Talk:South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Result

Clearly, in terms of "result," we need to come up with something that is short but captures the complexity of the situation. Merely saying "Hezbollah victory" — as some people keep trying to do — is misleading, and there are multiple nuances to the situation: Hezbollah did not exist at the start of the conflict (being formed under conflict, just as the Taliban Movement was formed under conflict), the goals of the other parties weren't to control Lebanon, Israel's 1985 withdrawal from most of Southern Lebanon was part of the peace plan (and, as such, might be considered the proper start of the South Lebanon conflict), Israel's 2000 withdrawal wasn't a "retreat" in the sense that they weren't under fire, Hezbollah lied and/or broke their promise about their goal (claiming they would disarm after Israel left Lebanon, which the UN recognized in 2005 — see Shebaa Farms — then failing to do so), and, finally, because it is not clear, "Hezbollah victory" is a propaganda phrase of Hezbollah supporters. People will continue to deface the page with "Hezbollah victory," but I think those who want an accurate representation should agree on one.

Obviously I like my "result" best. That said, anyone who objects to my explanation (in use as of now), please speak up as to why. Also, why no mention of the roles of Syria and Iran, without whom Hezbollah could not have continued? Calbaer 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel's 2000 withdrawal was a retreat under fire. The situation was that the SLA positions (Shia Muslim) in the center of the zone collapsed. The day after, the SLA positions in the east (Druze) collapsed. At that point, the Israeli forces began destroying the remaining weapons of the SLA and quickly retreating (over perhaps two days) out of Lebanon. The leader of the SLA had previously deserted his own men and was hiding in France.
There are many conspiracy theories about what Israel may or may not have planned to do in June 2000. But they can't go on the page unless there are facts to back them up.
As far as Hezbollah lying or breaking promises, it depends on who you listen to. To say that they lied would be to take a POV side in the Shebba Farms dispute (which should not happen in this article). I agree that Hezbollah Victory is too strong a term but its not just a term used by Hezbollah supporters, it is also used by the far Israeli right who use it for their own propaganda purposes. My view is that only the basic facts should be on the page and that the very concept of "victory" has no place in the article.
It would however be proper to describe the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as being unplanned and chaotic including a clearer description of events such as the disintegration of the SLA. 168.127.0.51 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
My view is that it may have been poorly planned, but it was not unplanned. I believe Barak campaigned on withdrawal, and, considering that it was a military operation, the year-long lag from election to action was to be expected. The BBC has well-known biases on international issues, including an anti-Israel POV that comes across most clearly in issues such as the Battle of Jenin, so its blurb about the withdrawal may not be the best summary of the events.
As far as taking a POV in the Shebaa Farms dispute, it is mainly a matter of language, albeit an important one. For example, one could say, "The UN found that Shebaa Farms was not part of Lebanon. Hezbollah's critics and other international observers cite this as evidence that Hezbollah's goal is not the liberation of Lebanon from Israel, but rather the control of Southern Lebanon in order to wage campaigns against Israeli soldiers and civilians." Likewise, one could say that, "Supporters of Hezbollah and other international observers view the withdrawal as a retreat, due to the chaos that accompanied it." Of course, I'd want cites, but those are just examples. Calbaer 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should keep the Results simple in the summary. Either it's a win loss or draw or whatever you want to call draw. In this case it was clearly a loss for Israel as they lost the buffer zone and their proxy army. You could suggest that they were planning to leave all along but I think it should provide citations to show this. Pocopocopocopoco 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I had my change reverted so I've changed it to "widely considered hezbollah victory". If I understand the reasoning of why some people believe this was not a hezbollah victory, some people believe that Israel moved out of Southern Lebanon in order to get international support if Hezbollah continued with attacks on Israel. That reasoning sounds really shakey at best.
I wonder why don't we simply say "Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon" for the result? No victory for anyone? It would be a nice and neutral way to resolve the conflict. :) Tryst Nguyen 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there was a conflict and that we had reached consensus. How exactly was this not a victory for Hezbollah? The old argument, if I recall, went something along the lines of "Israel withdrew from Lebanon and so Israel got more global sympathy went Hezbollah continued their war against Israel so therefore this is not a victory for Hezbollah". Please correct me if I am wrong. This doesn't sound like a valid reason for removing the fact that this was "Widely considered a Hezbollah Victory" and it says so in the body of the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

the article is POV making it seems like the area was "simply occupied" and also by the excessive used word resistance etc. Amoruso 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Southlebanonfighting.jpg

Image:Southlebanonfighting.jpg 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 insure 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) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[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] Insurgency?

I'm not sure that I agree with the title change to use the term "insurgency" when describing this period. Defining "insurgency":

  • From Princeton WordNet: an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict
  • From the Wikipedia entry on [Insurgency]: The common concept, in a wide range of definitions, is that it involves a desire for political power, achieved through means illegal under the rules of the existing government... Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.
  • From Wiktionary: rebellion; revolt; the state of being insurgent (where insurgent is defined as rebellious, opposing authority)

The issue with this term is that at no point was the Israeli occupation that Hezbollah fought against a "constituted government". Hezbollah wasn't trying to overthrow the Lebanese government, nor the Israeli government. For quite some time during this period, there was no central authority in Lebanon, or more than one group claimed to be the government of Lebanon, and often Hezbollah's resistance to the Israeli occupation was not "illegal under the rules of the existing government", but instead endorsed by the government.

What about naming this article the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon (1982–2000)? This title would better match the existing article on the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. ← George [talk] 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seems a good rename to me. Rwendland (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
oppose, insurgency is not only against government but also an occupying force --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
While technically correct, you need to take into account other definitions of the word I think. One could call something a "great battle", but the term would often be avoided due to the multiple meanings for the word "great" (that is, something really good, or something really large). In the same way, defining this as an insurgency, while technically correct based on some definitions, seems misleading to me. ← George [talk] 21:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I took it as a NPOV version of resistance. Guerrilla war would also be fine. Occupation isn't a good name for a military conflict, no? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) oh, found one even worse--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to call an 18 year period with sporadic fighting once every few years, in which one of the parties was inhabiting an area that they did not have legal jurisdiction over, an occupation, before I would call said period an insurgency (given the status of the forces being fought against as "occupiers", rather than the established government in the country). I guess conflict is a suitably generic term for the period, however. ← George [talk] 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What is unsettling is that the page was moved without discussion. I have re-moved the page back to South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000). It is far more neutral. This is well established - see WP:Military History for links to hundreds of other articles which are titled as conflicts. This is the most neutral way to phrase an article title. Nimur (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
yeah, right, no discussion. To wait 5 months for someone to reply. Try reading WP:BOLD --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Addendum - I have added a line to the first paragraph which specifies different terminology used to describe the conflict. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia which does not perform original research - it only reports what other sources have said. If any editor wishes to add a terminology to describe this conflict, please do so in this way; the burden of proof is on the editor to properly cite who called the conflict a _____. Nimur (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)