take a look at the 3rd article of the 4GC "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely". It seems that this applies to children and women killed during the attack. Should I say that the way the massacre is cited inside the results section is not the best way to do so. And please stop accusing others of disrupting the article only because it doesnt match your POV. One more thing, we are not discussing the AfD here so please stop bring it here over and over again (btw still waiting the note table for an event to have the right to have a subsection in wikipedia). --Banzoo 21:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
So now it's a massacre, is it? What's next, genocide? It was collateral damage. Of the sort that happens in every armed conflict. Of the sort that happens countless times in every armed conflict. You are under the misconception that every death of a civilian during an armed conflict is a war crime. That is simply not so. Read for example the following: [3]

Q10: Is it a violation of IHL if civilians are killed during war? A10:...not all civilian deaths are unlawful during war. IHL does not outlaw armed conflict, but instead attempts to balance a nation's acknowledged legal right to attack legitimate military targets during war with the right of the civilian population to be protected from the effects of the hostilities. In other words, given the nature of warfare, IHL anticipates a certain amount of "collateral damage," which sometimes, regrettably, may include civilian casualties.

I keep coming back to the results of the AfD because they illustrate clearly where the consenus is: that this is a non-notable incident, worthy perhaps of mention is the context of the broader Grapes of Wrath article. It is not, of itself, a "result" of the operation, on par with the hundreds of Lebanese casualties or dozens of Isreali ones. Please stop disrupting this article. Isarig 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you bring it on, you were providing incomplete information just to distort facts to your POV, so I require you to revise the Q9, A9. Shall I quote: "Q9: How does IHL protect children?" "A9:IHL forbids attacks against civilians, and identifies special protections for children....".Another thing, I was not able to see any section that gives the attacking forces the right to destroy civilians home on the families that it holds. --Banzoo 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, IHL forbids attacking civilains, and at the same time, IHL recognizes that unintentional civilian detahs are a part of every war, and is not a war crime. Attacking forces have the right to attack houses from which they are being fired upon, even if civilains are in them. Stop disruptig this article.Isarig 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read the report that states that the attacks on civilian houses was deliberate. So please stop defending blindly the attack, hence disrupting facts in the article. And the attacking forces have not the right to kill children (IHL).--Banzoo 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I read your source. It says the Israeli army says it was attacking militants that were firing at its aircraft from the building and its surroundings. It was not an attack on civialins. Please stop disrupting this article and attempting to circumvent the AfD concensus. Isarig 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you read only what you want in order to provide incomplete information such a way to bias the article. I'll cite once again from the source : " It seems clear that the three houses were hit as a result of deliberate and direct attacks on those buildings. ... Amnesty International is not aware of any evidence linking the inhabitants of the dwellings which were hit with Hizbullah, nor that the dwellings were used by Hizbullah for the purpose of storing military weaponry or materiel.". So please revise the sources before taking any further irrelevant action. --Banzoo 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath

I fully support this suggestion Isarig 04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It deserves an article. It's not logical to find an operation that costed Lebanon that heavy account of civilians loss with only one succint article. It looks like there is some group that is trying to bias the facts about the operation one article by one (see a previous discussion of Nabatiyeh attack on house) such a way to make each tragic event during this agression as a line or less. --Banzoo 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
what makes you think it deserves an article? What makes it notable? Isarig 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think it does not deserves an article? What makes it not notable? --Banzoo 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it is a single incident, one of many such incidents, which don't get their own article. These tragic mistakes happen in every war, but just like we don't have several hundred articles listing every single case of civilian victims of the Kosovo war, or WWII, there is no need to have one for every such case in Operation Grapes of Wrath. How about answerign my questions? Isarig 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"Single incident"? just as the Qana "incident"? or the rocketed house "incident"? and so on ... the word "single" and "incident" become more and more frequently repeated such a way that similar events cannot be called anymore "single" nor "incident"s. So I suggest you to do more background research before projecting your personal point of view especially when the UN reports on those "single incidents" called them deliberate attacks on civilians. --Banzoo 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The Qana incident is notable, and there is no problem showing what makes it notable: it is cited as the incident which forced Israel to stop the campaign, the scale of casualties was very large, it resulted in worldwide press coverage and a formal UN unvestigation. Compare and contrast with the 2 incidents you keep pushing, which are hardly mentioned anywhere, caused no notable coverage, and are a common occurence in every war. How about answering my questions - what makes this event notable? Isarig 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, you only accuse the articles for not notability based on your personal feelings only, without providing any evidence that support your point of view. So please stop bringing this discussion unless you were able to provide independent proof. --Banzoo 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It seem you are having difficulty reading. I have provided you with several facts, not my feelings, about what makes Qana notable, and by implication, what makes this attack not notable. You have yet to show any reason why it is notable, and this was made clear to you by other editors in the AfD. Stop your POV pushing and disruption of this page Isarig 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

{{POV|Operation Grapes of Wrath Heading}} The discussion in the heading seems extremely biased in the statement that "The installation was being used to keep Lebanese civilian human shields to protect the Hezbollah fighters.". This is widely disputed and it's my understanding that this is the minority opinion - certainly the UN insists that it is not in the habit of harboring a militia.

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

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Shahak

It is highly questionable to use an argumentative such as that of Israel Shahak's as one of two external sources for an article in this kind of highly controversial subject. It should be replaced, removed or, at the very least, balanced by a pro-israeli argumentative text. 213.89.66.28 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)