Talk:Lebanese Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General

I think this needs expanding. There needs to be more cross referencing and many of the articles which relate to this topic are partisan. Anyone fancy joining with me to take on this project? John Ball 11/7/04

You're not wrong. I'll see what I can do in the near future. --style 14:55, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Would info from the book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" be a good enough source to post here? -anon

This is an impossibly dinky article on an incredibly important subject. More is needed...

Anon, Friedman's book I've not read, but it could help. -- Penta 07:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe it could help the article by a lot, but in terms of his viewpoint, he is definetly POV (he does not hold a high opinion of Amin Gemayel, to take one example) EDIT: is it just or me or is there more on the Civil War in the History of Lebanon than the article itself? -anon

I removed the external link, it is from a site that represent a political party in Lebanon that has participated in the war, and so it is not trustful to give right and accurate information. All political parties websistes in Lebanon (well, at least in Lebanon, we have some tension in giving history, and each one give its version of the facts!) shouldn't be put, cause they are propaganda... I'll search for some good websites anyway... Addoula 13:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't just delete links from groups you don't like. Instead, you can add links to sites you think are more trustworthy. Jayjg 20:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact why did you delete the Amal as a militia in the war? Addoula 19:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident, I didn't intend to. Jayjg 20:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem , and just to note that Hezbollah was created after the israeli invasion in 1982, so israel entered lebanon for several reasons including PLO (only, not hezbollah) activities. It soon had clahses with hezbollah.Addoula 20:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Except for USA, that was the victim of thoses attacks, and for Israel, NO ONE have proof that hezbollah was behind the attacks. Hezbollah insist that it was NOT him that did thoses attacks, but other groups that existed during the war. And providing a CNN link as a proof, is not at all valid. CNN reflect the point of view and accusation of USA, that was part in the attacks (as victim). So either don't mention the attacks, either mention BOTH points of view, because the people are not stupid, THEY decide their political face, we only provide them the information without TOUCHNIG IT. Addoula 18:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is true that no formal proof was ever shown but the Islamic Jihad was a Shia organization and most of these organizations had permanent consultations between them. Most Intelligent Agencies believe that Islamic Jihad is nothing more than an allias for Hizbollah and Hizbollah militants openly consider the attack as 'their' victory.Equitor 19:05, 18 APR 2005 (UTC)

Only Hezbollah says it was not responsible, and CNN is not an arm of the American government. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Guys, concerning this, there was a group called Islamic Jihad that claimed responsibility for these attacks. It was a Shia group, its attacks were endorsed by Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. It is one of the groups that broke off Amal, finding that Amal had gone too moderate religiously, supposedly with help from the Irani Revolutionary Guard. Along these lines, I am surprised no one mentions the wave of kidnappings. FirasLeb

The article quotes "Smith" but the bibliography does not identify who it is. Noname

I object to citing any sources from Alexander Cockburn as this article does. Alexander Cockburn is an extremely unreliable figure, especially when discussing Israel. This man's politics are so ultra-leftist that he claims that the Serbian massacre of Muslims in the Kosovo War NEVER HAPPENED - I shit you not - because he is so desperate to attack any foreign military intervention by the United States. This man's contribution to any discussion of Israel is 100% untrustworthy as he is motivated by radical politics that undermine any sense of credibility. Personally I also object to citing Chomsky, since this is also a man that has made a living downplaying genocide conducted by governments with whom he shares political positions, such as the Pol Pot Massacres. I don't think Chomsky is quite as bad, however, since he is a genuine academic and is more careful about citing facts after the backlash he received when he lied about the Pol Pot Massacres and claimed that they had been exaggerated. Alexander Cockburn, however, is a complete fraud and denies acts of blatant genocide in the Balkans because of his determination to undermine legitimate American intervention.

A point on accuracy, the Maronites were no longer a majority in Lebanon after 1920, when the Bekaa, Tripoli, the South and Beirut, all highly mixed but with a Muslim majority, were added to Lebanon. The Maronites were the plurality though, and this is why they got the Presidency. Moreover, the French had favoured the Maronites throghout their mandate, and had been their keenest supporters in the 19th Century, at the time of the European intervention in Lebanon.

CORRECTION: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to put a correction, I am new to this site. I wanted to say that Israel's declared purpose when it invaded Lebanon was "to wipe out PLO terrorist bases within a half kilometer of the Lebanese-Israeli border"Their INTENDED purpose was to dismantle all PLO organs in Lebanon, as your article claims. Please consider what I said. You can find this information in Bill and Springborg's "Politics of the Middle East" (2004)

The source is cited accurately: it does not mention "a half kilometer", which would be ungrammatical and silly.--Pecher 10:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was in Lebanon for several years before and during the war, I want to say how much I appreciate the efforts of the writer(s) to present an often bewilderingly complicated train of events in a clear and dispassionate manner. It's possible to take issue with citations and sources, but I don't see any evidence that these have colored the overall tone of the article. In any case, objecting to sources on ideological grounds only invites counterattacks. The end result would be an article without sources at all! Showing factual errors is a completely different, and much more useful, endeavor.--User:Todobear 7 October 2006

Question about accuracy:

The first section has the sentence: "The Israeli Army eventually withdrew in 2000, only to see Syria fill the void from positions it had held in northern Lebanon since the mid-70s." This seems to suggest that Syrian regulars moved in to occupy Israeli positions in the "Security Zone" (e.g., south of the Litani). Unless the writer sees no difference between Hizb'allah and Syria --- that's not right, is it?

i demand that the article be marked because it is obviously biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.141.172 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Roots of the War

I've finally written something: Roots of the War. Most of the info came from From Beirut to Jerusalem. As it stands it looks like it's straight from the book, so please feel free to edit and change the section. --64.231.223.13 20:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I essentially copied and pasted from History of Lebanon. Now time for editing! Please add some pictures and make the text flow --67.70.23.205 05:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the clean-up notice. This article is in dire need of some good editing. I've been swamped by work and may not have enough time to edit it. Basically verify all the facts and make the text flow. I'm thinking of adding something like the nature of the war, how it played out, etc. I think this should apply to the civil war section of History of Lebanon as well.--67.70.20.170 06:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link from 911report.org seems to be from a conspiracy site. Not particularly credible. Is there an academic source for this? That would definately be superior.

Lebanon's economic champion

[1]

In the article the attack on the US baracks in Beirut by Hezbollah is not mentioned; this was the major reason why western forces withdrew from the country.

But there was no proof of this allegation. The Western forces pulled out because they were embarrassed, the U.S was embarrassed of Israel. they couldnt stop the Israelis although they supplied them, so they pulled theirselves out.Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There's more evidence of an attack on the barracks, then there is that the West pulled out because they were "embarrassed".98.229.58.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Amal represented mainstream Shiite opinion?

Does anyone have any proof of this? I'm planning to put this in unless someone can disprove this.--64.231.214.85 22:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

at the time this was true, especially because the Shi'as had looked up to Mousa Sadr and upon his disappearance, Amal became even more important to the Shias. Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

2 main parties

There are two main shiite parties in lebanon, amal and hizbollah, both are armed and represent different ideas. Amal does not necessarily represent mainstream shiite ideas, remeber there is also hizbollah. They have clashed with one another many times, therefore, whatever the issues clashed about, there are different ideas among the shiites so one or the other does not necessarily represent mainstream shiites ideas. Also, the speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, is a shiite and is from the amal party.

Hmm... interesting point. I was under the impression that Amal tended to follow mainstream Shiite opinion while Hizbollah tended to follow radical Shiite views. I won't put it in then.--64.231.227.79 18:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you the anon user who has been editing this and the History of Lebanon article? If so, why don't you get a userid, and then take a look at the current editing going on in the History of Lebanon article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

but hezballah was not involved in the civil war...hezballah was created in 85 in response to the Israeli occupation...Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Major and Minor Players

I think something better can be done with these sections, I'll try to incorporate "major" players into the opening paras and see about the minor ones. Kaisershatner 22:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the major and minor players sections and integrated the data into the main part of the article, which I think conforms better with Wikipedia style (generally there isn't a "cast of characters" section in a history article, I think). Kaisershatner 17:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think your edits are quite good. My only remaining concern is the still large overlap between this article and the History of Lebanon article; should the more detailed information in that article about the Civil War be moved here? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Years of the civil war.

The article says that the civil war in Lebanon lasted between 1975 to 1990. As I said in the talk page of Lebanon, didn't the war last until 1992? IIRC many people that I know, who are from Lebanon, told me that the civil war lasted for 17 years.--Gramaic 04:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arafat never administered the West Bank as the article claims

"The paralysis of the Lebanese government suited Arafat, who wanted to carve out a "state within a state" in southern Lebanon similar to the one he had administered in the West Bank, and the mostly Muslim PLO was welcomed by the Lebanese Muslims and the Druze as an ally in the conflict with the Maronites." -- This is incorrect, Arafat never administered a state in the West Bank

. They are probably referring to the Arab governing body that replaced Israeli military occupation in West Bank and Gaza as a provision of Camp David treaty while final resolutions were supposed to be agrred on within 5 years, whether Arafat had much to do with that governing body i don't know because the PLO rejected the accords, so something along those lines.

some people say the war lasted from 1974 till 1991. this is why they quote 17 years. however it seems the "official" start of the war was after the palestinian bus incident in 1975. the syrians defeated Aoun in 1991 and that is when the war actually ended.

Damour massacre

The Damour Massacre happened some time before the so-called Karantina massacre- I have done fieldwork in the Lebanese camps and Palestinians refer to the Karantina episode as a war- not a massacre because of the fact that it was a guerrilla base and attacks were being launched from it on the surrounding suburbs- Read Robert Fisk's account of what happened at Karantina- The Lebanese Christian militias had negotiated the surrender of armed militants with the PLO, but as the Christian soldiers walked towards the camp, Arafat ordered the Palestinian guerrillas to start shooting again, and this is when the Christians re-launched their final assault. When Arafat went to the Damour to visit the widows of Karantina who had been resettled there, in the homes of the massacred population, Fisk explains how he was pelted with rotten tomatoes in full view of the usual entourage of journalists, because of what he had done in Karantine, because he had ordered the gurillas to go on the attack, even though a surrender was supposed to have been negotiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronda2001 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just started this new article that talks about the massacre that took place in Damour, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War. I thought that the people who work with this article would also like to work and edit the article Damour massacre. --Gramaic | Talk 09:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that it seems quite unfair that a full report of the Damour massacre (led by Palestinian groups) is presented in the main article about the Lebanese Civil War, whereas there is no such full report about the previous Karantina Massacre (led by Phalangists groups). It seems even more unfair when there is such information in a different article, but it is not made explicit in the main one, as it is the Damour massacre's information.

I think that the part about Damour massacre in this article should go as there is an article about it already. It can either be linked from this article or details about all massacres that happened at the time (karantina and Tel al-zaater by christian militias) should be added too.

Those "massacres" in tel zattar and karantina was not directly against defencless people it was AGAINST the PLO who had thousands of fighters in those camps and who using those camps as a base in East Beirut to kidnap,terrorise and murder lebanese from. it was a war that lasted TWO MONTHS the Phalangists and the army at the time were using weaker weapons than the PLO had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.250.116 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

REMARK: for fairness' sake, please include a paragraph on the key Krantina massacre, which sported more civilian palestinian deaths, and which directly resulted in the Damour massacre. In other words, Krantina massacre should have at least as much space/emphasis as the Damour massacre (which is detailed in an unpropotional level of details to the rest of the page) otherwise the entry would undoubtedly be heavily biased against palestinians.

Contributory factors

The 'contributory factors' line in the intro is a mess. It seems to have been composed on the basis of throwing every political ingredient conceivably present in the Middle East in the 1970s, and at least one that wasn't, into the pot in case anyone felt sore at being left out.

What on earth did Christian fundamentalism (as opposed to Christian bigotry, which isn;t the same thing) have to do with the Lebanese civil war? Or Ba'thism, for that matter?Palmiro 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of those factors I think are only involved in a minor capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believed that it was much simpler than that. It started with political paralysis with Muslims demanding more power for them and the Maronites refusing to give it, and made even worse by Arafat bringing the PLO after Black September. After the ignition it just became a power struggle, with Shiites and Sunnis allied to take one block and the next day the Maronites allied with the Sunnis to take over a Shiite block. --Bash 05:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I've revised this in an attempt to bring it into a closer relationship with historic reality. The Iranian revolution and I suppose derivatively Islamic fundamentalism could just possibly be seen as having played a role in prolonging the civil war, but certainly not in starting it (Lebanese Civil War started 1975, Iranian Revn 1979). Christian fundamentalism I don't recall hearing cited as a cause of the civil war. I'm not under the impression that there's all that much of it in Lebanon, as opposed to Christian bigotry which is another question altogether. The role of Ba'thism in bringing about the civi war is pretty unclear as well. Palmiro | Talk 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, the beginning of the war is not clear at all. The guys who fired on April 13, 1975 on Pierre Gemayel's bodyguards are supposed to be Palestinians, and the guy who retaliated on the bus later are supposed to be Kataeb, but in fact, no evidence was ever produced. Not one of them was ever arrested or identified, these suppositions are based on the fact that there were tensions between Christian parties and Palestinian militias. It's also to be noted that Syria was actively supporting Palestinians in Lebanon before 1975, with training, men (including syrian soldiers) and weapons. And it encouraged smugling arms and fighters accross the borders. In 1976, Syria intervened to protect the Christians from the Palestinians that it was previously supporting.--equitor 17:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

alphabetising booklist

Would it not be better, and more in line with standard bibliographical procedure, to list them in alphabetical order by author? Palmiro | Talk 22:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Origins

The intro cites among the origins of the war "the involvement of both Syria and Israel", which makes no sense because both countries became substantially involved only after the war started.--Pecher 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it says that it was "exacerbated" by the involvement of these countries. Which I think is correct. About your edits: I wasn't trying to downplay the goriness of the PLO attack on the bus, I just thought it was a very long description of a relatively minor event in the course of the war. But we can leave it like that, if you prefer so. However, Israel did not only plan for attack on the PLO, but to change the system of government in Lebanon (this is clear from the text). I'll revert that subheading, but I wouldn't mind another heading altogether - I just couldn't think of a good one. I also think it should be noted that the May 17 Agreement was controversial, for it was. Extremely controversial, at that, and it prompted all kinds of accusations of treachery and sellouts and whatnot. Cheers, Arre 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I may have misread the first sentence. Probably, the role of PLO in the beginning of the war was also significant enough to warrant mentioning in the intro. Genereally, I prefer not to use the word "controversial" because there are few things in the world to which this epithet cannot cconceivably be attached. We note that May 17 agreement "was widely portrayed in the Arab world as an imposed surrender", which is sufifciently informative by itself. Being more of an outsider on this page, I cannot but note that the article is very well written, sourced and structured.--Pecher 13:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

okay. you're right, i'll edit in the PLO/palestinians in the intro. you may be right about "controversial" too, do as you wish with that one. Arre 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures

this article really needs pictures. there's plenty to chose from: lebanese, palestinian, israeli, syrian and other leaders; logos and symbols of the militias; maps; lebanon landscape pics; and of course war pictures. i'm not very good at handling pictures, so anyone who feels like it would be highly welcome to do something about it. Arre 04:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

i suggest the picture of damaged building , found in the buttom of article Beirut Image:Beirut_old.jpg.--Mayz 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Syrian intervention

Frangieh called Syria to intervene, after the Syria de facto entered Lebanon undercovered as Palestinian warriors. These were patroling all of tripoli.

In July 1972, the late President assad said in a press interview, that Syria did not enter Lebanon upon an official request, but because the Lebanese people "wanted" that. So please correct the information in the article. A good book on Syrian intervention is "Syrian Intervention in Lebanon" by Naomi Joy Weinberger.

A great book on Syrian intervention is Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk. So Syria did get an official request in fact from the Arab league.

Different books about the subject of syrian intervention is Naomi Weinberger's "Syrian Intervention in the Lebanon" and Adeed I. Dawisha's "Syria and the Lebanese Crisis". If one want to read a comprehensive study of the intervention don't read Robert Fisk's book it just scrape the top of the real events behind the intervention.

S/S in own section

Is there any reason that a section is devoted to the Sabra and Shatilla massacre but not to the other massacres (e.g. Tel al-Zaatar?)

Why the military conflict box?

The war was much more complex than two sides being steadyfast enemies. Sunni, Shias, Christians, and Druze often double crossed each other and made alliances with their enemies the next day. The box is inappropiate for such a war. --70.49.91.165 20:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah

Under the shi'a militia section, it is written "Hizbullah was initially aided and trained by Iran and Israel". Is there any proof for the latter supposed benefactor? I find it hard to believe israel would help an organisation it was fighting.

This is not a true statement. It was Iran that trained and supported them, I suspect it was added to make propaganda.

Hezbollah was not a part of the 1976 civil war but the 1982 war with israel so i dont think it should be part of this article--77.42.207.17 (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hezballah was a creation of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, South Lebanon was occupied because of the Israelis and Palestinians. Thus Hezballah was not apart of the civil war but it was a result of the civil war because a major result of the civil war was illegal occupation. So this is why we have Hezballah today, Israeli aggression and Palestinian gunmen disrespect for our country... Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Readability

Much of this article contains incredibly long runon sentences, and was generally very difficult to read. I hope to try and work on improving the quality, but would appreciate any help in this. RyanEberhart 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have heavily edited this article, and it seem better. My main problem with the article now is the large number of appositives. This leads to very long, difficult to understand sentences. I haven't edited them out because I wanted some input from other users. I believe that most of them should be taken out, and the most proper subject used instead. The additional information would still be available to an interested user in the wikilinks. RyanEberhart 06:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Date in "Israel plans for attack" section

In "In August, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin was re-elected, and in September, Begin and his defense minister Ariel Sharon began to lay plans for a second invasion of Lebanon for the purpose of driving out the PLO." I have no idea what year this is referring to. I assume 1981 from the rest, but if someone can find this out for sure I'd appreciate it. RyanEberhart 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

militias led by Abu Musa

In section First phase of the war, 1975-77: Sectarian violence and civilian massacres, a reference to a person Abu Musa leads to an area.

Incomplete paragraph

The section headed "The Aoun government" ends abruptly in the middle of the second paragraph. Some edit must have clipped the last sentence. Needs fixing.

BTW, this article is remarkably factual and NPOV for such a controversial, sensitive subject. I am impressed.--RandallC 07:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many references from Chomsky...

...who, being an anti-Israeli activist, may not be the most objective analyst.

What do you think ?

He clearly has an opinion, but "anti-Israeli activist" is a gross mischaractarization. He's just the strange animal in political science who is completely undiplomatic toward the groups he criticizes. However, he consistently supports his arguments with credible primary sources and tends not to overreach. --Dhimelright 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the PLO attitude in 1981 - 1982 is seen as slightly too positive, since the shelling of Israeli-backed christian forces did proceed during the truce.

"Combatants" - where are the Shiites, the left, others?

The campaign box. --HanzoHattori 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone fill the conflict boxes

Seriously. --HanzoHattori 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and get to it later this week. Kind of comical as it is now. --Chobbs138 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this after Chobbs138 additions? I can fill in much more data but I have an issue with the war phase divisions, I'd do them differently. I can still fill in the figures for the phases as they are if there is concessus that this the best structure. Shaque 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment

I trust that the conflict boxes will be filled soon, as Chobbs138 states just above, earlier today. Are there any NPOV pictures we can find to put in the conflict box at the top of the page? Overall, this looks like a very thorough, detailed, and generally high quality article. I'll certainly admit I have not read the entire thing, but from what I have gleaned, it looks to be written in a very professional, unbiased tone, and seemingly with strong attention paid to accuracy. Some sections are quite short, but overall the article is plenty long and covers (seemingly) all the necessary elements. Congratulations on creating such a high quality article on such a controversial subject, and thank you as well. LordAmeth 18:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dubious assertion

This is not in accordance with the Sabra and Shatila massacre article: "Accordingly, on 12 September, Bashir Gemayel, who had been elected president under Israeli military control on 23 August, agreed to send troops from his Phalange militia into the camps." I added {{dubious}}. Vints 09:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bachir Gemayel was assasinated on Sept 14, the massacre took -- or rather started taking -- place Sept 16. Unless he can issue orders from his grave I do not see his involvement. It is actually Elie Hobeika who is widely blamed for the massacre. The information in the Sabra and Shatila massacre article is correct. I am fixing this immediatly. My source is a video documentary and I am not sure how to reference it, however there many articles out there that have this information. I mean it is not even disputed. If someone would be so kind as to place the reference, perhaps someone who owns a copy of Fisk's "Pity the Nation". Shaque 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the Palestinian movement/Palestinian left?

Please forgive me if I am posting in the wrong manner, I have not posted before.

I find some elements of section 1.1.6 The Palestinians to be confusing.

1) In the first paragraph it says the Palestinian movement was expelled from Jordan after Black September. The text places the movement "under the umbrella of the PLO." At first this didn't make sense to me. I though the Palestinian movement meant the broader movement of the Palestinian people. After several readings I think now it means all those splinter groups listed in paragraph two. But this is still confusing. Aren't all those groups the PLO? In any event, it seems to me that the parenthetical in the first sentence ought to be elevated. In this context isn't it the more important point?

2) Also in the first paragraph it says the communist factions of the PLO were running protection rackets and spoiling the goodwill of the Lebanese people. So were these communists in name only? Is there somewhere I can read more about this? This seems to imply that other factions of the PLO were well behavied. I find the word 'communist' more confusing than informative here. Would it be possible to name the groups who were doing this and avoid the label? Or is it important for some reason to specify that communist factions annoyed the Lebanese but other factions did not?

3) I find the whole left/right thing very confusing in the Middle East. There seem to be many groups with programs that, to a Western educated mind, evoke the left (various forms or degrees of socialism and communism) simultaneously with programs that evoke the right (ultra nationalism, anti-Jewish violence). Added to that there are the dimensions of colonialism/anti-colonialism and religion/secularism. Because of this, I am never sure what those terms ('left;' 'right') mean in this context. In the 3rd paragraph the Rejectionist Front is identified as the left wing of the PLO. The Rejectionist Front page reiterates: "They were mostly far-left organizations" but then specifies only two, the as-Saiqa and the ALF. These examples are given to make the point that the various factions had no common goals. I guess I just don't see the point of labeling the Rejectionist Front the left wing. I don't feel that it is as informative as saying, for instance, the hardline anti-Israel factions. If their leftness is really an issue, more needs to be said, I think, to explain what that means.

This is a great article and very useful to me as I attempt to learn about these events. Thank you for all the hard work and willingness to share.

I don't have an account but I don't want to be anonymous—Jamie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.158.46.86 (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi! I was responsible for some of the edits you mention.

The left-right divide in M/E is very confused, also in a Palestinian context, where the ultra-leftist groups (excluding the PCP pro-Moscow Communist party) have normally combined an intransigent stand on Israel with socialism, or at least vaguely progressive secularism plus socialist sloganeering. Back in the days, many would phrase their accusations against Fatah (which is formally just nationalist, and more moderate in its approach to Israel and a two-state solution, but had a strong leftist opposition wing) in pseudo-Socialist terms. You know, the bourgeois elements of the Palestinian revolution betraying the people's war etc etc. The same thing was evident when they got involved in the Lebanese Civil War, where they would claim that they were not fighting a religious-sectarian war, but a class war.

About the Rejectionist Front, it (for some time) gathered many of the far-left elements of the PLO, plus some who were just ultranationalist and not necessarily more leftist than others, plus a few who sounded leftist but were really just puppets in the hands of other states (such as Saiqa).

In 1970, the army expelled all armed Palestinian factions from Jordan. Most of them belonged to the PLO, although when it comes to the hardline nationalist-leftist elements (such as PFLP and assorted splinters) it was sometimes in name only. It was mainly the rogue left-wing (esp. PFLP, see the Dawson's Field hijackings) which had provoked conflict with the Palace, with Arafat and his more moderate nationalist and apolitical (incl. some socialist, some conservative) group in Fatah trying to hold back and preserve a working relationship. Didn't work.

Hope that made things a bit clearer, but feel free to change in the article to make it more understandable to readers. Arre 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That does help. I will have to think very hard about it before making any changes, but I will try to come up with something. —Jamie

I have made some minor (I hope) changes that seem to me to address my issues of confusion. If I have changed the sense of what you intended in any way please change it back. —Jamie

Effects of the Cairo Agreement

I just noticed, while editing secion 1.6.6 that Section 2, The PLO and regional conflict, begins by asserting the Cairo Agreement forced the Lebanese to allow the PLO to attack Israel from within Lebanon. But the Cairo Agreement page says, in effect, the Cairo Agreement never really existed. This is not something I can fix, so I thought I would just point it out. —Jamie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.71.205 (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

civil ? war

How can the war in and on Lebanon be called civil? The article states clearly that it was between Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians and at least a few more nationalities. It was a regional war in Lebanon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.8.156.110 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It's commonly called the Lebanese Civil War, though, so thats what people are going to look up and thus thats what the title of the article is. Ageofe 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the regional war in Lebanon and not civil war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebanese bebe (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On a source

When looking at the 32nd source and verifying it, I got a 404 on the site of the source. Can it be safely assumed that the source is no longer valid? -osirus571

Fair use rationale for Image:Ssnpflag.gif

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - semi-protection, please

Repeated anonymous vandalisms:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&diff=123720247&oldid=123475003
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&diff=128803187&oldid=126689216
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&diff=135983608&oldid=135410772

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing&oldid=137289660 - good version. --HanzoHattori 18:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War Section on The Stone of Laughter page

Would it be possible for someone who is an expert on this topic to write a paragraph or two in the historical background section on The Stone of Laughter article? I would do it myself, but I know very little about the conflict beyond what is included in the novel. Anyways, I just figured it couldn't hurt to ask. CuttingEdge 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel combattant in the infobox?

One could argue it was a major belligerent in Phase III, and maybe in Phase IV too.--victor falk 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel in the beginning days before civil war indirectly caused it. The exodus of the Palestinian refugees made them come to us. Also you cant forget Israel was retaliating against the Palestinians but at the same time hitting the Lebanese in the South. This contributed to the Shia being against the Palestinians and the Christians in the South to be against the Palestinians...Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Muratibun.PNG

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed: Superpowers during the Lebanese Civil War

I removed that section, and just deleted the actual details of the article it linked to.

That section and the article it linked to violated NPOV, and seemed to be written from a FPV standpoint. I would like to remind people that wikipedia is an NPOV knowledge base, and first hand information is not part of what we do here.

So, hard, to resist, verbal chastising....

Scryer_360 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The kidnapping and murder of Frank Meloy

The U.S. diplomat Francis E. Meloy, Jr. was kidnapped and murdered in Lebanon in June 1976. I think it is an important episode to point out in this article. Woodlore (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

copyright violation

Some passages are identical to the GlobalSecurity page: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/lebanon.htm

For example "With the U.S. Marines looking ready to withdraw, Syria and Muslim groups stepped up pressure on Gemayel."

Global Security has a copyright notice stating "all rights reserved" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.169.66 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bus Massacre.jpg

The image File:Bus Massacre.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of deaths as a result of this war???

Does anybody have an estimate of the number of deaths as a result of 15-year war???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.128.37 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the estimates after checking several sources the numbers ranged from 130,000 to 250,000. A number such as this with a population of 3 million total is devastating. I will try to find the equivalency Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

historical context, prelude

I added a prelude and a historical context. people needed the details of events before the war to better understand it. and i also changed the table and added new pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebanese bebe (talk • contribs) 11:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Lebanese bebe (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1982 invasion

really really needs to be edited the reasons stated for why the Americans left is ridiculous, the Marine Barrack's were mentioned but it wasnt mentioned why they happened nor what happened after. the role of the South Lebanon Army working with Israel was not mentioned, the oppression the Southern Lebanese endured is not mentioned. The death toll is not mentioned, it was an operation that was huge and resulted and further complications, it resulted in the friendship between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. It resulted in the creation of Hezballah. It resulted in more aid to Christian groups as well and more problems between the people of Lebanon. Also how the Israel's soon took advantage of Gemayel and the Christians. How they illegally taxed the people of South Lebanon and illegally imprisoned the people. and tortured them, the red cross has reports on this, how Lebanese men were forced to be tied to Israeli tanks so Lebanese wouldnt retaliate against them, how they made people get their passports stamped when leaving South Lebanon or enetering South Lebanon with an Israeli star of David stamp. how they killed the crops and brought Israeli crops and charged thousands of dollars. or how they wouldnt give the people food at all Lebanese bebe (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No sources?

For the Lebanese residents of South Lebanon, PLO rule was a nightmare. Countless Lebanese, interviewed by western journalists, told harrowing tales of rape, mutilation and murders committed by PLO forces.

Where are the sources of this? A horrific accusation like this needs reliable sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means no one disagree, I am removing this section -- 05:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

Lead was too long

I trimmed down the lead since it was too long in its previous form and contained quite a few unsourced comments. Some of the material may be useful, but it needs to be cited properly and then incorporated into the body by someone with more knowledge on the subject. Also, a paragraph should be included in the lead discussing the results/aftermath of the war. --Tom (talk - email) 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)