Talk:1982 Lebanon War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Nonsense

|casus=Two main causes:

  1. ^ "Israel invades Lebanon in response to terrorist attacks by PLO guerrillas based there", USA Today (cited in guardian.co.uk, Facts on File, AP).
  2. ^ Carnes, Mark C.; Garraty, John A. (2006). The American Nation. US: Pearson Education. p. 903. ISBN 0-321-42606-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Time (2006). The Year in Review. New York: Time Books. ISSN: 1097-5721. "For decades now, Arab terrorists operating out of southern Lebanon have staged raids and fired mortar shells into northern Israel, denying the Israelis peace of mind. In the early 1980s, the terrorists operating out of Lebanon were controlled by Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.). After Israel's ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov, was shot in cold blood and seriously wounded by the Palestinian terror group Abu Nidal in London in 1982, fed-up Israelis sent tanks and troops rolling into Lebanon to disperse the guerrillas." (pp. 44–45)

You can pick stuff up anywhere. There was one explicit casus belli. The shooting of Israel's ambassador to London by an anti-PLO terrorist group under Abu Nidal. The northern front ceasefire arranged via the UN had been srupulously observed by the PLO for months, and no threat to the Galilee was posed there There were several well-documented reasons, some unknown to Begin himself. Begin thought it would secure th West Bank for Greater Israel by depriving Palestinians there of the symbolic presence of a Palestinian army in a contiguous country. Sharon thought ridding Lebanon of the PLO would secure a Christian government under a Western and Israeli protectorate, while consigning to Jordan, a future Palestinian state. This is known by everyone but see for example Charles D. Freilich, Zion's Dilemmas: How Israel Makes National Security Policy, Cornell Univrsity Press 2012 pp.134f. The rubbish above is pure caricature. PLO activism and mortar fire had nothing to do with the casus belli, since it did not exist when the war was declared. It has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't even see the casus belli in the rendered version. There is apparently no such field in the template. See {{Infobox_military_conflict}}. I have removed the field altogether. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this new lead, about Greater Israel, destroying camps and "changing" Jordan seem like conspiracy theories, sourced or not. Also Begin and Treblinka comment, personal thoughts of leaders don't belong either. Why not move all these to the Background section or Outcome section. What is supposed to be in the lead is the historical background for the conflict, the official reasons given by the parties involved, and the results. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A personal objection, not based in any sources. 'Conspiracy theories' have nothing to do with known documented reasons, given by Sharon and those close to him. These elements are widely attested in the specific literature on the period, the war, and its leading decision-makers. In all leads to war articles it is normal to mention context, aims and reasons. Begin explicitly mentioned Treblinka in the Knesset when justifying his decision. The official goal 'to secure a 40-mile strip of Lebanon north of Israel's northern borders, and halt rocket attacks (there weren't any), etc. All of this, historical scholarship from very early on showed, had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go to war, and articles should not use PR reasons for the casus belli, but the known facts that emerged, which is what we have, briefly, in our lead.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Jordan wasn't involved at all in the war, nor with the PLO anymore, by 1982, so having assumptions about it or how Begin and Sharon viewed the future situation there seem strange and not based on facts. And of course there were PLO rocket attacks, hundreds of them, before and during the war (the article gives very little information about it), though maybe not immediately i.e. not days before. Yuvn86 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

more info about loses, not just human lives

it is posible to add ? like loses for aircrafts, tanks, ifv and similiar ones. 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:782B:8826:EBEA:349F (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

recent edits

The line about the cause of the war being PLO attacks on civilians in northern Israel misrepresents the source just added. The source discusses attacks on both sides that killed civilians on both sides as well as Israel's support for the SLA. To bring that down to the PLO killed civilians so the Israelis invaded is a wholesale misrepresentation of the cited source and of the history. Further, why exactly should this line be in the opening sentences of the article? I mean besides to push a favored narrative of course. For now at least I am going to change it so that the source is accurately presented. nableezy - 22:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Although this source clearly says: "The operation was called Operation Peace for Galilee and was launched in reply to ongoing PLO attacks from its Lebanese bases." It's necessary to add something like that in lead since there's only details about Abu Nidal's assassination attempt of the Israeli ambassador (used as casus belli by Israel), but no mention of the main cause for the Israeli invasion.--Averysoda (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

From the ceasefire, established in July 1981, until the start of the war, the Israeli government reported 270 terrorist attacks by the PLO in Israel, the occupied territories, and the Jordanian and Lebanese border (in addition to 20 attacks on Israeli interests abroad).Becker, Jillian (1984). PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization. AuthorHouse. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-4918-4435-9.

This statistic (using Israel's definition of a 'terrorist attack', which includes throwing Molotov cocktails or stones at cars) does not apply to the Lebanese border.It is Israel's statistic for all incidents, whoever might be behind them, in (a)Israel (b)the occupied territories, the West Bank and Gaza (c)Jordan and (d) ascribes them all to the PLO though (1) Israel constantly launched air raids in Lebanon (2) the few incidents of Palestinian groups in either Lebanon and Israel attacking Israeli targets were almost all claimed to be by the PFLP, which did not accept PLO authority. So the statistic is deceptive since this is about incidents between Israel and Lebanese territory.
I don't know why you keep raising the ostensible as opposed to the real casus belli. The assassination attempt in London was performed by Abu Nidal's group. Abu Nidal was under a death sentence from the PLO. One of the groups hideouts revealed plans to attack other objectives, a Jewish nursery and the PLO representative in London. No archival historian accepts the kind of period propaganda you are introducing and which is reflected in Becker's book. After an Israeli bombardment May 9 of Palestinian camps in Lebanon, following an attack inside Jerusalem and the exzplosion of a mine in Lebanon, the Palestinians launched katyushas into the galilee. Israel at that point introduced a new condition unilatrerally into the terms, agreed on, of the ceasefire. Any attack on Israeli diplomats abroad would be interpreted as a casus belli. It seems to have been this signal which set someone thinking of Abu Nidal's utility. Israel further had made peace with Egypt, bombed Osirak and annexed the Golan, all elements which had impacts on Arab states capable of maneuvering against Israel by drawing it into the catastrophe of Lebanon, while destroying the PLO. Israel had already decided to invade Lebanon for some months. It told the Americans, against their own counsel, that they would invade, and required an international anti-Israel incident to justify their attack (whose purposes had little to do with PLO terrorist threats, at least in Sharon's plan). Precisely because the PLO was informed of these intentions, it several times sent out severe directives forbidding any attacks against northern Israel in order to deny Israel the only pretext Israel had, and which the PLO could deprive it of. Precisely at this point Shlomo Argov was shot in London. There are 4 theories as to who was behind the attempt on the ambassador's life, all neatly dissected in Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine vol.4, 2007 pp.475ff.(i) Abu Nidal wanted to provoke a war to use Israel to destroy the PLO and thus open up space for a radicalization of the resistance: unlikely, Abu Nidal was a client terrorist generally executed an order from above (ii) Nidal got an order from Saddam Hussein, to create a diversion from the Iraq-Iran conflict, and create an occasion for proclaiming an exit from that war on the earlier borderlines, which Iran was expected to refuse, and if, so would then assume the blame. In fact that is how he acted once Israel invaded. However, Abu Nidal was by that time closer to Syria, Iraq's adversary.(iii)Syria commissioned the attempt on the ambassador. Unlikely. It was doing all it could to avoid being dragged into conflict with Israel; the PLO blamed Israel. Difficulties exist for this as well, one of whose variants is that Abu Nidal was in Poland and one of his senior assistants was frequently suspected of being manipulated by Mossad. One probably will never know the truth of this specific incident's reason: one has an extremely well documented record of the motives of Sharon, the Israeli cabinet, Begin, their discussions with Haig, etc., to know that the invasion's public explanation was a bag of pretexts hiding a long term geopolitical reorganization of the Middle East, with Lebanon's Christians, the Sinai demilitarized; Jordan prepared as the eventual state of Palestine, and the consolidation of the project to annex all of the West Bank. Only by expelling the PLO from its northern borders, it was thought, could Israel ram home to militants in the West bank that they had no close support, and were on their own. The government knew immediately that the PLO and Lebanon had no connection whatsoever with the attempt on Argov's life.
The text we have gives much, not all of this. Your attempt to use a useless source that merely recycles a dead period meme, the pretext, as indeed the reason, when historical knowledge has shown it to have no relevance in the decision making.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I might add that your citations always lack a link to the book, and page. This is very easy to do. By not linking, you create great problems for editors wishing to verify. I would therefore ask you to give the precise words from each source used to justify that meme. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice "theories" (including 'false flags' accusations that Israel targeted its own ambassador). But the sources are more important than your speculations. There were a series of attacks by the PLO from its bases in Lebanon, and Israel was looking for a casus belli to get rid of them. I gave you at least four sources from known historians, books and journalists, probably I can give you more. Your colleague Nableezy was able to find what the sources say, making a few adjustments, so perhaps you should do a little more effort, or simply have more goodwill to reach a compromise.--Averysoda (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The funniest thing about that diplomat nonsense (in bold! But it's not a "false flag" it's a "conspiracy theory") is that it pretends the assassination of Yaakov Bar-Simantov never happened. Those crafty Israelis put the idea to hit their own diplomats in the Palestinians' heads by telling them to stop killing Israeli diplomats after they already murdered one. It was a "signal", you see. Sneaky bastards, eh? I wonder if the above described chronology really appears in Laurens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep chatting, and are not focused on any issue, perhaps because you know nothing of the topic? Bar-Simantov was a Mossad agent under diplomatic cover, and was murdered by Georges Abdallah's FARL, a Lebanese not a Palestinian. You've confused him, killed in Paris, with Shlomo Argov, shot by Abu Nidal's men in London, whom Laurens, my source, discusses. Since he is a scholar, he doesn't spend a lot of time on wikipedia running around defending one country. He writes up what all sources say, notes weaknesses in the theories, and then makes a lucid call where possible. I've linked the pages. Instead of dropping idle comments, read it or some other book on the subject.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You're having a problem following simple sentences, apparently. First Bar-Simantov, a diplomat, was assassinated. Then Israel warned the PLO that assassinating Israeli diplomats will be considered a violation of the ceasefire. They didn't pull it out of thin air as you imply above, it was a response to something that had already happened. Abu Nidal didn't need Israel to give him the idea.
Indeed, Laurens is a scholar. He doesn't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia telling people he's written encyclopdia articles professionally and running around attacking one country and one group of people. Instead of writing walls of ridiculous text, try to get your confirmation bias under control and read critically. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Disnigenuous. You screwed up. Neither I nor Laurens mentioned Bar-Simantov. We both mentioned a negligible conspiracy theory re Shlomo Argov. You commented on the fringe conspiracy theory, citing Bar-Simantov's case. I understand that you can't read my sentences, but try at least to read, and if possible, understand, your own.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. My point is that you neglect to mention Bar-Simantov, who was the reason Israel told the PLO that attacking diplomats would be considered a violation of the ceasefire. This is not very complicated so I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty understanding it.
By the way, I just corrected another of your source falsifications, where the source said the attempt on Argov "provoked Israel" into invading and you wrote that it was "used as a pretext" in the lead. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If you cannot understand the distinction between a paraphrase report of Laurens' synthetic survey of scholarly theories on an historic event and speculations, if you confuse my close paraphrase of Laurens's work with 'speculations' you attribute, wildly, to me, then you shouldn't edit historical articles. Nothing I said above is not in Laurens, and it is in Laurens, sequentially.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
So Laurens says one thing and other sources say other things. NPOV tells us we must show all major scholarly views of which I doubt Laurens is the consensus. Many sources say Israel was responding to rockets on the Galilee and those should be represented in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Reread the above slowly if you can, and try to understand it. the poinbt you are making is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read the following slowly, and try to understand it: NPOV is Wikipedia POLICY. A source you like doesn't get special treatment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretext

No More Mr Nice Guy appears not to like the word "pretext", which is used by countless WP:RS, such as The Guardian, the New York Times and Haaretz..

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You just restored a falsification of a source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ignoring the substance of the question again? What a surprise. The issue here is simple - is pretext appropriate. Answer, it is supported by countless WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the issue is that the eminently scholarly source already at the end of the sentence explicitly says "provoked" and you just falsified it. I believe that's a big no-no around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And Colleen Sullivan's credentials are...?
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Who? It's sourced to Harvey W. Kushner, Encyclopedia of terrorism, Sage Publications. Good luck showing that's not about as RS as you can possibly get. Now kindly correct your source falsification or do we need the admins to have a look? I understand you have some kind of little vendetta against me (which I have to tell you I find quite amusing), but try to keep it to places that have less potential to get you in trouble. Ok buddy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Have you even read the source? The article was written by Colleen Sullivan. What are her credentials on this subject please? By the way, when you write that you believe that a WP:TERTIARY source is "about as RS as you can possibly get", you give away why you are such a negative influence on this project. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have read the source. I have it in front of me. This is the entry for Abu Nidal, and it doesn't say a "Colleen Sullivan" wrote it. Are you once again looking at partial stuff on google books? The only place a "Colleen Sullivan" is mentioned is in a general thanks section in the preface. You've never laid eyes on a full version of this source, have you? Negative influence. Good one. Thanks for reminding me what a funny little dude you are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Try reading the second edition. The Abu Nidal article is almost exactly the same, yet kindly attributes its author, Colleen Sullivan.
Now, please answer the multiple points that you have ignored above.
Also, please read WP:NPA. I don't know where you learned about my physical features, but your sizeist comments are discriminatory and unacceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea who Colleen Sullivan is. Apparently someone both Gus Martin and Harvey W Kushner thought is qualified to write an entry about Abu Nidal? I checked the source in the first edition, as that's what in the article. Considering the editors of both versions of the encyclopedia used it, I really doubt it matters who she is. Two highly qualified scholars vetted that entry, and it's from a scholarly press. This is supposedly exactly the sort of source we're supposed to look at when we have conflicting terminology for something.
I have no information about your physical features. It was a figure of speech prompted by your behavior. What terminology would you like me to use to express the fact you're behaving like a child with something to prove? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, all this is just deflection on your part. If you have a problem with the source you remove it and the language it supports. You can't change the wording and keep the sources as if they support that wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is another example of your systematic behavior in pushing talk page silliness, ignoring the essential problem, resolving an edit difference, generally trying to create a stalemate or impasse, and wasting everyone's tim e using personal attacks, getting fixated on a single issue that interests you, and refusing to use commonsense, familiarize yourself with the topic (which means recognizing the obvious) in favour of polemics and sneering.
Oncenawhile said do a google search at the outset, and it will confirm 'pretext', followed by 'excuse', is the default term. He repeated the request: you refused. He asked you to identify the status of the unknown person to whom the piece you defend because it has provoked is attributed. You wouldn't, doesn't interest you whether the source is an expert or not. Colleen Sullivan who?
Anyone minimally familiar with the topic will have noted that usage over decades of reading, and that is why I changed it at sight. All you needed to have done is ask for a source. No. Too easy a solution. What you chose to do is mount a case of 'source falsification', when the two sources are mediocre, and irrelevant. You had your 'Palestinians provoke' model in a poor source, and that was the ground to be tenaciously repeated, though innumerable sources speak of Sharon's consistent technique of provoking the PLO in order to get an excuse or pretext to attack. Everyone knows this except yourself.
One of Israel's premier military strategists and historians, a realist who cuts to the chase through tons of waffle and says what he thinks the simple arithmetic of history is (in the admirable tradition of Jabotinsky), summed up famously the 1982 Lebanese war thus:-

‘In summer 1981 the border between Israel and Lebanon flared up as the IDF answered fresh Katyusha rocket attacks by means of an unprecedented heavy artillery bombardment and a heliborn raid against PLO bases on the Zaharani river. Still Begin held back; after about two weeks of fighting a cease-fire was concluded and during the next year was to be observed fairly scrupulously by both sides. A month later Sharon’s appointment as minister of defense marked the beginning of the end run . . . .Now that the Lebanon border was almost completely quiet he, Eytan, and other members of the General Staff, every time some incident took place anywhere in the country would descend on it like vultures, looking hard to see whether it was their excuse to invade. During the winter and spring of 1982, the plans were repeatedly set in motion and the tank transporters loaded and sent on their way. They were always recalled for one reason or another. In truth, the IDF’s planning for Lebanon simply was not a rational response to PLO attacks. Perhaps because he had never been a soldier, Begin saw war in romantic terms. According to Arye Naor, who served as secretary to the Cabinet, for Begin the idea of Jews taking military action against their enemies struck a deep emotional chord; after all, the state of Israel had been established specifically to put an end to the pogroms that made them the hapless victims. . .Israel’s excuse for launching “Operation Peace for Galilee”-the name dreamed up by Begin personally-proved paper-thin. On June 23, 1982, Israel’s ambassador to London, Shlomo Argov was shot in the head and gravely wounded. The PLO disclaimed responsibility; there were indications that the perpetrators belonged to Abu Nidal’s group, intending to put Arafat out on a limb. Yet Sharon ordered the IAF to bomb Palestinian bases in the camps near Beirut, knowing full well that the response would be renewed rocket attacks on northern Israel. The attacks duly took place, and the tank transporters were set rolling toward the frontier. This time they did not stop, however, and on June 6, exactly fifteen years after the Six Day War, Israel found itself embroiled in large-scale hostilities against an Arab neighbour.pp.288-289 (Martin Van Creveld, Sword and the Olive: A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force PublicAffairs, 2008 pp.288-289)

That is generally what happened, beyond all the hype. Any number of text will, as Oncenawhile insisted, confirm that reading specifically over the Shlomo Argov incident.
  • (16) Alan Hart, Arafat, a Political Biography, Indiana University Press 1989 pp.451-452. 'To cover his own back, Haig seems to have conveyed the message more by what he did not say in answer to Sharon’0s questions. Israel accounts make it very clear that Haig’s main concern was that there should be an unquestionable breach of the ceasefire by the P.L.O if Israel was to have a chance of persuading world opinion that what it was about to do in Lebanon was even remotely justified. That meant Israel’s Defence Minister had a real problem, and it was Arafat. In so far as he had the power to control events on his own side, the Chairman was simply not going to give Sharon the excuse he needed. Arafat was in in Saudi Arabia on the day the invasion started. His presence there meant, obviously, that his chances of restraining his frustrated P.L.O. forces from returning fire in the event of an Israeli attack were greatly reduced. It is inconceivable that Israel’s intelligence agencies did not know where Arafat was. On the night of Thursday, 3 June, there was an attempt to assassinate Israel’s Ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov. He was shot in the neck as he was leaving the Dorchester Hotel, and he remained close to death after a two-hour brain operation at the National hospital for Nervous Diseases. The attack was made by Arab students in London who received their orders from Abu Nidal's headquarters in Iraq. The following morning, while Arafat was driving at top speed from Saudi Arabia to the Lebanon, wave after wave of Israeli aircraft rocketed and strafed Palestinian quarters in Beirut, it was, the Israelis said, not the start of their invasion, but merely a retaliation for the attack on Argov in London. With no Arafat to impose restraint, P.L.O, military commanders hit back at Israel the only way they knew how. And that gave Sharon the excuse he needed. The P.L.O, leadership is united in the belief that the Mossad, through its penetration of Abu Nidal’s organization, was responsible for the order to kill Argov to give Sharon the pretext for the reprisal attack that was guaranteed to force the P.L.O.’s hand in Arafat’s absence. Arafat and his colleagues are the first to admit there is no concrete evidence to support this claim.
  • (16) Patrick Seale,Abu Nidal: a gun for hire, Hutchinson, 1992 p.225
  • (17) Cheryl A. Rubenberg, Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination, University of Illinois Press 1989 pp.279-281 (This book lists in detail all the 'provocations' the author interprets as characteristic of Israeli policy for the period Feb-May, and likewise speaks of pretext and excuses)
  • (18) Alan R. Taylor, The Superpowers and the Middle East, Syracuse University Press, 1991 p.121 Haig then informed the Israelis that he could not condone such an attack except as a response to “international provocation”. This was interpreted in Jerusalem as a green light to go to war if an appropriate pretext could be provided. The wounding of an israeli diplomat by Abu Nidal’s radical Palestinian faction in London on June 4, 1982, was used as a sufficient excuse to invade.’
  • (19) Ramesh Chandra Thakur,International peacekeeping in Lebanon: United Nations authority and multinational force, Westview Press, 1987 p.161. 'But a major invasion needs a convenient excuse to serve as justification. The shooting of Israel's ambassador in London on 3 June 1982 provided the necessary pretext.'
  • (20) Raja Halwani, ‎Tomis Kapitan (eds) The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Philosophical Essays on Self-Determination, Terrorism and the One-State Solution, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008 p.187 'Retaliation for the attack on Mr. Argov was, of course, a transparent pretext . .
All of this was instantly available to any 'serious editor, but uyou stubbornly refused to look. The only reason to avoid work looks like a tactic to force other people to waste their time proving the obvious, while you sit back and quibble. So, drop the disruptive stalling. If there is a problem, study the sources, rather than nitpick your way into a futile argument, please.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Let me remind you that a few weeks ago you were arguing that if an expert scholar is an editor of a book published by a scholarly press, it doesn't matter who wrote a specific essay since the scholar vetted it.
  2. The first edition of the source, the one used as a ref, did not name any Colleen Sullivan as someone who wrote the Abu Nidal entry.
  3. When you change a sentence but leave a ref at the end of it, you're giving a reader the impression that source supports your wording. What would you call that?
  4. Thank you for that long list. I hope you didn't spend too much time copying it from google books (and amusingly, editing out the search words you used x20). I'm not going to bother copying, just go to google books and search for something along the lines of "PLO provoked Israel Lebanon" and you'll find many counter examples. They are "instantly available to any serious editor". Were you not aware of any of these, or do you just think it's NPOV to put the terminology you like in the encyclopedia's neutral voice? Why is it ok for you to do it but not ok for anyone else?
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope. In short you haven't got an answer. You can't identify the otherwise unknown, one article writer Colleen Sullivan from Thousand Oaks, just because you trust Harvey W. Kushner, a retired US professor of criminal law, checked her credentials?. I tried your google test and got nothing useful, because google gives nothing unless you open up and read back and forth to see ccontext. Your cypher even gives several examples of Noam Chomsky and others citing the provocation thesis, for example. Unless you can do some work here to argue your case, you have no case. In any case, when not using my own resources, I transcribed a large amount of data from scholars who do know the subject, and will rewrite the sections they bear on. What went on can be verified by those sources, which give timelines of incidents, political talks and even comments like one Israeli general who said that he had discussed with Shlomo Argov what kind of "pretext" their government would come up with to invade Lebanon a mere week before the ambassador was shot.
You got wound up about conspiracy theories my source mentioned to dismiss, rightly. Kushner is a conspiracy theorist. 'The only explanation as to why we continue to ignore the secret Islamic terror network in America is that the demand of political correctness have made us so afraid of being branded racists that we force ourselves to be color blind, identity blind, and gender blind till we end up, quite simply, totally blind.' Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, I greatly enjoyed reading your analysis of NMMNG's behaviour in your earlier post - from my recent experience with him, your description was spot on. The point the resonated most was "All you needed to have done is ask for a source. No. Too easy a solution."
I have wondered for some time as to why he almost never takes the simple route to resolving differences. Time and time again he will ignore the core underlying point of the debate and create new focus areas for the discussion to try to discredit his perceived adversary. Perhaps the clue is in his username. I can only conclude that he sees wikipedia debates as battles to be won, like an WP:MMORPG.
In other words, he is a game player, rather than an editor. That's why he contributes so little if anything in terms of original text or new articles.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you contributed loads with that comment that consists solely of a personal attack. And this after you whined at me about NPA? Funny stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. "Harvey W. Kushner (Ph.D., New York University) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at Long Island University. An internationally recognized authority on terrorism...He has advised and lectured on matters of international terrorism at the Naval War College, the FBI Academy, the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, and the United Nations in Vienna, Austria, among others." http://www.sagepub.com/authorDetails.nav?contribId=504379 Sage Publications thinks he's expert enough, and so would you if he conformed to the POV you push all over this encyclopedia. By the way, isn't calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" a BLP violation? You seem quite sensitive to those when made against people you like.
(added later)Oops, I almost got distracted by that. Nice job. Let's say for the sake of the argument Kushner is not a good source. Did you challenge the source? No. You left it in the article, but only changed the wording, thus falsifying. You could have removed it, or taken it to RS/N or whatever, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It didn't seem to bother you for years, sitting there in the lead.
As for the google search, are you pretending you didn't see a single legitimate source there that used the term "provoked"? Don't make me laugh and stop trying to get me to waste my time. Here are just a few links [1] [2] [3] [4]. You will notice that some (like Spencer Tucker, who I can't wait to hear why you don't think is a reliable source) say that what provoked Israel was the shelling of the Galilie, not Argov. But they still say it was provoked. Per NPOV both this and the "pretext" POVs should be represented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You appear to not understand the concept of looking for the highest quality sources. I think you don't understand academia at all.
Either way, let's cut to the chase. Every conflict that Israel has been involved in was, according to Israel and their supporters, provoked by someone else. For each of those conflicts, others have written that any provocation was minor and was simply used as a pretext. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_129#Pretext_or_trigger_event_guidance.
I suggest best practice, given the importance of the casus belli to any such article, is to create a section entitled Casus Belli, and summarise the various scholarly views.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I find it highly amusing that one of the worse POV pushers around, a guy who regularly misrepresents the sources he puts in articles (but doesn't necessarily read all the pages he referenced) has the audacity to tell me what I understand and what I don't. That's just too funny coming from someone like you.
Anyway, yes, I'm all for showing all scholarly views per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay. You don't know how research is done. Spencer Tucker's passage happens to be contradicted by many other sources. It's RS but he fucks up, a not infrequent thing. I've off the bed but I did check your Searle link (no.4) and you've only looked at the snippet, and not the context (read forwards and backwards for several pages was my advice). p.225 ' It is also possible that the Mossad manipulated Abu Nidal into providing the pretext for the invasion that Begin and Sharon wanted.' See, you just don't read. All you do is search for a word or two that fits your desired outcome. Hopeless, and pointless discussing this here. One edits, e basta.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The source got it wrong? That's awesome. Do we have a policy or guideline that allows you to drop a significant POV because you think the source "fucked up", or what was your point? Also, your accusation of searching for words that fit your desired outcome is pretty funny considering that's exactly what you did with that list above. Or are you claiming you read all those books? Could you kindly explain why you removed the search words from the links? It's very obvious those links are edited. Why did you do that? Could it be because you "searched for words that fit your desired outcome"? What a joke.
Apropos reading, did you notice that Chibli Mallat says that Saadam Hussein "triggered" the war? Another POV that doesn't appear in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See, you can't help yourself. 'your','your' 'your'. . .Instead of the obvious simple query, 'where (did Tucker et al fuck up in synthesizing 1 year in a sentence?, which the majority of sources deny' -there go figure it out yourself), you expatiate, mock, ventilate in the customary fashion to bloat the talk page. As I said, I don't take you seriously. I don't see any trace of a commitment to building Wikipedia in this behaviour. This is not a dueling pastime for the idle. I prefer to edit than to participate in silly games. (and of course I noticed the content of the books I linked. It's one of several dozen things not in the article. I'll be editing from now on.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact you think I should "query" why you think a RS (one of many) is "wrong" is ridiculous. Your opinion on if it's right or not has no weight whatsoever. NPOV is POLICY, and what Tucker and other RS say about the reasons for the war will go in the article whether it fits your POV or not.
I see you're not about to explain why you removed the search words from the links you provided, but the obvious answer is that you were "search[ing] for a word or two that fits your desired outcome" as you accuse others.
As for 'your', 'your', 'your' - Remember this? Your incessant whining about other people personalizing stuff is hypocritical in the extreme. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
NMMNG, since you love to criticise others, you should acknowledge when you are wrong. Nishidani pointed out a major error you made above, and you try to pretend it didn't happen. Another step down on the credibility ladder.
As I have explained previously, you appear not to understand wikipedia's sourcing policy. Please read WP:PSTS. Tucker is a tertiary source.
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have some kind of obsession with me acknowledging and apologizing for all sorts of things. I find it mildly amusing. Please continue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remind people that you are not forced to argue forever. WP:DR and WP:RfC exist for a reason. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we're done. The POV "pretext" language is gone, and neither of these guys has a good enough argument to return it, so that's that. The whole argument about a source that's been in the article for over a year and thus has implicit consensus was just a attempt to distract. Note that with all the verbiage above neither of them has bothered to actually remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
To your last sentence, this is because we are not edit warriors. I have now replaced them with an endnote which talks to both perspectives. We can build this endnote out with detailed references and attributions. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No one can identify the person Colleen Sullivan, whose work occurs in a general book on Terrorism. Neither its editor not the authoress are known as scholars of the Middle East. A general claim being made in that work therefore requires multiple sourcing. This should go to RS/N
  • There is a patent, factual claim disparity between (Tucker) 'The PLO repeatedly violated the agreement, and major cross-border-strikes resumed in April 1982 following the death of an Israeli officer from a land mine.
Dozens of sources note that the PLO observed the ceasefire. Quite a few say both sides observed the ceasefire ('a cease-fire was concluded and during the next year was to be observed fairly scrupulously by both sides.' van Crevald), Cheryl Rubenberg, Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination, University of Illinois Press 1989 pp.279-280) gives you a substantial list and chronology of Israeli violations and provocations over several months. A few sources are sufficiently interested in detailed facts to tell you that two splinter groups, the PFLP and DFLP, defied Arafat and either provoked or retaliated for provoking over this period (Avraham Sela Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, The: Middle East Politics and the Quest for Regional Order, State University of New York 1998 p.254) This distinction is nicely ignored by Israeli official reports which bundle all Palestinians into PLO.
It's obvious that one line, notably stupid, in a tertiary source clarifies nothing. Tucker's article ascribes to the PLO infractions several sources identify with groups hostile to PLO agreements, and (b) ignores the given record of Israeli infractions for the same period. Encyclopedias have to be used with care, and usually only if we have no other sources. Only by using several direct studies on the period, abundantly available can an appropriate description for this be devised. Just a note. I'll eventually do it. Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: 1000 Lebanese killed?

There is consensus for not including this sentence, at least without any broader context. The statement is ambiguous and at worst factually incorrect, providing no context or indication of why the statement is of any importance. Sam Walton (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the casualties section include this statement?

In 1984, Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohamad El Haj stated that "about 1,000 Lebanese died as a result of the Israeli invasion.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Lebanon Demands Payment". The Los Angeles Times. November 16, 1984. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Walsh, Edward (November 16, 1984). "Lebanon, Israel Resume Talks on Troop Pullout". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

22:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • No: Firstly, with a ton of books and scholarly sources on this topic stating that up to 20,000 people died in the war, this WP:FRINGE claim is only supported by two unclear newspaper reports at the time. Secondly, even the source cited states that it was unclear as to which category of people El Haj was talking about (did it include the seige of Beirut etc.). The source notes that this is an exceptional statement not made by any Lebanese official before or since (see the discussion here for a full quote from the source). Lastly, the statement is illogical because not only Lebanese, but Palestinians also died in the war. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Illogical? Haj probably had no knowledge of Palestinian casualties. As a Lebanese official in a position to know, Haj's estimate is a reliably sourced alternative to the ridiculous 20,000 PLO propaganda invention. You just don't like it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, because it is (a) question-begging (b)ambiguous and therefore not informative, because it is so utterly counterfactual regarding all deaths in Lebanon, that we don't know what time-frame is referred to, what area (Beirut?), and who the statistic refers to, apparently Lebanese citizens as opposed to residents?, or are they Maronites? The 20,000 figure is not a PLO propaganda invention. Robert Fisk describes in close detail the huge amount of checking he and others did (a) family interviews, (b) examination of hospital and mortuary records, (c) analysis of burials in cemeteries to arrive at an estimate of those who died in Beirut in a brief period alone. In just one small graveyard near Sabra, before the real slaughter, the gravedigger showed 250 graves for his small area since June 6, etc. For this all sides, the Israelis, the Syrians and the Iraqis pressured the British Home Secretary to have him removed from the Middle East. He was far too accurate and meticulous to make anyone comfortable and he accepts 17,835, which is the standard figure.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, per Nishidani. Ijon (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, if clarified and relevant. If RS indicate that El Haj is propagandizing with insanely low numbers, that's an encyclopedically relevant fact. If El Haj was reporting figures he knew of at the time, and there's no evidence he's propagandizing, but rather that others are propagandizing by claiming he intentionally used deflated numbers, that too is relevant. I'm utterly neutral on the topic, and do not know the answer. But I want to. So will other readers. The only problem here is the bare statement by itself tells us nothing. All of Nishidani's concerns seem to be resolvable to writing better, and consulting additional sources if necessary. If it cannot be clarified without engaging in WP:OR, then it should be deleted per Nishidani's points, which would under that circumstance all be valid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I am a bit late, but I don't think this should be added, it is clear that the statement is not factual and fringe, it would be undue to add. Darwinian Ape talk 18:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to clarify, this "PLO propaganda claim" of up to 20,000 people killed, is supported by at least 10 totally reliable scholarly sources in this section. See the sources in this comment, for example. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israeli strategic failure?

Israels goal was to expel The PLO and Arafat from Lebanon, and it did. I suggest changing the "Result" field to an Israeli strategic victory. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Result section in the infobox

Should we just remove it? Infoboxes are for summarizing simple, noncontroversial information. The "result" is a mess, with multiple bullet points and has been the target of ridiculous edit warring. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

DEATH TOLL Needs a number. Report a scholarly consensus or a range

Asking readers to sort out a death toll from all the conflicting views is unacceptable. Thousands of deaths are not some trivial matter. Make it clear and accessible. Report a scholarly consensus or a range based on conflicting reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.198 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@66.87.119.198: The infobox is usually used to summarize basic, non-controversial information. Unfortunately, as you can see from the "Casualties" section, there are many different estimates. The range, as you can see, varies from 1,000 by the Israeli government to 20,000 by many scholarly sources. I am not sure if it is a good idea to simply write 1,000-20,000, for instance. Because the latter number is much more likely than the former, it can give the wrong impression. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy

In Israel's Lebanon War (1984), Schiff and Ya'ari describe a two-and-a-half hour meeting between Al Haig and Sharon in May 1982, in which Haig effectively acquiesced in the upcoming Israeli invasion. Of particular interest is the following anecdote: "In speaking of a possible Israeli response to a violation of the ceasefire, Haig said that he would expect the operation to be swift, and to illustrate his point he used the metaphor of a lobotomy—a quick, clean, neutralizing operation in the event that there was no other choice. Sharon was apparently unsure what the term meant, for he leaned over toward Ambassador Moshe Arens to check out its connotation. Then his face realigned into a broad smile of satisfaction" (pp. 73-74). Interestingly enough, longtime CIA analyst Charles Cogan recounts the same May 1982 meeting in Becoming Enemies: U.S.-Iran Relations and the Iran-Iraq War, 1979–1988 (2012), but in his version Sharon met with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger at the Pentagon: "Sharon said they were going to invade Lebanon, while Weinberger just sat there and said nothing. Sharon said ... he used the term 'lobotomy'. They were going to perform a lobotomy on the PLO. They were going to render it totally impotent" (p. 111). This is a puzzling contradiction, because Schiff and Ya'ari describe Sharon's interactions with Weinberger as fraught with tension, while emphasizing the friendship between Sharon and Haig. (Given how little sympathy diaspora Jews tend to show toward Israel, I'm inclined to believe them.) In addition, the connotations of the "lobotomy" metaphor are quite different in the two sources. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sharon met Weinberger first, then Haig on the 25th of May of that year. Haig is said to have given, according to Israeli impressions, the go-ahead to Sharon in a later meeting, three days late on the 28th. Unless your sources specify at which of the several meetings between the three who said what, there's no intrinsic conflict in reports.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1982 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Baino0nesi (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The Kurdistan Workers' Party at the time had training camps in Lebanon, where they received support from the Syrians and the PLO. During the Israeli invasion all PKK units were ordered to fight the Israeli forces. A total of 11 PKK fighters died in the conflict.[1][2][3]

Its dead links, remove this or show us real evidence.

Partly done: Tagged the refs with {{Dead link}} as WP:RL says "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference PKK1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference PKK2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference PKK3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 1982 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

I ask an extended-confirmed user to please remove the penultimate paragraph of this section, which is repeated (in better form) in the last paragraph. Also in that section there are a lot of apostrophes that should be removed (and replaced for "its" instead of "it's", which is grammatically incorrect).--181.110.135.183 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Hi, I've performed this request for you. I don't know what section you're referring to with regards to the apostrophes - could you elaborate on that? st170e 13:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1982 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

This "Arabic" is redundant and doesn't belong after the parenthesis, since article already says ...and Arabic: الاجتياح, Al-ijtiyāḥ, "the invasion". Somebody please remove it.--Mariolis MG (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Since the FunkMonk's edit is in question here. Its best if the editor attends this edit request. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "in Lebanon". Saying "by the Arabs" is like saying "by the Jews" or something stupid like that. FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1982 Lebanon War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

In various items sourced to Jewish sources or Jewish-related stories (e.g., The New York Times, Noam Chomsky, American Jewish Committee Archives), the very offensive comment is added "better source needed" - I assume by a Palestinian-related source. Please note that all military actions have at least two sides, and they are literally violently opposed to each other. For one of those sides to attempt delegitimization of the other side's accounts, merely by their alignment to an opponent or their religion, is intellectually indefensible. It also goes against the purposes for which Wikipedia was founded.

If there are errors, submit corrections. THEREFORE, PLEASE REMOVE THE COMMENT "BETTER SOURCE NEEDED" FROM ALL APPLICABLE FOOTNOTES. THERE ARE FIVE I HAVE SPOTTED, FOR FOOTNOTES 66, 123, 124, 125, 126, AND 127. Oleh77 (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

Change the flag icon of the PKK (Flag of Kurdistan Workers' Party 1978.png) to the .svg file (Flag of Kurdistan Workers' Party 1978.svg) Thespündragon 18:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

questionable flags

Someone placed 20px|border with the description "Al-Tawhid" a piped wikilink to Islamic Unification Movement. Bzzzt, the flag's information template says it is the Taliban's flag. Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

Change Tripoli to Tunis (in Tunisia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War "The PLO, under the chairmanship of Yasser Arafat, had relocated its headquarters to Tripoli in June 1982. "

What proves my point is another Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#Lebanon_and_the_Lebanese_Civil_War "In 1982, the PLO relocated to Tunis, Tunisia after it was driven out of Lebanon by Israel during the First Lebanon War. Following massive raids by Israeli forces in Beirut, it is estimated that 8,000 PLO fighters evacuated the city and dispersed." 2A02:A311:8144:8800:7163:8BC7:1A21:AA79 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that "another Wikipedia article" is not a reliable source enough for any other article. There's indeed discrepancy, that shouldn't exist, in the two articles. However I cannot easily find the reference for that fact in both articles. So I will leave this open, hopefully someone has access to the book mentioned in the second article to verify which claim is correct. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per Ammarpad I've done a quick online source search and I can't see a reliable source which verifies the claim. Please feel free to re-open the request should you find one and cite it below and I or another user will implement the change on both articles. SITH (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why No Mention of Yekutiel Adam?

According to another entry, as the vice chief of staff in this war, Yekutiel Adam is the highest ranking officer killed in action of Israel. But why no mention of him here? I think his death is a big deal, isn't it? --Aronlee90 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Israeli casualties in the Lebanon wars

How many Israeli soldiers died in the 1982-2000 Lebanon wars? No official number exists. The various estimates vary widely. Most estimates for the war itself (Operation Peace for Galilee) are quite similar between 654 and 657. The difference seems to be explained by a number of MIAs, who sometimes are included in the total. But when did the war end? Some believe it ended by the IDF withdrawal from West Beirut 30 September 1982. Others with the withdrawal to the security zone in 1985.

How many died in the second stage of the war, the security zone war? Here the numbers differ widely, between 562, 675 and 750, giving totals of 1216, 1329 and 1404. According to South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) 559 Israeli soldiers were killed 1985-2000. The number was calculated from 1,216 killed (1982-2000) minus 657 killed (1982-1985) The Hebrew page רצועת_הביטחון (The Security Zone) claims that around 750 IDF soldiers (including some civilians) were killed in the “Security Zone war”, with a total of 1,404 killed 1982-2000. The English 1982 Lebanon War page claims that 368 IDF soldiers were killed in the war that lasted from 6 June 1982 to June 1985. The corresponding Hebrew page מלחמת_לבנון_הראשונה claims that 654 Israeli soldiers were killed in the war, defined as between 6 June and 29 September 1982. The total number of fatalities 1982-2000 was claimed to be 1216.

According to Israeli casualties of war 657 military and 10 civilians died in the First Lebanon War (1982-1985). 256 military 90 civilians died in the Security Zone in Lebanon Campaign (1985-2000). Somehow these two numbers are supposed to combine to a total of 636 dead. Which they don’t. Netanel Lorch writes on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/the%20arab-israeli%20wars.aspx that 1,216 soldiers were killed between 5 June 1982 and 31 May 1985. He doesn’t provide an estimate of how many died in the years afterwards in the Security zone war.

Gal Luft [Security Zone in Lebanon - A Tragedy?] on the other hand claims that only 256 Israeli soldiers died in combat in south Lebanon 1985-2000. This number hardly seems credible.

We thus have at least three different versions:

First Lebanon war 654 368 654

Security Zone war 562 675 750

Total 1982-2000 1216 1043 1404

My feeling is this, and here I’m committing the Wikipedia sin of original research. The 368 figure for October 1982 is probably correct, with official and multiple credible sources for example [[5]]. It is quite detailed and broken down by military grade. It includes 10 non-combat fatalities, as has been Israeli and other’s practice in other wars. The same goes for the 654 figure for 1985. It is widely reported (although sometimes with an erroneous time frame) and probably correct.

But how many died between 1985 and 2000? This is the tricky question. The different estimates are quite wide apart: 389, 562 or 750.

We know of one significant but insufficient factor, the 1997 Israeli helicopter disaster, where two IDF helicopters bringing reinforcements to outpost beyond the Litani, collided on the border, killing 73 IDF soldiers.

Once you exclude non-combat fatalities you’re on a slippery slope. Remember that Israel officially still maintains that the suicide bombing of the Tyre headquarters bombings of 1982 was an “accident” caused by a gas leak, thereby removing 75 fatalities from the equation. I find it hard to believe that Israel can’t tell if it lost 1043 or 1404 soldiers in the Lebanese wars 1982-2000.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Kostyoyo12 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

{flagicon|Flag of the South Lebanon Army.png}

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ritenerek⋆:) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

In Notes: Citation #9, Hirst, David - "'If this had been Jerusalem', they said, 'we would have stayed to the end. But Beirut is not outs to destroy."

Should be "ours," not "outs to destroy" - "'If this had been Jerusalem', they said, 'we would have stayed to the end. But Beirut is not ours to destroy." Knightoften (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022 | add symbol at belligerents section please

add the flag for LCP in belligerents section like this PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 09:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding Weapons Of The War (Please)

Can We Add A List Of Equipment/Weapons To The Site ? 188.136.9.17 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidence in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It is better to "discuss any proposed change" before removing consensual and sourced content that was there for many years. Regarding infobox documentation, Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. This applies to all guidelines, including MILMOS, and infobox docs. So I encourage you to present some more arguments that "inconclusive" is an improvement for Wikipedia in comparison with what was before.--Oloddin (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

1982 war?

Occupation? Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, only Israel calls it the "1982 Lebanon war", but you are right that occupation is the correct term there: there was no "war" - no two countries fighting, as is the definition of a war. The Lebanese government was not involved at all. It was simply the invasion of one country by another, with the purported aim attacking militias in its territory. Impartial sources like the BBC don't mention any "1982 war" in their timeline of Lebanese history, only an Israeli invasion: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14649284 - so you are right that this article should be edited to reflect that. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

1982 war?

Occupation? Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Indeed, only Israel calls it the "1982 Lebanon war", but you are right that occupation is the correct term there: there was no "war" - no two countries fighting, as is the definition of a war. The Lebanese government was not involved at all. It was simply the invasion of one country by another, with the purported aim attacking militias in its territory. Impartial sources like the BBC don't mention any "1982 war" in their timeline of Lebanese history, only an Israeli invasion: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14649284 - so you are right that this article should be edited to reflect that.

Hezbollah?

Hezbollah was really a participant in the war? Or it was created after the war? MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it was created because of the invasion, so the article is obviously wrong. Also, can't see how it can be a Lebanon war if the Lebanese state was not even a part of it - it was an invasion of Lebanon by a foreign country to attack militias who lived in the country. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

1982 war?

Occupation? Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Indeed, only Israel calls it the "1982 Lebanon war", but you are right that occupation is the correct term there: there was no "war" - no two countries fighting, as is the definition of a war. The Lebanese government was not involved at all. It was simply the invasion of one country by another, with the purported aim attacking militias in its territory. Impartial sources like the BBC don't mention any "1982 war" in their timeline of Lebanese history, only an Israeli invasion:

"Fifth Arab–Israeli War" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fifth Arab–Israeli War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Fifth Arab–Israeli War until a consensus is reached. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BADEMPHASIS

Iraq's motives for the assassination attempt may have been to punish Israel for its destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in June 1981, and to provoke a war in Lebanon that Iraqi leaders calculated would be detrimental to the rival Ba'ath regime in Syria—whether Syria intervened to help the PLO or not!

The exclamation point is undue emphasis. RemotelyInterested (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1982_Lebanon_War/Archive_2&oldid=1216164517"