Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Congratulations

Congratulations to all those who have been mangling this page over the last while, either in pursuit of political positions or just out of plain incompetence. For those who have been making coherent contributions, my sympathies.

Perhaps the 'current event' template should be modified to read, 'This article documents a current event. It will remain instable and probably unreadable until further notice.' Palmiro | Talk 13:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

Area of the Shebaa Farms

While reading through the article, I noticed it claimed two different areas, 28 km² and 10 km². I went to the Shebaa Farms article and calculated its area using my adept skills in math (2.5*14). I assumed the page on the Shebaa Farms was the most accurate. Does anyone know the actual correct area? I will try to find a source later today if I remember. RyanEberhart 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found http://www.shebaafarms.org/briefhistory.html states that the farms are 25km². Can anyone find anything else to confirm? RyanEberhart 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This page (http://www.meib.org/articles/0105_l1.htm) also gives the 25km² measurement, and the Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture describes the area as "14 kilometers in length and one to two kilometers in width". A spokesperson for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon claims that the Farms' area is around 10km². Presumably, the disparity arises because Hezbollah's claims to the Farms have been rather inconsistent: some sources describe the area as a set of 14 farms, while others regard the Shebaa Farms as the entire Golan Heights region. MeredithParmer 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

General Point on Original Research

A lot of the article seems to be original research and alot of the statements lack citations. Perhaps this should be an ongoing task. --Cerejota 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

July 2006 Conflict

This is getting waaay too long and detailed for something that has a reference link to a much-trafficked page of its own at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis. Needs a major re-edit, down to a few highlight of the main events, not minutiae of the naval attacks, for example. Tarc 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Until that time comes around I have deleted it, pointing at the main article, and keeping the link to international reactions.--Cerejota 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"citation needed" nonsense

Surely there's a better way to deal with disputed facts in this article, the tags just make a mess of a generally decent article. And many are needless... for example, in the first paragraph, the dispute over the well known fact that Israel occupied southern Lebanon until 2000. Do people feel that there is a need to make a citation to accompany every sentence in Wikipedia?? 69.140.65.251 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia is that editors should cite their sources. "If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source." (see: Citing sources) Placing {{Fact|date=March 2008}} in an article is a standard way to request that Wikipedia editors provide a source. --JWSchmidt 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that editors should cite their sources, that does not mean that every single sentence needs a cite. The {{Fact|date=March 2008}} tag was grossly misused in this article over the past few days, with editors requesting citations for claims that have them, either later in the article, or sometime a few words earlier in the very same sentence that was tagged. See [1] as one example- the requested citation is right there, in the beginning of the sentence. The amount of {{Fact|date=March 2008}} tags placed here by certain editors is misuse of the tag, and borderline vandalism. Isarig 04:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (see Vandalism). It is very common for people to read a cited source and decide that it does not support the statement that it is cited in support of. When someone asks for citations, we have to start an assumption of good-faith. If you can document that certain editors are not acting in good faith (for example, by adding useless {{Fact|date=March 2008}} tags) then action can be taken to block those editors from causing further disruptions. The first step is to "talk to" any editors that seem to be causing problems and ask them what they think they are doing. --JWSchmidt 04:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I just did provide such documentation. feel free to take it up with the responsible editor. Isarig 04:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I took a look at this example:
      

"However, it expresses support and sympathy [2] for the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamist groups responsible for suicide attacks and armed resistance in Israel and the Palestinian territories."
As far as I can tell the cited source does not mention Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I do not doubt that Hezbollah has expressed support and sympathy for those groups, but it is not unreasonable for a Wikipedia editor to ask for citations to sources that document it. --JWSchmidt 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the fact tags I inserted are due to the original research tone. As you know, original research is not permitted, hence we must cite. Sometimes one doesn't have time, ans putting a fact tag alerts other editors to the need to cite what appears to be original research. It works wonders and helps makes article better. We sometimes develop tunnel vision with things we already know and forget we are writting for people who might need sources because they lack knowledge.

Lastly, assume good faith, which you didn't by accusing me of borderline vandalism.

--Cerejota 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I addressed at least half of the tags. Hope that helps.--Zereshk 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikify

This important article is extremely bloated and lacks a coherent structure. I'm going to 'wikify' tag it. Any objections please follow up below. Nick Fraser 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph claims the IDF "still occupy "Sebaa" area in the south of lebanon." This statement, I don't believe to be Neutral - most of the world agree the Sebaa area to be part of Israel, and it is not under military occupation, only farmers live there..

Furthermore, the Shebaa farms were formerly part of syria, and though hezbollah and lebanon claims them, syria remained quiet until the possibilty of their return appeared. Then, it demanded them.

For whatever purposes, political or otherwise, Syria and Lebanon currently both seem to agree that the Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon. Israel, the UN, and the international community, however, say that the Shebaa Farms are part of Syria and the UN has verified that Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000 was 100% complete.

Simple Question Regarding Logistics

It's rather NPOV on both sides of the dispute to recognize at least that, rightly or wrongly, the Hezbollah is firing Katyusha rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.

My question is merely an honest logistical one, and I HOPE it can be answered without descending into a shouting match.

The essential question is this: Who is it that is supplying the Hezbollah with these missiles? Syria is an obvious candidate for two reasons: it both supports the Hezbollah, and as well, it geographically borders Lebanon, making the delivery of these missiles easy enough. Yet missiles are expensives, and Syria is not the richest of countries. Iran, on the other hand, also a supporter of the Hezbollah, is oil rich, and is considered by most to be the main supplier of military equipment to the Hezbollah.

There's only one problem, Iran doesn't border Syria or Lebanon. The only land route from Iran to these two countries is either through Iraq or Turkey.

Now Iraq is crawling with US troops, and it would be reasonable to assume that those shipping arms from Iran to Lebanon would avoid this route at all costs. However Turkey is also a strong ally of both the US and Israel, and going that route wouldn't seem completely safe either. Are the arms airlifted in? Are they brought by sea? How does Iran supply the Hezbollah with arms? Loomis 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran supplies the Hezbollah with weapons through Syria. Civilian and non-civilian flights from Iran land in Syria, and then the weapons are taken by trucks to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Intro is a Mess

This introduction needs to be cleaned up. It is too long, there are a number of incorrect citations, there are too many citations, and its simply confusing and poorly written. --Infernallek 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)infernallek

Incorrect citation

In the second paragraph, the sentence "Hezbollah...was formed primarily to commit genocide against Israelis and Jews" uses this article as its citation. I can't really find anything in that article that supports that assertion, unless I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps the Wash. Post link changed since this is a dynamic event? Or it could be a well-hidden act of vandalism? JD79 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the wrong link. I dont recall seeing the word genocide there either.--Zereshk 17:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah has stated that they want Israel to be destroyed. Explain how this can occur without genocide, even if you use other terms.

Well, they want the nation of Israel destroyed. They claim to not want every Jew dead though. This could, in theory, be accomplished by the establishment of a new Islamic government. The Jewish people in what is now Israel would then live under this new government. That would destroy Israel without genocide.

It's often called "regime change" if genocide is not intended. At any rate, the vandalism has now been deleted. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how people use the word "regime" to describe islamic government groups (or any group our government and media deems unworthy of US support). "Regime" has a negative connotation, basically discrediting the organization in question...All too often, this kind of propaganda is used by the regime that rules the US of A.

Regime simply refers to the government in power. "Regime change" is therefore "change of government", and is without connotation, imho.

The claim in the first paragraph that Hezbollah "founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces" is not represented in the two citations given. I believe Hezbollah has a formal charter, and it should be referenced if we are to speak on why Hezbollah was founded. --Infernallek 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)infernallek

I agree. If you can find a valid copy anywhere, let's refer to it! JiHymas@himivest.com 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezb'Allah

A couple of days ago the article had Hezb'Allah as an alternative (lit party of God). Could someone knowledgable about the subject explain why this is incorrect in usage or inappropriate etc.? Thank you. Also what pronunciation in English is preferred? Chomsky seems to use "Hezb'Allah".... - Abscissa 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always gone with Hizballah or Hezballah, simply because the name means "Party of God" and the Arabic word/name for God is "Allah". Therefore "-ullah" and "-ollah" don't make much sense to me. However, I realize that Arabic is a rather nuanced language, so perhaps someone more familiar than me could clarify. --JD79 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The word Hizbullah is actually correct. After the b there is a "dhamma" (euivalent to an "o" vowel). If they were written separate, your statement would be true. But the word Hizbollah is what we call in Arabic an "esmun murakkab" (composite name). The o or u attaches the first word to the second word, deleting (id-gham) the "a" of allah in the process. So the transliteration of either Hizbullah or Hizbollah (or Hezbollah, Hezbullah) is correct. Same reasoning goes for Sheikh Hasan "Nasrullah".--Zereshk 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, thanks for the clarification on the spelling of Hizbullah, Hizbollah. However, I think it would also be helpful to know how to pronounce the word. It has been pronounced variously in the broadcast media: HIZ-bol-ah, HEZ-bol-ah, hiz-BOL-ah, hez-BOL-ah, hiz-bol-AH, hez-bol-AH, HIZ-bol-AH, HEZ-bol-AH (where capital letters represent a stressed or accented syllable). Drhaas 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the proper DIN 31635 spelling. For spelling issues, refer people to Arabic transliteration, in particular to Allah for orthographical quirks of that word. For Arabic phonology (pronunciation of ḥ and the like), refer people to Arabic phonology, this simply cannot fall within the scope of this article. The u is the nominative desinence of the hizb-, see i`rab: it's hizbu-llah, not hizb-ullah. Anglicize it (Hezbollah etc. are fine), or give a proper transliteration, but not some pseudo, intellectual-looking typographic fantasy like "Hezb'Allah". dab (ᛏ) 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar correction

"On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated through German mediators Israel agreed on an exchange of prisoners. " from Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal section doesn't make any grammatical sense. Editing when I figure out what it's supposed to mean. 65.115.38.32 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. Changed to: "On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners with Israel, through German mediators."

All the above mentioned are irresponsible remarks, neither Hezbollah nor Israel are fighting for the right cause. Hezbollah clamis its fighting for the Lebanon people and their lands,instead it got hundreds of cilivians killed for their caused. In my own subjective view, Hezbollah is just another terrorist group with their own agenda using the Lebanonese cilivians as shields for their "cause". Israel on the other hand, they are a legitimate country with an aggressive and mindless, dumb, government. They are using the excuse of trying to disarm Hezbollah to invade Lebanon. At the cause of both Israeli and Lebanese civilians. Any government who is willing to do that with their little regards to civilians are no better than any other terrorist group. They are just better armed hiding behind support of big powerful nations. I would just refer them as jewish terrorist group. Both Hezbollah and Israel government should be tied up like dogs and shot up to pieces for the world to see. They do not deserve a place in the world for their disregard for precious human lives.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is the strongest force in Lebanon, and they are trying to destroy Israel. Israel's counter-attack on Lebanon is therefore not an attack on the original Lebanese people, but is with the Hezbollah terrorists that have taken over Lebanon.

Funny way to try to destroy a State. Kidnapping a couple of soldiers for a prisoner exchange, then firing rockets as part of a military esculation from both sides in which civilians are effectively targeted. If Hezbullah want to destroy Israel, then they have a long way to go befoe they are in a position to make a serious attempt. - Anton (210.185.17.92 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy for any side of a conflict. Please limit Talk page conversations to discussing the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in articles. -- H·G (^words/_works) 21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

References to Cite.php

This article has reference both in link format and cite.php (ref) format. I find these mixed pages hard to read, and would like to convert all to one style, cite.php. I thought I was done but apparently a large section had been missing, with 30+ more links. Does anybody mind having them all converted to cite.php form? In the process of going through them, I checked a couple links. Some of the references don't seem to me to support the statements they supposedly reference. One is a reference at the end (#52 currently) about UK saying this is a terrorist organization, but the link is an EU page that had no obvious reference to UK in it. Also, references are supposed to be after punctuation per MOS. Gimmetrow 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

cite.php form sounds good to me. With so much change and vandalism, it's not surprising that some of the references should, at best, have become confused. Ref #52 [currently] is about the front/cover/alternate/sub-group names (Section 6, first paragraph) and includes the phrase "Using cover names such as 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance', with the blessings of its religious leaders, Hizbullah has ... ". It seems all right to me ... are we talking about the same thing? JiHymas@himivest.com 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the part at the end giving countries listing it as a terrorist organization, it was the reference given for UK, currently #87.[3] All current refs should now be cite.php form, and it becomes clearer that some of the refs are identical, eg #9/#13, #36/#37 and #50/#51 jump out. Gimmetrow 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the UK reference and have changed the sentence. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jacoplane, one of the purposes of footnoted references is to make the source transparent and evident. Hiding a footnote behind a [45] makes it worse than an inline reference. I strongly believe that the complete URL should be visible unless a very good descriptive alt-text is provided instead. Gimmetrow 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated Headings?

• 1.3.2Continued activities against Israel after 2000
• 1.4 Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal

Does it really make sense to maintain the two following headings? Shouldn't these be combined? JiHymas@himivest.com 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Poor Writing

This article is full of terribly written text, a rewrite is needed (I don't want to, I just want to gripe about it). Example:

"Iran funded Hizbullah in order to offset the funding of Israel by the USA. When the USA began to arm Israel with F16 Warplanes and advanced bombs. Which are being used to kill civilians in Lebanon. Iran decided that it was time to give the Hizbullah some wepons too. Both the USA and Iran accuse each other of having a hand in the conflict." J Shultz 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" edited by high school and first-year college students. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that a lot of editors (and vandals!) on the page are from the Middle East. I really appreciate their knowledge of good citations ... and even more appreciate the even-handedness they bring to the article in ensuring that more than one side of the story gets told. I'm sure the article will improve when the current excitement dies down and there are less than whatever-it-is vandalizations per day. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Error

Open paragraph list George W Bush as leader of Hezbollah?

Factual inaccuracy

This article has been given this tag. Would the person that did so please state why, or else I see no reason for it to be there. RyanEberhart 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I removed the tag. It originally was put in blank, then changed to "This page is vandalized often. Check the article history for edits by unregistered users" as a dispute reason(?) and then reverted to being blank. If there is factually incorrect contents, please state what and what we can do to fix it.. Mceder 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Attitude of Lebanese Government

The intro to section 6 currently states : "The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.[82] [83]", providing two references. The first reference, to the Forbes article, does not support the statement: in fact, it contradicts it: "Saniora told the paper that "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms," the statement said." Are there any actual citations supporting the referenced statement? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolution 1559

There is an article about this separately in wikipedia. I suggest that we cut down this section severely and simply refer readers to the separate page. Any objections? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, it is quite lenghty. But the text in Hezbollah in regards to R1559 is in sections better sourced then the R1559 article itself, so lets make sure we don't end up removing good sourced contents, but rather incorporate that into the R1559 article itself! Mceder 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How big is the army of hezbullah?

Can someone put how big an army they can muster so we can get a better idea of their force. Reaper7 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See section 6.5 JiHymas@himivest.com 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah was foolhardy to instigate this crisis

I'm not in favour with either side in this latest crisis and in addition,feel sad for the people who are caught up in this yet " again" crises in The middle east.With that said,while Hezzbollah, Hamas, ect are masters of the suicide bomb attack agaist civilians in discos and market places, they are foolish for engaging the Isreali war machine in a real war.Isreal doesn't care the Hezzbollah have their command centres in densely populated residential areas of Beruit or that the Lebonese population suffers when roads,bridges or airports are bombed into oblivion. Isreal just sees infrastructure that can and probably is used by Hezzbollah and furthermore;when has Isreal acted with restraint when attacked with crude, inaccurate weapons fired into residential areas? Hezzbollah's base of operations are amongst the Lebanonese population and it's as simple as that.Frankly,I'm mystified on what Hezzbolla hopes to achieve or expect when they fire rockets haphazardly into Isreal.

Now one could argue for hours and days on who's the bad guy with "they did that...well they did this". In the end Hezzbollah droped the ball on this one by lacking insight and for-thought into what the consequences to the Lebonese people are as a result of the first rocket attacks.Religious intoxication seems to have clouded their judgment.

Actually, it seems like racial hatred against anything Jewish has clouded their judgement. That kidnapping was their version of crossing the Rubicon, and they are forcing all of Lebanon to reap the whirlwind of destruction they started. May Allah forgive them for all the deaths and misery they have caused. User:Expatkiwi File:No-hez-flag.gif

Social services in intro

I started a section on social services provided by Hezbollah, moved the commentary in the intro to the new section and linked from the intro to the new section, but these edits were reverted. The intro is way too long and is used by both supporters and critics of Hezbollah for POV pushing. I feel the social services provided by Hezbollah are important enough to have their own section. Can we discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, nobody seems to want to discuss! Does anyone have any objections to me creating a social services section with the information from the intro? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No objections. I think it is a valid addition. Mceder 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's such a section now, but I didn't add it! It appeared overnight ... I just fixed up some of the punctuation and citations. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Standing upon the soapbox

Bottom line; This group and the radical groups terrorising ther own and the world have only the same goal, the same goal Hitler had in mind of any non Gremanic peoples GENOCIDE . All that are diffrent from them ,all muust die that is a world plan of eradication of all persons not of thier belief. look deep at the core motavation of hate and mass murder, see what Hitler did and mutlpy it with the cloak of religon. dh (Unsigned contribution by 68.231.81.110

I moved this frm the very top of the page down here. While it is ob obvious little value to the discussion of this wiki entry, I an unclear on if reverting talk page vandalism is an actual thing one can do. Otherwise, I would've chosen to revert. Tarc 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

relevance tag?

Why did somebody put this tag:

You got me. User 87.74.34.16 put it there as a replacement for:

I'll revert it. JiHymas@himivest.com 08:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is the aggessor

Israel has been looking for an excuse to exercise it's military right against Lebanon. IDF soldiers have made numerous excursions into Lebanon and fought with Hezbollah soldiers, though this is not readily reported in the western media. The IDF even left some kit behind [[4]]. Also Hezbollah only started firing missiles into Israel after the bombing of bridges, the airport and civilian areas. In my opinion Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance force which now provides schooling, social functions (they run the annual music festival) and legitimate buisness. This is even reported in the Telegraph newspaper, or the "Torygraph" as it is commonly refered to. Anyone who denies this conflict was provoked ultimately by Israel, which has far superior military might, cannot see the facts which go back as far as 1982. -- Tompsci 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Get real, Tompsci! Hezbollah has been firing missiles at Israel ever since the Israeli withdrawl to behind the INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED border in 2000. Just like Hamas and Islamic Jihad did after the Israelis left Gaza. Sheeba Farms is just a flimsy pretext for Hezbollah to continue killing Israelis. Israel simply was pushed too far after years of being pushed. I don't call that agression. I call that hitting back! Hezbollah needs to be aware of consequences for its actions and I personally hope that every single stinking militant of Hezbollah's military wing is dealt with. Expatkiwi File:No-hez-flag.gif

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Five pillars. While I understand and relate to both of your opinion, this is not the place for opinions, especially on such a controversial topic such as this! Working on this article with unbiased facts is important, especially in these times when many uninformed people go to google and type Hezbollah where WP is the #1 link. If changes or additions are needed, let's present them here with facts, references and with no original research or opinion. Much respect, Mceder 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish state of Israel has been under fire since 1948, you remember that, Tompsci. They just want to live in co-existence with the rest of the Middle East, but is under threat after threat each day. They aren't looking for any damn excuse to fire missles at Lebannon, I'd be pissed off, as well, so don't act like this is about Lebannon, it's about Hezbollah and those cowards.

Leopard Gecko 04:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Netherlands

The Netherlands stays in line with EU policy and doesn't declare Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. See this document of the Department of Foreign Affairs (in Dutch). Bontenbal 09:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The EU policy isnt that simple. A Resolution of the European Parliament declares that it "Considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities on the part of Hezbollah..." look at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0076+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN under point 8..

Until/unless the EU Council itself acts on the resolution, it is really of no relevance. Tarc 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

EuroTrash are too afraid to call things for what they really are. The fact still is that Hezbollah are TERRORISTS who kill innocent people ON PURPOSE, and no amount of grammatical gimmicks will ever change it.

References section

I yesterday made all the references short links, so that they would not be displayed as urls. The next step, which I had planned to do today, was to start going through the references and add the titles of the articles to the refs. However, User:Gimmetrow has gone through and removed all the links again, in the name of "link transparency". Personally I think the references look terrible with the urls like this, but I won't start fixing them up again if my efforts will just be reverted again. jaco♫plane 11:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I changed them. We may be working to the same goal through different methods. I have no objection to changing links from a URL to a "short link" with a title, but you can do that as you add the titles. If there is no title text and the links are not visible, it's not clear when two refs are really the same. Gimmetrow 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I like seeing the URL in the notes section ... makes it a bit easier to tell who published the reference. But I'm not a fanatic about it. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem that it causes is when the URL is mega long. I am on a 800x600 display and the Notes section looks horrid, with one column of URL running straight into the column next to it. If we do this properly, each reference should state the source as a description of the link. I agree that making http://cnn.com/blah into [1] is a bit pointless. Mceder 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I read on a small display too, but I view these articles transitional. For now, the full url helps identify when a source is used more than once - for instance one of the NPR links is used 4 times in the article. When they were [23] [24] [45] and [68], that wasn't evident. Ultimately yes, every URL should be replaced by a descriptive link giving source, date, etc. I still fail to see why how changing them all to numbers first helps - you still have to go back to add the titles/dates. And judging by the severely messed up reference section that I just fixed, most people aren't reading them anyway. (There was a ref tag put inside another reference, causing note #3 to be a few pages long.) Gimmetrow 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear you and I am working on replacing all refs in this article with the appropriate cite template,mainly cite web. At the least it will display the publisher/author, date and title. Going through each one, I am finding many 404 Errors and replacing those refs with the citation needed template. Hope this goes along with da goal. Mceder 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

contradiction here

The current text states...

Because that the organization initiates attacks against civilians and ideologically supports such attacks by other organizations, the United States, Britain and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

then in the next line says...

The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization",[14] but does list Imad Mugniyah,[15]

In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2005, the MEPs urged the EU Council to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organization. However, the Council has so far been reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks.

I am removing the first reference to britain here as it is strictly speaking untrue. Britain does not officially consider Hezbolah a terrorist organisation, even the BBC has recently ceased to call it so, in response to the complaints of its listeners. DavidP 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking Britain has proscribed Hizbollah's "External Security Organisation - see [5] and Terrorism Act 2000. --AndrewRT 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified the statement of the UK position in the relevant section. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also removing the statement "fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks" because the source provided is speculation on the part of the author and by no means is any indication of the official position of those nations. Unless a direct source can be provided to back up these claims. --slaman 10:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Partial List of Hezbollah Violent Activities Targetting Civilians Outside of Israel

I put a part of it between <!-- --> This part is qouted from a weblog [6] and the weblog refered to a Jewish virtual library [7]. There isn't any evidence or refrence in that article and it seems biased. So I proposed to remove this part.--Sa.vakilian 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

About malkolm kerr:There is written in his biogrophy that On January 18, 1984, Malcolm was shot outside his office by two gunmen. Later Islamic Jihad made a telephone call to claim the credit for his death. [8]. Maybe US claims that Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are the same but is there any evidence for it.--Sa.vakilian 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

About David Dodge :Tere is written "Perhaps the first victim whose case was widely publicized was American University of Beirut president David Dodge, abducted by Shia terrorists in 1981 and freed in 1982. "[9] Because Hezbollah at least formed at 1982 so it can't participate in an event in 1981.--Sa.vakilian 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do is combine this section with the "Allegations of Specific Terrorist Attacks Section. Some of the material that you've commented-out duplicates allegations in that section anyway. I agree that any allegations that cannot be substantiated beyond a blog should not be published here. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that given the chaos in Lebanon in the early '80's it is quite possible that there were numerous small groups operating independently; some may have joined Hezbollah en bloc; some individual members of these groups may have joined Hezbollah later. When does the chaos end and Hezbollah begin? The 'Jewish Virtual Library' reference looks amateurish and is not adequately footnoted. I don't think it should be relied upon as a sole source even for a mere allegation. The sole source referenced for Kerr is a memoir written in 1984. If it could be substantiated with contemporary or more formal sources, I'd leave the allegation in with a note that possibly IJ and H were not the same thing (at least at that time), but otherwise I'd leave it out. As for Dodge, I'd leave it out on the grounds that there is no evidence that Hezbollah is directly responsible for all instances of terrorism committed by Shiites. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, re my last above, Kerr memoir was written in 2000. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the "Allegations of Specific Terrorist Attacks..." section is now a subsection of the terrorism section, but I fail to see any difference between Sections 10.1 and 10.5. Does anybody have any objections to me combining them? JiHymas@himivest.com 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is headed by Mitchell Bard Phd who is an expert in the field of Middle-Eastern history. He's a published author of 17 books on the subject and a walking encyclopedia. Although preferable, sources do not have to be witnessed first hand, (i.e. no one is getting David Dodge to come in for an interview) particularly in the scope that the Internet was not created at the time these events happened. It's perfectly plausable to use the JVL as a reference.

- nice bias research.How about how many civilians have died in lebanon because of israelis? That list is far longer. Stop killing innocent people.

Mitchell Bard may well be a fine scholar, but the introduction to the JVL, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/about/index.shtml, makes it quite clear that he did not author all 10,000+ articles himself. The list of allegations cited against Hezbollah is unsigned and contains no references whatsoever. The particular citation used in the main page would get a failing grade in grade 9. It may well be that Hezbollah (or those who eventually joined Hezbollah, especially since the Dodge murder occurred before Hezbollah's founding) had something to do with it. If there is, then fine. Start a whole new section on it! Section 357! But at this point, anyway, I haven't seen anything that would justify such a claim. JiHymas@himivest.com 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the conversation. What proof do you have that Israel killed 400 civilians and not terrorists? Don't point me to random images of suffering children, those could've been taken anywhere by anyone with bias. Honestly, I'm sure lots civilians got killed, I'm just using your rediculous argument that a biased source is not necessarily telling a fact, and just because there are 40 million journalists in Lebanon reporting this conflict with the ease and use of the internet, does not erase smaller terrorist acts that got almost no coverage from the history of the conflict, which you and I both know, and whether it is justified by your sources or not, is Jihadism against Jews. Labaneh 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Procon.org linkspam?

In the revision "18:12, 24 July 2006 Ladlergo" the link to

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-Q-Subs-Q13.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=5&rnd=639.5361785261955 Is Hezbollah a terrorist organization?], ProCon.org

has been deleted as "linkspam". This doesn't look like spam to me ... the site presents both viewpoints (as presented by senior officials of various governments and organizations) and contains links to further materials. Why is it deemed "linkspam"? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, but perhaps there is something to this we don't know that the person deleting it does? I took a peak, and the information appears well sourced - in fact, it may be worth it to look up those sources, and quote them in this article in a similar fashion (obviously not just copy and pasting, but it is a good idea, and supplies sources as a start point!). The site is runned by http://www.amarkfoundation.org/, but I don't have much information on them either. A wiki style table with a Pro and Con side to the question of Is Hezbollah a Terrorist Organization seems balanced to me. Mceder 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many consider it to be a terrorist organisation"

Most of the world doesn't. I'm changing that to "Some consider it to be a terrorist organisation". --82.183.224.40 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, some troll is going rampage on this article right now. I'll wait with the edits. --82.183.224.40 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most" and "Some" are still weasel words, and should be discarde either way. The article should just list the nations that do and be done with it. Tarc 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --82.183.224.40 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Total War"?

According to the Wikipedia reference for total war, The most identifiable consequence of total war in modern times has been the inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying a country's ability to engage in war. The targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war. Total war also resulted in the mobilization of the home front. Propaganda became a required component of total war in order to boost production and maintain morale. Rationing took place to provide more material for waging war. With this in mind, Hezbollah's targeting of civilian cities with rockets in this most recent conflict, and Israel's targeting of the infrastructure of Lebanon meets this criteria. The term 'total war' is not being used though in the media... User:Expatkiwi File:No-hez-flag.gif

See also War Crime as to targeting of civilians.

Ideology section

With regards to -

"Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[65] and has co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal."

I feel the source given for such a direct statement is too old, especially as it was from a time when Israel were occupying Lebanon. I couldn't find a newer source for this other than opinion.

Unless a newer source can be provided maybe something like...

"Hezbollah leaders have, in the past, suggested that the destruction of Israel is the only way peace can be obtained in the Middle East and have co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas"

I think this matches the actual quote in the source a lot better as well.

No doubt someone can write it better than me but what does anyone think?

Cheers, Andy

I haven't found anything too definitive yet on Hezbollah's official policy towards Israel. The Hezbollah documents I have found simply talk of "resistance to" rather than "destruction of". It seems to be an article of faith among many that its charter calls for Israel's destruction (as does that of Hamas) but ... at this point I'm not even sure if Hezbollah actually has a formal charter! I'll keep digging ... JiHymas@himivest.com 23:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"National liberation movements"?

Is it still a national liberation organization? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Party of God (Disambig)

Not going to revert anything since this has been put in several times today, alternatively with a mention about the Republican Party, which has been reverted 2 or 3 times already.. So; Why do we need a link to other uses of Party of God in this article? I have read the first footnote and understand what Hezbollah means, but who would type in Hezbollah when they really was looking for Party of God - which has a disambig page with two links; This article and one for Hizbullah (Mauritius), and how would that help? I suggest we remove it on the basis off not making sense, but perhaps it is just me? Thoughts? Mceder 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care much either way, as long as it's just a straight link to somebody's disambiguation page. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and destruction of Israel

Several quotes and sources have been added found from recent speeches in the Official Hezbollah Website.

references in intro

Any good arguments for overloading the intro with references to undisputed facts, that all are dealt with in greater detail in the article, such as it is a party and that Israel withdraw from (most of) southern Lebanon in 2000? Bertilvidet 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro's been used for POV-pushing all along. I don't know of any good reasons for any extensive introduction. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, can we keep the intro trimmed down as much as possible? It seems as the addition of anything to the intro starts reverting fun that spirals out of control. Mceder 18:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What should it read? Hezbollah: Definition: Hezbollah? There is no way of defining them without bias. They claim to be a legitimate resistance against Israel and call for a Global Jihad. Others (especially Hezbollah's enemies) consider it a terror organization. How would you like the introduction to read? Labaneh 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine now. All the POV pushing has moved into "Background". JiHymas@himivest.com 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree its fine "now", as in: Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite political party[10], with a military arm and a civilian arm [11]. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[12] that lasted until 2000[13]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.

However, I still do not see any reason for having all those disturbing footnotes confirming undisputed facts. Bertilvidet 20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the footnotes ... they don't take up much space and it's better than the usual unsupported 'As everybody knows, Hezbollah is .... '! If we have to have one extreme or the other (and I think we do), I'll go for over-citation. It would be nice if the references were put inside 'ref' tags. I haven't done it because that section changes so rapidly anyway. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone else agree that Israeli Occupation is a loaded term? Occupation implies a colony like British occupying Palestine or India. Most Israelis do not see "Lebanon" of the 80s as an occupation.Labaneh 04:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My agreement or opinion matters not, but it does seem some credible sources out there seem to at least refer to it as an occupation, or more commonly together as the invasion and occupation. Two brief examples below. Mceder 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Israeli invasion and occupation

Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of Muslim clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Credible sources call Hezbollah a terrorist organization, we're not going solely by sources here, we're going for NPOV, and for the record, many view BBC as a news outlet as having a virulent Anti-Israel bias. Labaneh 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Occupation does not imply colony. Occupation implies a military force "occupying" territory - like the US occupying Japan after WW2, or the Germans occupying France during it. I have no problems with "Israeli Occupation" as a NPOV statement of fact. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Change sub-heading "Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal" ?

I suggest that this would be better stated as: "Hezbollah during the unoccupied period", or "From the 2000 Withdrawal to the 2006 Invasion" or something like that. Discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Continued activities against Israel after 2000

It seems to me that the first part of this section, dealing with Hezbollah's popularity, would be better placed in the Political Activities section. Are there any objections to me moving it? Also, I had thought that the sentence "Their popularity is seen to be lower among Evangelical Christians, however." referred to the poll cited in the previous sentence and that the fact tag was just a nuisance. Having searched the cited document for "Evangelical" unsuccessfully, I've come to the conclusion that this sentence was put in as a joke (referring to American Evangelical Christians). Are there any objections to my removing this? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No . My dear friend that sentence was there before the above part was added. Somebody has written it without any reference. If you want to save it find a reference for it.--Sa.vakilian 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this Evangelical Christians part is all about. As far as I know it's completely out of the debate. Christian Maronites however, supported Israel in the past, particularly in the original Lebanon war. Their sudden retreat from the war was one of the major factors to the Israeli withdrawal. Whether they support Israel today is subject to question. To the Western media, Maronites have generally shown a negative response, but it's difficult to asertain their true beliefs as Hezbollah imprisons those considered collaborators or spies, as published on their official website: (Scroll through updates) ->[14](Direct) ->[[15]] Labaneh 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

PLease Visit [www.Uruknet.com]; the real reasons why Israel has attacked Lebanon

Read the articles about the new oil pipeline near Lebanon nd Syria, the article about the Russian plans for a naval base near the temrinal, and how the U.S. wanted to have a base near the pipeline to secure it for both ISraeli and American interests. Its nice to hear that there will be foreign troops in Lebanon maybe the U.S. will get its base after all.

READ THIS...then you will see why Israel is attacking Lebanon (not Hezbollah, but all Lebanon) and why the U.S. and Britain have savatoged all ceasefire agreements...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824

An article on the oil link with the Israeli attacks

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060728&articleId=2839

the Russian base in Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060523&articleId=2508 The militarization of the area near the oil pipeline

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25004&hd=0&size=1&l=e

The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon....the U.S, base was for securing the oil pipeline

http://www.rense.com/general63/aahi.htm The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25005&hd=0&size=1&l=e Lebanon as also a pretext for war in Iran, to secure Iranian oil too

69.196.164.190

Dispute Tag

The "dispute" tag was added by user 217.37.203.130 in the revision 18:24, 30 July 2006. This user has not yet seen fit to let us in on the secret of which fact he disputes. I will remove the tag 24 hours from insertion unless there is some discussion. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to wait 24 hrs. As there is no dispute I have been bold and removed the tag. If anyone wants to dispute the factual accuracy, please do so - and then reinsert the tag. Bertilvidet 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Connection

24/07/2006 Hezbollah's Official Webpage Sites Achmenijahd calling Israel to Leave the Middle East [16]

It's an AFP article...Bertilvidet 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whose article it is, it is posted on the official Hezbollah website. Labaneh 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the point concerning the wikipedia article? Bertilvidet 17:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interview from Al-Arabiya TV (Dubai) Interview of - 5/4/2006 Former Hizbullah Secretary-General Subhi Al-Tufeili Hizbollah definitely fosters it's relations with the Syrians, but Hezbollah's real leadership is 'the rule of the jurisprudence'. In other words, Khamenei (Iranians).

Also, notice in this speech to Hezbollah who's picture is hanging in the background. It's Iran's Khamenei.

Iran has admitted this week of Supplying Hezbollah with Fajr5 and ZelZal Missiles.

strategy not idealogy

Please lokk at this text which is written in idealogy part:

...before us lies an exceptional and historic chance to exterminate this complete Zionist project which has been threatening our nation and region for over fifty years now. We as a nation must not waste this great chance... The continuation of the combating Palestinian resistance deprives the Zionists of security, or even the reason for their existence on this land... Their only correct choice, or in other words their only inescapable destiny is to pack their baggage, leave Palestine, and go back to where they came from."[68]

As you know idealogy doesn't reffer to the definite time, place or event. But this text reffers to difinite event.--Sa.vakilian 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I sort-of agree with you! But ideology influences what one would think of such an event and it is clear that Nasrullah thinks that this would be a very good idea. From what I've read, I've received the definite impression that while Hezbollah recognizes that they can (to phrase things most diplomatically) only be a guerrilla nuisance to Israel as things currently stand, they would love to be able to 'exterminate this complete Zionist project'. I suggest the quotation be kept until such time as a more definite statement can be found directly from Hezbollah in words confirmed by deeds. JiHymas@himivest.com 04:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I know his quotation is important. But it's not appropriate for ideology part. You can add it in another place.--Sa.vakilian 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to lose the citation so I'll store it here: . What do others think of this question? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

By Nasrallah's speeches, it's clear that he envisions a Palestine where Israel is now. This is definitely part of ideology, I would venture to say dogma. Furthermore, due to the unstable state of Hezbollah, would it be possible to store their official speeches on a different more stable media?Labaneh 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a movie link to an important movie on the subject of Islamic Fundamentalism - it has several speaches in it with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasralla calling for the Destruction of Israel and the US as well as Global Jihad, and also shows thousands of his followers making a heil Hitler arm motions calling out "Death to the Jews". I welcome any documentary about Lebanese struggles but this film is a must see to understand Israel's preemptive attacks.[17]Labaneh 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dozens of Nasrallah speaches that were videotaped live can be found here: [18] Labaneh 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge the "Statements by Hezbollah"

I think this part make many problems and everybody wants to add something . I propose to merge it to relative parts. --Sa.vakilian 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to do this - which quote goes where? Would it be a good idea to collect anti-Israel quotations in a subheading under "Ideology"? To me, that makes sense. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

JiHymas - do you really mean this? " Would it be a good idea to collect anti-Israel quotations in a subheading under "Ideology"? To me, that makes sense.

I hope that I am not acting out of line but I have removed the first two alleged 'statements' because they are taken directly from the american right wing publication The national review, and are represented there without any reference to where or when they were said. In addition to this the statements which cannot be verified (other than by further references in the american right wing press) are extremely inflamatory. Should they have actually been made - It should be possible to cite more fully when and where they were said - If not all that will be achieved is furthering hatred. DavidP 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If those shouldn't be mentioned, then nothing at all should be mentioned. Having just pro-Hezbollah quotes as it is now is extremely POV. /Slarre 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

DavidParfitt : Sure, I meant it. Why wouldn't I mean it? The idea that Hezbollah is virulently anti-Israel is not just an idea that got made up by nefarious right wing publications. Have a look on this page at the "Strategy & Ideology" section ... that quote was taken from the text of a speech published on Hezbollah's website. Does that meet your criteria for verification and context? I looked up the first deleted National Review citation and found:

On October 22, 2002, Hassan Nasrallah told Lebanon’s Daily Star, “If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.”

I would prefer more direct citations, but the Daily Star is a pay site and not suitable for linking here. This citation is as good as most newspaper/journal citations, and should be kept (somewhere!) until something better, or something contradictory, is found. Let's be fair - let's recognize that Hezbollah is a complex shadow-government, as complex as any other major organization. Sure. But let's not whitewash them, either. Whitewashing is, as Slarre points out, extremely POV.

Do you support or oppose the idea of collecting the anti-Israel quotations under a subheading of ideology? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the pay version of the article in Daily Star (published Oct. 23, 2002):

Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that Arabs were not "red Indians" and will not be liquidated or driven into exile by Israel and the United States.

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah said that "Christian Zionists" were gaining strength and had a powerful impact on US foreign policy.

Nasrallah alleged that oil companies and weapons firms that have financed the "Christian Zionists," the Arabic term for the right-wing Christian supporters of Israel, were in alliance in the United States.

"Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several US presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists."

Nasrallah said their aim was to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Also see the wikiquote page of Nasrallah. /Slarre 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the quotes at issue were deleted (not 'merged to relative parts') at 4:21 by Slarre, as being "POV Quotes". Why should anybody bother with a talk page if it doesn't mean anything? And "POV quotes"? Of course they're POV Quotes - they represent the POV of a major player in the issue. JiHymas@himivest.com 18:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

specific references to Hez as Terrorist

I have just clarified the position of the UK, Australia and The Netherlands with regard to the status of Hezbollah as a terrorist org. It seems that it is easy to label anything terrorist these days, and one should be careful in doing so. Thinking it strange that the UK was listed as a country that 'branded' Hezbollah as terrorist, yet a few lines later was one of the nations reluctant for the EU to do the same - so I decided to read the citations. These three countries have made a distinction between Hezbollah proper and its external security organisation (ESO). furthermore the UK has only banned the ESO from operating in the UK. This distinction may be a fine one, but it is what enables the UK to recognise the legitimate elected lebanese Hezbollah MPs and exert pressure on the EU not to label Hezbollah as terrorist. To state that there is some kind of blanket condemnation on the part of these countries, wether true or not, should only be made with some direct evidence. simply generalising the situation to give a false impression really doesn't help anybody to understand the complexity of the issues. DavidP 03:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the daily show's interview with Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

The Dr. Alon Ben-Meir Part 2 interview on the Daily Show, today, suggested that Hezbollah was trying to reestablish something (it says this about 45 seconds into the video clip). Unfortunately, I can't quite make out the word. They're trying to reestablish the calibat? The talibat? Neither seem to return many relavent hits on Google. Any ideas? TerraFrost 09:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Caliphate? Danny 10:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That asides, why the Daily Show is even... nevermind. __earth ^(Talk) 10:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah are Shiite and they believe in velayate faghih like Iran so they don't want to make Caliphate like Ottoman. Although they don't want to make religious government in Lebanon because Lebanon is formed from some different religious minority.--Sa.vakilian 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian viewpoint

http://seattlepi.com/national/1103AP_Russia_Terrorist_Organizations.html - Hezbollah not on Russia's terrorist list.

What's more: Lavrov said that Russia's support for a Hezbollah role in decision-making in the Mideast crisis was shared by European countries and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. -G3, 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Move History section

Because the article becomes too long, I proposed to move the history part.--Sa.vakilian 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving the "History" section, but I think the section on "Origins" should be maintained in the main "Hezbollah" article. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds logical. Agree with JiHymas as well on the Origins. Created History of Hezbollah. I think a nicely written summary is needed on it, as well as a new write for the History section on this page. Mceder 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So I am impatient and went ahead and did it. Feel free to revert if it is not correct, but the article sure looks better now... The history article sure could use a bit more work, but everything is at least there. The references were corrected where broken. Mceder 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great! Thanks! JiHymas@himivest.com 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideology Recapped

I still want someone to explain to me why calling for the Death of America and Israel is not a part of ideology? Put it in context put it in quotes, You can't deny it's a major part of their rhetoric, it must be a part of ideology.