Talk:Hezbollah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hezbollah article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Good article Hezbollah has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Copyedited by Unimaginative Username – 07:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To-do list for Hezbollah: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: Please improve Armed strength. There are contradictions among the sources[1]. We can replace text with table which looks clearer and has less size.
  • Other: Please substitute newspaper's articles with books. A Referring to a book is better than referring to several articles.
Priority 1 (top) 
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives

Chronological Archive:

  1. May 2003 - June 2006
  2. July 2006 – July 2006
  3. Inactive as of August 7, 2006
  4. Inactive as of August 12, 2006
  5. Inactive as of August 20, 2006
  6. Inactive as of August 31, 2006
  7. Inactive as of September 30, 2006
  8. Inactive as of October 30, 2006
  9. Inactive as of December 30, 2006
  10. Inactive as of March 30, 2007
  11. Inactive as of June 30, 2007
  12. Inactive as of September 30, 2007
  13. Inactive as of October 29, 2007
  14. Inactive as of February 9, 2008

Topical archive:

  1. POV-Disputed-Controvercial discussions
  2. Terrorist allegations
  3. structure
  4. Lead/Introduction discussions
  5. Good article

Archive index


Contents

[edit] see footnote and original document

GHcool undid my "see footnote" that I put after the quote of Hezbollah saying it that Israel necessarily has to be obliviated. I mentioned in my edit that I put the footnote there becuase there is no direct citation of the original document of this very strong claim about Hezbollah saying this.

I think the "see footnote" is important and not "silly" as was mentioned. I do not find anything about the issue of violent conflict in the middle east "silly." Now, if there was a claim that "see footnote" is close to being redundant, then that might be a good or sound argument. However, as of now, I see a controversal quote from a very pro-israel site/non neutural site as a poorly or close to poorly verifiable source. The quote itself is poorly verified because there is no link or availablity of a copy of the original Arabic letter. In fact, I think that standwithus site should have put both, the arabic letter and the translation that they made on the same site. However, I do not see that. That is something that I would think a good translation would have. Now, you want to remove "see footnote" because it is silly. I think it is necessarily and vital in importance to help find out more information about such matters as this quote. Very too often wikipedia is poor in content because it lacks much detail, and does not have as much detail as britanica, books, and dissertations. Many of the articles on wikipedia are similar to brief summaries, and I think improvements and trying to find out more information about all things is vital. We need more detail, not less.

As of now, the quote does not have good citation. It comes from a non neutral source, which does not appear to have posted the original arabic document -- which should have been easy and readily available for whoever translated the cited english translation. Again, this quote, because it is so serious in past, present and future conflicts and interactions with the group, needs to have some citation of the original arabaic document. This is in need because wikipedia articles need to be more than brief summaries rather than a turn off and de-intellectualism/stopping points of intellectual and pursuits of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Big problems with this article

I'm no expert on Hezbollah, but I can immediately see four five significant problems with the article (only the last fourth of which is under consideration):

1) Hezbollah supporters claim it has now defeated Israel 5 times. We may not accept the claims, but we need to report them properly ("Conflict against Israel" in the article doesn't do it). Here's how a March 07 Counterpunch article lists these victories: 1) The April 30, 1985 Israel withdrawal ... direct result of military pressure from a new organization ... calling itself Hezbollah. 2) July 1993. Israel's "operation accountability". ... UN counted 1,224 air raids and more than 28,000 US shells fired into Lebanon by Israel ... Hezbollah fired Katusha rockets for 10 hours into Galilee settlements ... Israel had enough and contacted Washington to arrange a ceasefire. 3) April 11, 1996 Israel's 'Operation Grapes of Wrath'. ... Hezbollah's victory cost Shimon Peres ... 1996 Israeli election. 4) May 24, 2000. ... abandoning its planned phased withdrawal as well as its agents, the South Lebanon's Army. 5) Hezbollah's claimed (and widely accepted) victory in 2006 July.

2) Hezbollah tries not to punish the many Lebanese who have collaborated. Hezbollah scores mightily with this tactic, which is vital to understanding it's relative success. (Bush and Olmert are alleged to want another Civil War in Lebanon, seeking out and arming small factions - another side of the same coin? - also needs mentioning).

3) There is no mention that the founders of Israel always intended to seize the south of Lebanon. David Ben-Gurion in 1937 wanted the northern border of Israel to be with a new Christian state (while boasting of transfers already carried out). His political opponents, Begin, Shamir etc wanted the whole of Lebanon and much more. It took the Lebanese at least 45 years (since before their state existed until 1982) to wake up to the threat they were and are under, and Hezbollah was and is the first real indication of it. (Dayan was talking of the take-over of Lebanon in 1955 according to Sharett's diaries).--Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

4) We quote the "1985 Hezbollah manifesto" as saying: "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated." a) The statement in question is not a manifesto (see reasons above). b) Even if this was the manifesto, to use a translation with "obliterate" is needlessly alarming - we have lots of examples of immigrant controlled (and bitterly resented) governments collapsing without too much drama. We're publishing the propaganda of one side with these weasel words. PRtalk 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

5) No mention that the Palestinians are Sunni, the opposite of Hezbollah and al-Qaeda and (according to Zarqawi referenced several times) their sworn enemy. Careful work is needed if people are to have a chance of "understanding" the subject. PRtalk 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello PR. This is all very interesting, and if you feel this page has big problems without the information you state in #1, #2 and #3 I suggest you write something to this effect based on reliable sources, and add it here for review and consensus before adding it to the article. I think this is a good way to add information into a GA rated article, while not required of course - it is a good way to make sure the relevant, reliably sourced information stays in the article! On #4, I think this one is being discussed above... Cheers. mceder (u t c) 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello PalestineRemembered:) Thanks for bringing up some of those changes here. I totally agree that that information should be added to the article. You need to find reliable sources though. If the sources are of bad quality, then I am against adding this. First of all, look for sources written by the experts. If you can't find those, look for news articles. If you add that Bush and Olmert are alleged to want another Civil War in Lebanon, but cite a source from a hezbollah, anti-American, or Anti-Israel website then there will be a problem. Just as adding SWU is unacceptable, adding other propaganda sites is unacceptable. Cheers!--SJP 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Hezbollah, and my distaste for it is such that I don't intend to become one. But just passing acquaintanceship with the topic convinces me that this is an article with major omissions. It completely ignores some of the most important information concerning the subject.
I could try and improve this article, but I'd be concerned that any sources I bring to bear (I've only offered CounterPunch so far, though that should be adequate for what I'm using it for) will be rejected in an effort to paint Hezbollah in the one-dimensional fashion we have here. Finkelstein would be an excellent source for some material - not least because he's exceptionally careful in this area. And yet he's missing completely. Judging by the edit-record, he'd have been aggressively edit-warred out if he was ever in there.
Even where I have unimpeachable sources (such as Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan's intention to seize Lebanon), I fear bogus opposition of the kind I suffered on a previous occasion when I tried to edit this article, quoting Ben-Gurion is summararily dismissed as POV. If Lebanon is now uniting behind Hezbollah (as seems possible), then we all want and need to understand what's going on. The current article doesn't help anyone to do this - on a topic where there is such massive disinformation, it should be relatively easy for us to produce something that makes people think "Wow, these Wikipedia people really know their subject". That's not the impression given now. PRtalk 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, one revert labeling your edit as POV should not cause fear. It is to be expected really, with so many people from so many places, with so many viewpoints. The best way to go about it is come up with what you want to add or change, find reliable sources and post it in here, asking for comments. The talk page is where we work this through and if we create consensus here, then keeping it in the article will be much easier. I personally do not believe this article is particular one-dimensional as much work has been done to try to include several viewpoints(check out the extensive archive of this talk page to see what I mean......), but everything can be improved so bring it on. mceder (u t c) 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

These are my idea about 5 points which PR has mentioned:

  1. I have reliable sources for 3, 4 and 5. In the first case we have some problem due to the fact that Hezbollah officially established at that year and it usually deny former operations, although its members participate in them.
  2. I think we should expand Hezbollah political activities by adding information about two opposite block in Lebanon and the stance of Hezbollah about 14 March coalition. You can read 2006–2007 Lebanese political protests and Hezbollah political activities.
  3. It is written in background that Israel had become militarily involved in Lebanon in combat with the Palestine Liberation Organization which moved into Southern Lebanon after being ousted from Jordan. The PLO was attacking Israel from Southern Lebanon in the lead-up to the 1982 Lebanon War, and Israel had invaded and occupied Southern Lebanon and besieged Beirut. We can change it if you can find reliable sources for your claim.
  4. I think it's really the position of Hezbollah at that time and I haven't seen any fact that shows they've changed their idea.
  5. There is something about this issue in Hezbollah#Foreign_relations and we moved some more information to a sub-article to reduce the size of this article:Hezbollah foreign relations. We can mention Hamas is Sunni but I oppose to adding more information.Y

--Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. If Hezbollah claim they've defeated Israel 5 times, then we should report them doing so. It's not a "surprising" result requiring some cast-iron explanation from a Western RS, the CounterPunch article is entirely adequate. Rejecting non-Western views makes this articles meaningless, as should have been obvious before we started writing it. If we cannot provide a tolerably NPOV article, then the honorable solution is that we flag ourselves here as "Propagandists for the West and incapable of giving anyone else a fair crack of the whip".
  2. The "policy of forgiveness to ex-collaborators with Israel" by Hezbollah needs a proper discussion. (I see unexplained reference to the truly astonishing fact that large numbers of Lebanese Christians are said to support Hezbollah). Also mention the boxes of arms being allegedly sent to every identifiable criminal faction - the sources for these statements are bound to be anti-Israel - so? I've just been told (unchallenged) that such sources cannot be used - you can see why I'd not waste my time against this kind of thing.
  3. There are excellent, Western, sources that the pre-cursorors of Israel intended to seize some or most of Lebanon. The actual founders of Israel intended it in the 1930s (and long dead ones intended it in the 1890s). It's quite difficult to understand those who seek to edit-war out this information. Is it our intention to provide a caricature bogey-man, or are we trying to write worthwhile articles in a worthwhile encyclopedia?
  4. The 1985 "Hezbollah manifesto" is worthless, for the reasons given that nobody seems to have challenged. What's it doing still in the article? There is far, far better evidence that some/many/all Israelis want/wanted the boundaries of Israel to be the Nile and the Euphrates. Israel still isn't telling us what border it wants. Where in the encyclopedia do we have Ben-Gurion saying "the boundaries of Israel is where the Sahal will take us"? (Sahal is the army) It's ludicrous to be quoting the "intentions" of Hezbollah (badly distorted as has been done) and not quoting the intentions of Israel reported by Westernised ex-Israeli bi-lingual Hebrew/English speakers such as Naeim Giladi.
  5. We've referenced Zarqawi (long dead Iraqi?) calling Hezbollah apostate, but nothing to indicate that he bears no relation to what is happening between Shi'ite and Sunni in Lebanon. If it's our intention to produce a misleading article, then we've done a fine job. PRtalk 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the reference to "most" orthodox Jews being against Zionism. This is unfounded. It is only certain that some orthodox Jews are against Zionism. Masonirythm (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)





[edit] Nasrallah quote about suicide bombers

Well, hello again. Didn't intend to become involved in content issues, but in reviewing, saw this statement: " But until such a settlement is reached, he said that he would continue to encourage Palestinian suicide bombers." I read the article that is cited as a source for this statement, a 2003 interview with Nasrallah. There is no such quote. The interviewer says of Nasrallah, "In his speeches to the faithful, his language is laced with ... rationalizations for suicide bombings. ". "Rationalization" is not quite the same degree as actively "encouraging". I didn't see anything in this interview in which Nasrallah encourages suicide bombings until there is a Palestinian state; the other parts of this section indicates that he feels such a settlement is a Palestinian matter. Unless someone sees something else in the interview that I missed, or has other sources, it seems that this statement should be removed, as misrepresenting Nasrallah's position. Perhaps changed to, "However, Nasrallah has rationalized suicide bombing attacks." That is the most NPOV way that I could describe what was in this 2003 interview. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful attention. Please correct the article whenever you find such a mistake.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this article is the subject of so much controversy, I would prefer to wait a few days to see if anyone posts an objection here. If not, then I or anyone else can change it as suggested. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have revised the first three sentences of this paragraph to conform to the material in the two articles that are cited as sources. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Background" and "History" section

This discussion started briefly during the Peer Review, but I moved it here the PR was nearly at its end.

First, I am opposed to the "Background" section in the article. In its current state, it's vague, poorly written and with no clear goal to what this section precisely describes. Does it mean "Background to Hezbollah"? A rather odd terminology since we're not talking about an event or a war. "Background" might mean "Origins of Hezbollah", but if it was true it would've belonged to a "History" section. Maybe it provides some insights to better understand Hezbollah (?), but I don't see how Hezbollah is so complex so a reader won't understand it. Anywyay, I don't understand the need for this section, unless you clearly define its objective.

Second, why there is no "History" section like any article on an entity or organization? You are claiming that the article is too complex, but it's not a valid objection. This article fails to present in a concise, clear and easy-to-find way a summary of the history of Hezbollah, a piece of information any reader doing a research will need. If you're saying that the article is too long, the problem comes from the other sections or the whole organization of the article. If you're saying that it's too complex and controversial, there exist many good summaries about Hezbollah (check CrisisGroup, and see the last Lebanon report). Finally, a "History" section is a standard in all Wikipedia article, and I don't see why should this article should be treated differently.

Anyway, as I said, this article is remarkably written in a neutral way and it deserves to reach FA status. CG (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We can write history instead of background and move some part of it to the lead. But please scan this archive. The section was called "Introduction" last year, when we made that archive. You may find the answer of your questions here. Also there is an index for the former debates of this article. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Great index! Cool bot! OK, I'll check past discussions before I argue more :-) But, I might be busy these following weeks, so please excuse my late responses. CG (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Unencyclopedic language in lead

I realize that a great amount of time has been spent debating and working on this article to reach a consensus, most of which I have not read, I see a problem in the language of at least the lead. Namely: "Hezbollah's three main goals" ... "Hezbollah has realized that the goal of ..." "Hezbollah wishes for the destruction of Israel,..."

We don't know what Hezbollah's goals or wishes are. What we know what Hezbollah has said, and what some claim it has done. This is not at all a minor point since in at least one country (USA), Hezbollah is considered the #2 terrorist enemy (in terms of civilians and off-duty soliders of that country killed) next to al-Qaeda. It is very common for books that mention Hezbollah (at least ones published in the USA) to describe it as the perpetrator of the bombings of both the US embassies and of Multinational Peacekeeping Force barracks, without any caveat, i.e. they state it as a fact on which there is no debate worth mentioning. Yet Hezbollah denies the charge. So i put it to you that it is important to use wording in the article consistant with what is known. We should change the wording on this lead and probably in the rest of the story to reflect that.

Proposed change:

Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh,[2]

literally "party of God") is a Shi'a Islamic political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon. It follows an Islamist Shi'a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.[3][4][5] [6][7]

Hezbollah first emerged during the Lebanese Civil War as a militia of Shia followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, trained, organized and funded by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.[8] in its manifesto Hezbollah lists its three main goals as the eradicattion of Western colonialism in Lebanon, the bringing to justice of those who committed atrocities during the war (specifically the Phalangists), and the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon.[5][9][10][11] Since then Hezbollah has temporarily abandoned the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic state as impractical at this time.[8] Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they describe as an unlawful "entity".[5][9][10][11]
Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization, though its designation as such is not unanimous among world powers (perhaps most notably, the European Union).[12] Most in the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement.[3]
Hezbollah has popular support in Shi'a Lebanese society[13] and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands.[14][15][16] In addition, Hezbollah receives arms, training, and financial support from Iran[17][18] and has "operated with Syria's blessing" since the end of the Civil War.[14][19] Hezbollah, which started with only a militia, has grown to an organization with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio- and a satellite television-station, and programs for social development.[20] Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General.

In addition the lead should say that Hezbollah is now the only armed non-governmental group in Lebanon.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not prevent this proposed change from being adopted. --GHcool (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please pay attention to the former discussion about the lead:Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead. I think the lead has emphasized on the original goal of Hezbollah while it has changed to some extent. There is several books which discuss about this transformation like "The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology: Religious Ideology, Political Ideology". --Seyyed(t-c) 03:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support of Hezbollah banned from User space?

Offtopic, I know, but I imagine someone who has this on their watchlist might have an opinion to offer here. -- Kendrick7talk 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. How utterly stupid. --mceder (u t c) 18:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I am planning to appeal this. I have asked for some help from an administrator here. I don't believe a final decision was ever reached in this discussion, despite repeated blocks by admins who expressed. There are political views expressed in many user boxes. The fact that some people may disagree with such views, or find such views offensive is subjective and user boxes should be not be permanently removed without serious debate and solid evidence. If wikipedia allows some it should allow all (that are not banned for other reasons - like making explicit threats or libel). Otherwise it will appear biased in violation of NPOV. If others have expertise in appealing matters like this, help would be appreciated.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of a category for those wikipedians who support Hezbollah was discussed here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I made a change here [2]. This was what the first source says. The second one was about Iran's admission of helping Hezbollah from an Israeli newspaper, so I added a note that a third perspective source(like UN) or an Iranian source is required for this. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Islam and antisemitism

  • What is the rationale for putting this article in that category? The article doesn't even mention anti-Semitism. Hizballah fights Israel due to political reasons. I don't see what that has to do with anti-Semitism. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to Funkynusayri's claim, this article has significant reason for belonging Category:Islam and antisemitism and even explicitly mentions anti-Semitisim. The following is lifted from the article. Notice that the word "Jews" and not "Israelis" are mentioned as the group Hezbollah is fighting ...
  • "Hezbollah is openly anti-semetic. Nasrallah was quoted as saying 'if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.'"
  • "Hezbollah's spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin ... had this to say ... 'The Jews who survive this war of liberation [i.e. the destruction of the State of Israel] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.'"
  • "Argentine prosecutors hold Hezbollah and their financial supporters in Iran responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center, described by the Associated Press as "the worst terrorist attack on Argentine soil", in which "[e]ighty-five people were killed and more than 200 others injured."
The Argentine Jewish cultural center bombing is the smoking gun. If Hezbollah were only fighting Israel for political reasons, then why would they go all the way to Argentina just to kill up Jews that are not even Israeli? This shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. --GHcool (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Only one of those examples that could be interpreted as having to do with anti-semitism is the "going after them worldwide" remark. Yet, after looking for sources, it seems that all our sources that have published the quote have taken it from the Daily Star, a Lebanese newspaper. Lebanese newspapers are notoriously biased, and anyhow, it seems that there has been raised serious doubt about whether Nasrallah even said that: [3][4]

It is a very serious allegation, and should not just be thrown around, and should be very properly sourced if accompanied by the sentence "Hizballah is openly anti-Semitic", which is obvious POV and original research. As it is now, all this article should say is that he has been quoted by the Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star for saying so and so, but nowhere else.

As for the other examples, the statement about going back to Germany is hardly anti-Semitic, and there is no proof that Hizballah was even involved in the Argentina bombing. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If Funkynusayri thinks "go back to Germany" isn't racist towards Jews, I suggest he/she tries to tell a black person from the United States to "go back to Africa" and see what kind of a response he/she gets. --GHcool (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You misquoted. Here's the rest of the statement: "However, that the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 will be 'allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority."

Hardly anti-Jewish. Anyhow, it's not about whether you or I believe the statement is racist or anti-Semitic, it's about whether we have reliable sources for it being so or not. There are none. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just cited credible sources that state unequivocally that Hezbollah uses anti-Semitic rhetoric. I hope this clears things up. --GHcool (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this[5] edit and direct me to the previous discussion you refer to? I'm afraid that all your sources referring to the quote in the Daily Star are invalid if the dismissal of the quotes by the owner of The Daily Star and Charles Glass do not turn out to be "nonsense" as you describe them.

Also, why did you remove this fact? "which a group called Islamic Jihad took responsibility for. " Funkynusayri (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, is this the discussion you're referring to?[6] If so, why was the section about Charles Glass entirely removed subsequently? Why do refer to it as "nonsense"? And all other sources mentioning that Nasrallah said that cite the Daily Star article, making them completely irrelevant.

Or are you referring to another discussion? If not, I'm afraid I'll have to revert your edits. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling it "nonsense." I should have written "opinion." Anyway, I just re-inserted the Glass "opinion" back into the article as discussed on the talk page in Archive 12 that you link to. I hope this clears things up.
The reason I deleted the Islamic Jihad thing was because you neglected to provide a source. Feel free to re-insert it, but be sure to have a source if you do. --GHcool (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, ok then, if you don't mind if I wikify Charles Glass and The Daily Star. As for the Islamic Jihad claim, would this be considered a reliable source?[7]

More importantly, wouldn't it be pretty biased to leave the "Islam and antisemitism" category in the article, when the basis for this is a disputed quote? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to wikify whatever you want.
I accept the "Middle East Intelligence Bulletin" as a reliable source. However, it is unclear if the article is saying that Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the 1992 embassy bombing or to the 1994 AMIA bombing. More research needs to be done before adding this back into the article. We need to know which party is responsible for which crime.
The Islam and antisemtisim category is based not only on the the Nasrallah quote (which is disputed by only one person in the world), but also on the following sources: [8][9][10]. The AMIA bombing, if Hezbollah were truly involved, would certainly indicate anti-Semitism as well. The desire for the destruction of the Jewish state (as opposed to criticizing specific past or present Israeli policies) is a mark of anti-Semitism as well. --GHcool (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sure I can find other sources for the Islamic Jihad thing, it isn't that important really, I simply saw it was mentioned in the Wiki article about the Argentina bombing.

I strongly disagree with your claim that the Nasrallah quote is disputed by "one person in the world", though I of course realise that it is not to be taken literally, but for the sake of others who might read what we write, Glass cites both the publisher and the managing editor of the Daily Star (two more persons, representing the entire newspaper) as questioning the intentions of the man who wrote the article, which all other sources mentioning the incident seem to have cited it from, and a Hizballah spokesperson (a fourth, representing the entire organisation).

The important thing here is of course that the newspaper itself, not just Glass, have serious doubts in the validity of the quotes. That the quote has been cited by others as well is irrelevant, as these all seem to use that exact article in the Daily Star as source for this! That's pretty extraordinary, and really undermines the credibility of the quote.

However, I of course agree that if the quote was true, and if Hizballah was behind the Argentina bombings, then the organisation is anti-Semitic, and should be categorised as such. The problem is just that these are allegations, not facts, so having this article categorised as it is would be heavy POV by any standards. It is practically libel.

As for the destruction of Israel as a state, well, how is this inherently anti-Semitic? Hizballah does not oppose a Jewish state, it simply opposes a Jewish state in the region it presently exists in, not due to the fact that the inhabitants are Jews, but due to the fact that they (Hizballah) believe the land has been wrongfully acquired by Jews. Heck, they even endorse the idea that Jews should live among them, provided that they are "indigenous", if I interpret their statement correctly. Even saying the organisation is anti-Ashkenazic would be quite a stretch.

What I just said might seem euphemistic to some, but I do not know of anything that proves the case to be anything else.

Also, could you explain to me why this[11] had to be removed? The info I added is straight from the source, very important to understanding how severe the critique of the quote is, and is very relevant. Removing "publisher and managing editor" and substituting it with "the editors" would downplay the significance of the critique considerably. I have reworded it considerably in my last revision though.

Furthermore, it was not even mentioned in the previous version that the quote had been published in the Daily Star. The article simply said "citing other published accounts of the speech that had no reference to the anti-Semitic comment, and statements by the Star's editors that questioned both the translation and the "agenda of the translator."

The newspaper was mentioned in a way that would imply that it had been introduced previously in the article, which it hadn't. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll address you point by point:
  1. Glass's feelings about Nasrallah's anti-Semitic remark is based on anecdotal evidence. If it were verifiable, then there would be more than one source on the entire Internet attesting to it, and it wouldn't just be a letter to the editor. This was already discussed on this talk page. You're welcome to browse through the archived discussion.
  2. We cannot give undue weight to one man's opinion based on anecdotal evidence in a letter to the editor on website. We have gone through great lengths to find a compromise on the appropriate length and content for this. Again, I ask that you read and respect the outcome of the archived discussion.
  3. Your argument that the destruction of the Jewish state is not an anti-Semitic wish is frightening. You say that it isn't anti-Semitic because Hezbollah would not oppose a Jewish state, just so long as they don't have to be neighbors with it. That's like saying that Hitler would not oppose a Jewish population so long as it isn't in Europe. Your argument might have merit if we were talking about the PLO, which consists of Palestinian Arabs, but Hezbollah consists of Lebanese Arabs and is entirely unrelated to questions of where and how Israel was established in the first half of the 20th century. --GHcool (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll re'adress you point by point then.

1: Glass cites the editor-in-chief and managing editor of the Daily Star, as well as a Hizballlah spokesperson. Unless he's lying, this accounts for several, highly important sources. If you want to prove me wrong, provide me with a link to where this was previously discussed, and where it ended in favour of your conclusion.

2: Yet we give undue weight to a quote which has been published independently in only one newspaper (I'll email the author of the article in the NYT about their source for it if necessary, which is most likely The Daily Star, yet again), we even use that one, questionable quote as basis for labeling en entire organisation as anti-Semitic. All I have added was this "and statements by the editor-in-chief of the Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star which published the quotes".

Could you please explain to me why this section, straight from the source, gives undue weight to the article? My additions are simple: I provide a link to the Daily Star, explain that the quotes were published there, and explain that it was the editor in chief, not just any editor of the newspaper who criticized the quote.

I sure respect the outcome of the previous discussion (though the fact that concensus was reached there wasn't enough to even keep the Glass critique in the article for some reason), I'm even repeating George's own arguments, which you agreed with: "I think it's worth noting which staff members questioned the translation (they were the editors, Chayban's bosses, not his peers, or the company's janitorial crew)."

You replied: "Fine."

Could you explain to me why the word "editors" is more appropriate than "editor-in-chief", when it clearly downplays the level of authority of the criticisers? Could you also explain to me why it is not even explained that the Daily Star was the newspaper which published the quotes? All this highly important information is in the source, yet you disapprove of the inclusion of it.

3: I can only repeat what I've already said twice, Hizballah endorsed the notion that Jews should live among Muslims, in the Middle East, just not in their own state. This analogy "That's like saying that Hitler would not oppose a Jewish population so long as it isn't in Europe" is thus baseless as result.

Jews live in Europe and the US, yet they do not have their own state in Europe or the US. So unless a Jewish state is necessary for the survival of all Jews (which I doubt the far majority of the world's Jews, who do not even live in Israel, believe), wanting to destroy or dismantle such a state is not anti-Semitic. Unless this desire is rooted in hate for Jews as a people of course. That does not seem to be the provable case for Hizballah. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no valid reason for GHcool's reversion of the more specific "editor-in-chief" version, and have restored it. Some people around her tend to forget, or ignore, that consensus can change. Although I'm not even sure how that is applicable here; I believe the old dispute was whether the quotation in question could even be used in this article, given the editor-in-chief's dubious view of it. It was decided that it could stand, with the editors POV included, but I do not see in any way how that has anything to do with te current edit which provides a small bit of detail to the editor's stance. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether the editor-in-chief part is included or not, I see no reason why this article should be in the "Islam and antisemitism" category. It is POV and OR. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Calling Hezbollah anti-Semitic is a mainstream view expressed by the French government[12][13] and American Jews.[14] Both of these sources are cited within the article. This is not original research and it can only be construed as as NPOV by people who don't understand that anti-Semitism is, by definition, "discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews."[15] --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not to be nitpicky, but none of those sources about France state that the Hizballah organization itself is claimed to be anti-Semitic. Therefore, you might use those sources as rationale for putting the TV-station al-Manar in the category in question, but not the organisation itself.

To make the sources apply to the organisation itself is original research. Furthermore, the reason why the station was blocked is explained here:[16]

"The court cited a 23 November broadcast in which a speaker accused Israel of deliberately disseminating Aids in Arab nations."

Excuse me if I hurt the feelings of anyone by saying that I'm unable to detect the anti-Semitic content in that statement. The accusation is ridiculous, but nowhere are Jews or Judaism attacked.

As for this source[17], that is merely one POV, and should be discussed in the article. It isn't reason enough to label an entire organisation anti-Semitic on a neutral encyclopedia though. From that link:

"To most Israelis, and, indeed, to most Jews, the belief that Israel should be destroyed is itself a kind of anti-Semitism."

Yes, but is that a universal belief? No. I have already explained the reason for that in my message above.

If there was a category called "Organisations accused of being anti-Semitic", I would not disapprove of this article being tagged with it. But there isn't. You've made me wonder about one thing; if Hizballah really was as vehemently anti-Semitic as you think, why does the organisation then always deny that it is? What would it gain? After all, it seems that everyone else thinks they are anti-Semites regardless of what they say. So what is their motivation for denying it, and what do they have to lose if they don't? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. If we accept the fact that Al-Manar distributes anti-Semitic propaganda, then we must accept the fact thatthe people that own and operate Al-Manar are anti-Semitic propagandists. Since Hezbollah owns and operates Al-Manar, we can then conclude that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic.
  2. The accusation of deliberately disseminating AIDS to Arabs is a new take on the classic example of anti-Semitic fear mongering called well poisoning. The AIDS libel is even listed in the Wikipedia article on the subject (which I suggest everybody here reads) as a case of contemporary anti-Semitism. This point is not even debatable. Well poisoning is as much a staple of anti-Semitism as deicide, the blood libel, and Holocaust denial.
  3. It is as clear as day that the wish for the destruction of the Jewish state is an anti-Semitic belief to anybody who doesn't wish for the destruction of the Jewish state themselves. It is, in essence and effect, a call to genocide. Hezbollah may not use the word "genocide," and might even make a reference to token Jews who they respect, but its meaning is clear both in the Western world and in the Arab/Muslim world. To Hezbollah and other similar groups, a score must be settled with "the Jews."
  4. I do not know why Hezbollah's spokesmen deny their obvious anti-Semitism. I can only assume that its because anti-Semitism is not a flattering trait in most of the world. Many proponents of Holocaust denial say that the movement is not motivated by anti-Semitism as well. Racists in general, and anti-Semites in particular, have never been a very logical or consistent bunch. The question of why anti-Semites deny that their own beliefs are anti-Semitic is just one more example of this fact. --GHcool (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this is Wikipedia, things have to be sourced and verifiable. So:

1: Yes, we can conclude that, therefore it is original research.

2: Well, I see no source there specifically stating Hizbollah is an anti-Semitic organisation, and the accusation is the POV of only one person in the world.

3: That's one POV mainly held by pro-Israelis, of course, I've already explained numerous times why it might not be shared by other, even neutral, factions.

4: Again, they endorse Jewish/Muslim coexistence in the Middle East, but oppose a Jewish state there. I have yet to hear a good argument for that being an example of anti-Semitism. Could you give me one? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If Hezbollah has not explicitly stated that they are anti-Semitic, then a reliable secondary source must be provided to defend the case that they are. Otherwise, it would constitute GHcool's original research. Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are not synonymous. French government statements are not reliable sources; almost no government in the world recognizes the Assyrian genocide, for example. That has nothing to do with scholarship because governments never issue statements from within a vacuum; they all behave within a certain political context. Moreover, there is no way for Wikipedia to distinguish between those governments that are reliable and those that are not. If governments are reliable sources, then is the Islamic Republic of Iran reliable? How about the People's Republic of China? The French government's statements on Hezbollah only represent the French government's POV. Usage of such a source in order to make a matter of fact statement would be very problematic.
Some of your implications, GHcool, are simply troubling. Is any state that declares war on Israel an "anti-Semitic state" hence? You have tacitly argued that any war against Israel that is not based on her "specific past or present.. policies" is anti-Semitic. Interestingly, the dictionary reference that you furnished of anti-Semitism just a few sentences later does not mention Israel, Israelis or Jewish statehood once; and, you completely disregard the undeniable fact that Jewish statehood in Palestine has been a controversy since Israel's birth. IMO, your position constitutes a case of McCarthyite censorship and intellectual bullying against any position that goes against your political convictions. This is like "playing the race card" against anyone that criticizes, opposes, or is at war with Israel. Similarly, to oppose a Palestinian state or a Kurdish state does not necessarily make someone Islamophobic or Anti-Arab or Anti-Kurdish. The "Back to Africa" comparison is not analogous to an irredentist nationalism; Ashkenazis, the architects of Zionist ideology, have cultivated virtually their entire history in Europe. That's not racist, that's a fact. "Go back to Germany" can be considered, at worst, xenophobic, unless a reliable secondary source suggests otherwise.
With all of that said, I think the fact that Hezbollah is perceived as anti-Semitic, regardless of whether or not they verifiably are, is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Rosywounds, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the specific points mentioned above, but I'm glad that you are rational enough to recognize "the fact that Hezbollah is perceived as anti-Semitic, regardless of whether or not they verifiably are, is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article." --GHcool (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, has anyone disagreed with that? In fact, it is already mentioned, and could even be expanded, as long as it is properly sourced, and the sources aren't interpreted, as with the articles about France. It's the categorisation of the article which is iffy. You seem to agree that saying the organisation is anti-Semitic is one POV, mainly held by pro-Israelis. So why should this article take the side of only one POV? I don't see this article categorised as "resistance movements" or similar either. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to give the Arab world's perspective, Hezbollah's own statements, and Israel's and the Western world's statements all a voice in this article; we should not treat any of their statements in a matter of fact way, though. Wikipedia is opposed to usage of terms like "terrorist organization" for this very reason; a terrorist is a POV word. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima could be considered a terrorist attack, for example, since it specifically targeted civilians (regardless of whether or not one thinks that it was necessary to end WWII).

The article's categorization should be based on a reliable secondary source that clearly states Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. While it would be accurate to say Hezbollah wants the state of Israel to be destroyed, that cannot be interpreted as anti-Semitism. Hezbollah also says, from their own original doctrine, that they want "to expel Americans, the French and their allies (sic) definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity" on their land. Hezbollah considers Israel to be a foreign, colonialist element that has been imposed on the Levant. That's their POV. I don't think that necessarily makes them anti-Semitic, at least on the surface. IMO, to categorize Hezbollah as anti-Semitic seems like endorsing a POV and a little bit presumptuous, especially when one considers the fact that this is an issue of debate between two POVs. They certainly are anti-Zionist, but as I said, you don't have to hate Jews to oppose the creation of Israel; even the United Nations was anti-Zionist at one point. I would propose expanding an explanation for whether or not they are anti-Semitic in this article in a way that does not cater to either point of view (Israeli or Hezbollahi), and remove the categorization, also, since it is clearly a contentious issue. This would allow readers to decide for themselves. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Being against the creation of the State of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Being in favor of amending the State of Israel so that it is less Jewish and more secular is not necessarily anti-Semitic. However, being in favor of the destruction of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic without a doubt. To call for the destruction of the state because of its Jewish character is anti-Semitic.
Both Rosywounds and Funkynusayri failed to address the point of the fallacious and inflammatory well poisoning accusation. If Hezbollah is spewing anti-Semitic lies through their television station, then Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. To argue that Al-Manar's propaganda programs are not representative of Hezbollah's views is tantamount to saying that Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda films are not representative of the Nazi's views.
The view that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic is not just viewed by "pro-Israelis." The French government could hardly be described as a group of hard-liners on Israel, yet they publicly acknowledge the facts. --GHcool (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah, in their own words, wants to remove any entity in the Middle East that they deem foreign or colonialist. This was and still is not limited to Israelis. I'm not sure if destruction was the exact words that Hezbollah used, but if their rhetoric is in line with the Iranian government's, then it is unlikely that they ever made reference to Israel as a state or Jews as a people; Iran's government always refers to the "Zionist regime," "Zionist entity," or the "Regime in Jerusalem" (speaking about the Israeli government). Even if we assume that Hezbollah referred to Israel as the state of Israel, which seems out of character, you have again associated Zionism and Judaism and have implied that Judaism and Zionism are synonymous. To demand for the destruction of Hezbollah isn't any more Islamophobic than to demand for the destruction of Israel is anti-Semitic or to demand for the destruction of Italy is anti-Catholic, unless a context is given through which such an assumption can be made. In this case, there is no context; this is simply your own original research. As for the AIDS comment, I believe it went something like this "...Zionist attempts to transmit dangerous diseases like AIDS through exports to Arab countries." I suppose that it is true that they use traditional anti-Semitic statements born in Europe originally (e.g. Blood libel, well poisoning) and simply switch "Jew" to "Zionist." IMO, it is still too contentious (and presumptuous) to include the category based on how we interpret it, though. We don't know, for example, whether or not Hezbollah would make such parallel statements if a state of Israel didn't exist, do we? It would be entirely speculation. But I'm not about to fight over this anymore, since it's clearly going to go no where. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, this point I brought up is even addressed within the article in such a way that does not cater to either side: "Hezbollah has declared that it distinguishes between Zionism and Judaism, however the group has been known to use anti-Semitic rhetoric and fallacious accusations that Jews are deliberately spreading AIDS." -Rosywounds (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Leni Riefenstahl analogy is inappropriate, due to the fact that the Nazi party was openly anti-Semitic anyway.

The better analogy would be this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Newsletter_controversy

I don't see Ron Paul in a "Racists" category or similar, simply because it would be POV. Having this article in the category in question is nothing but POV and OR.

Applying the European concept of "well poisoning" to Hizballah propaganda while attributing it to their "anti-Semitism" is misleading and POV anyway, Hizballah publishes negative propaganda about Israel because Israel is a state which is hostile to Lebanon and Hizballah itself, not because Israelis are Jews. Likewise, Hizballah publishes negative propaganda about Saudi Arabia, not because it is hostile to Arabs, but because the Saudis are hostile towards Hizballah.

Following your logic (POV), the mere fact that Hizballah is in conflict with Israel, and the inevitable consequences of this, makes it "anti-Semitic".

I could probably find more sources stating that Hizballah is a resistance movement than an anti-Semitic one, but I won't categorise this article as such, because I know it would be POV.

So again, there is no valid rationale for keeping the category here, other than pure POV. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: as much as I despise the ridiculous word of shame epithet "antisemite", which is nowadays only used – not for honest purposes – but for minimizing valid and much needed criticism of Israel and/or powerful Jewish influence in other countries (I share the same school of thought as Kevin B. MacDonald and Norman Finkelstein), I personally believe this article should be categorised with the en:Category:Islam and antisemitism. Why? Because it's clearly obvious that Hezbollah is not only opposed to Israel, but also Jews. Who are we kidding? We all know that's the case. By the way, on a sidenote, I think the term "antisemitism" should be put out of use in favour of anti-judaism or something. It's damn illogical that it's used exclusively on Jews and not all Semitic peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, how is it clear that Hizballah opposes Jews? It certainly isn't clear to me. If Hizballah was behind the Argentina bombings, and if Hizballah openly opposed Jews as a people, then I'd agree with you. But there is no proof for either case, only POV. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it just so happens that they are involved from time to time in open belligerent conflict with the world's only Jewish state. Oh and, by the way, Israel is synonymous with Jews. Jews are "Israelites". Oh and, let me refresh your memory in case you've forgotten: “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” — Hassan Nasrallah. I think that qualifies this article for said category. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, you're playing with words there. Jews are neither synonymous with Israelites or Israel. Jews are adherents of a religion called Judaism, and these adherents claim descent from the ancient ethnic group called the Israeltes. Some of these Jews, much less than half of all Jews in the world, are citizens of a state called Israel, and are thus Israelis.

I don't see any reasons why any of these terms are synonyms. At least not neutral ones

As for the quote, we've already discussed it quite a lot of times now, and for all I'm concerned, it has been debunked as a myth. Check the Charles Glass link. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone were to attack, say, Saudi Arabia, does that make them against Islam? Saudi Arabia houses 2 of the most important sites in Islam, after all. Would attacking Italy make someone against Catholicism? Hezbollah is opposed to Israeli and American politics in general and Zionism in particular; there is no denying that. Taking a quote from Hassan Nasrallah doesn't really speak for the organization in its entirety, particularly since deputies of Hezbollah tried to defend/rationalize his statements later. That simply proves Nasrallah is anti-Semitic. Similarly, Ahmadinejad may be an anti-Semite, but simply because he is the leader of Iran does not mean his views necessarily reflect Iranian citizens' views. Although there is a strong case to support the inclusion of the tag, there is also a strong case against it; IMO, if something is this contentious, then we are better off without it. A compromise could be reached by expounding on the alleged anti-Semitic character of the organization within the article itself. Analogies to well poisoning, for example, are outright OR; and, some posters here have misrepresented Hezbollah's statements by (knowingly) replacing the word "Zionist" with Jew. Some of these sources, frankly, exist only in the imaginations of those that present them. -Rosywounds (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Listen to yourselves:
  1. Hezbollah may want to destroy the Jewish state, but they don't hate Jews.
  2. Hezbollah may spread lies of well poisoning that deliberately and maliciously misinform in the same way that classic European Jew haters did, but they themselves are not Jew haters.
  3. Hezbollah broadcasts television dramas that deliberately and maliciously misinform the public of a Jewish world domination conspiracy that is extremely similar in intent and content to the classic Jew hating Russian forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but they themselves are not Jew haters.
  4. Hezbollah's leader incites his followers to genocide against Jews, but that doesn't make them Jew haters.
  5. Hezbollah is probably responsible for bombing an Argentine Jewish center for no other reason than the fact that Jews worked there, but that doesn't make them Jew haters.
  6. In speaking to the public, the leader of Hezbollah called Jews worldwide, "cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion," but that does not make Hezbollah a Jew hating organization.
So we have, incitement to genocide, the desire to destroy the Jewish state, accusations of well poisoning, allegations of a Jewish world domination conspiracy, terrorist attacks deliberately targeting Jews, and bigoted name calling of Jews. There is no serious debate. The evidence for the connection between Hezbollah and anti-Semitism is insurmountable. --GHcool (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosywounds, if I attacked Saudiarabia or Italy tomorrow, it sure as hell wouldn't mean that I like Saudiarabs or Italians (never mind Islam or Catholicism; that's beside the point, and an Ignoratio elenchi). Likewise, it's the same case if I attacked Israel; I wouldn't like Jews. Contrary to popular belief, and contrary to how you're trying to misrepresent the case, Jews are not only a religious group, but they are also, an ethnic group, and arguably also a unique race. Of course there are converts to Judaism, but they don't count because they are few and not even allowed in Orthodox Judaism. That said, your Italy and Saudiarabia parallel doesn't hold any water in this case. If I or anyone else attacked Israel tomorrow, it would be, because hatred of Jews (or at least antipathy) is involved in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the quote, we've already discussed it quite a lot of times now, and for all I'm concerned, it has been debunked as a myth. Check the Charles Glass link. — Well okay then, how about this quote? “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.” — Hassan Nasrallah. Has this one been debunked as a myth too? Clearly, the guy is anti-Jewish (notice, I do not use the neologism "antisemite"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, EliasAlucard, but anti-Semitism is not a neologism. The term has been used since the 19th century[18] and the phenomenon has been around since biblical times. --GHcool (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, Elias, if one quote can be forged, others can too. The quote is worthy of mention, but not to be taken as the infallible truth.

And GH, again, it's up to POV. So I'll respond with POV:

1: Hizballah wants to destroy a hostile state called Israel which has attacked Lebanon plenty of times, still violates its airspace, and, according to some, occupies part of Lebanon. Israel is thus an enemy state. Many of Israel's citizens happen to be Jews (a minority of the Jews of the world), but that is not the reason why Hizballah is at conflict with the country.

Yet again, you ignore the Nasrallah quote where he states that he endorses the notion that Jews should live safely among Muslims in the Middle East, just not in their own state. Could you please explain how that is anti-Semitic?

2: Israel is an enemy state to them for reasons already stated, propaganda against enemy states and their allies in times of war isn't exactly out of the ordinary. This is a big contrast to the European anti-Semitism, which was rooted in mere racism.

3: Again, simply war-time propaganda.

4-5-6: Accusations. Could be true, could not be true. We are not to take sides, but to simply mention the allegations.

The evidence for Hizballah being anti-Semitic is generated by POV and OR. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. If Israel were a country with an Arab majority and under Sharia law, Hezbollah would not be opposed to it. They are opposed to it because they are a Jewish state. If Hezbollah only wanted Israel out of Lebanon, then they would have stopped fighting them once Israel has pulled out of Lebanon since 2000. They haven't stopped and they won't stop until the Jewish character of the state is eliminated to their satisfaction or until the group breaks up.
  2. Many of the anti-Semitic statements, actions, and television broadcasts were made between 2000 (when Israel left Lebanon) and 2006 (when Hezbollah started the 2006 Lebanon War). This is not war time propaganda because a war was not on during the time the propaganda was being broadcasted.
  3. Even if it were war time propaganda, it is still anti-Semitism for the same reason that Hitler's war time propaganda is anti-Semitic.
  4. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Hezbollah is verifiably anti-Semitic, therefore it should be categorized as being so. Denialist strategies such as setting impossible expectations, moving the goal post when the burden of proof has been met, and the use of logical fallacies in arguments do not work on Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1:They are not opposed to it because it is a Jewish state, if a Christian or Hindu state had been established there and thousands of Christians or Hindus settled it on expense of the Muslim population, they would oppose it too. But that doesn't mean they would oppose Christians and Hindus for what they are as peoples. Again, only five million of the world's 13 million existing Jews live in Israel. The existence of Jews as a people does not depend on the existence of Israel as a state. And yet again, Hizballah does not oppose Jews living in peace in the Middle East along Muslims, which means that Jews would live in the Middle East even though the state of Israel ceased to exist. This simple point makes all your analogies to the Nazis completely baseless, as the Nazis were against Jews as a people, and did not even want to have them living among them.

According to Hizballah and many others, Israel has not pulled out of Lebanon completely, due to the continuous occupation of the Shebaa Farms. Israel also continues to violate Lebanese airspace, and still holds Lebanese prisoners. Therefore, the state of Lebanon itself, as well as Hizbollah, believes Israel is a hostile nation. Lebanon is still officially at war with Israel.

2:See point one.

3:According to Hizballah, there are Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists outside Israel who support Israel against Hizballah and other Arabs through funding and lobbying. This is pretty much a fact, though they might exaggerate the extent of it, but again, that's how propaganda works. The propaganda does not attack all Jews for what they are, but attacks the Jews who directly supports Israel politically and economically.

4:Notice that the text says the threshold of inclusion.

No one is against these allegations being mentioned, thoroughly sourced and discussed, the problem is that this article should not take sides in the conflict, which is what you are advocating by categorising it in a specific way. It is verifiable that Hizballah is anti-Semitic according to a POV, not that it is anti-Semitic. The difference is huge.

Yet again, I can probably find reliable sources arguing that Hizballah is a "resistance movement", therefore it can be mentioned in the article that this POV is held by some, but I do not put the article in a "resistance movements" category here on Wikipedia, as that is only a POV. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. An organization in favor of the destruction of a state based on its majority religion is a sign that the organization is against that religion. If Israel had a Muslim majority, Hezbollah would not be against it. Thus, Hezbollah is anti-Jewish, as well as anti-Israel. If Hindus were the majority religion in Israel, and Hezbollah expressed a desire to destroy this Hindu state, then it would be anti-Hindu.
  2. The United Nations has already agreed that Israel has pulled out of all Lebanese territory in 2000 and that Shebaa Farms was not a part of that territory. Shebaa Farms is Syrian territory conquered during the Six-Day War. It would be against international law to hand Syrian territory over to Lebanon. Everybody, including the Lebanese government, acknowledges this as fact. Hezbollah and its supporters use this as a justification, but that doesn't mean that it is true and it has absolutely nothing to do with Hezbollah's anti-Semitism or hostility against Israel.
  3. Hezbollah engages in anti-Semitic propaganda, therefore, they are anti-Semitic propagandists, therefore they are anti-Semitic.
  4. The notion that "Hezbollah is anti-Semitic" is a POV statement is false because it assumes that the burden of proof has not been met or that anti-Semitism is a so subjective that it can never be met. While it is true that in certain cases (such as Stephen Walt), the line between anti-Semite and reasonable human being can be a little blurry, Hezbollah is well beyond the line and into anti-Semitic territory according to an extremely high number of reliable sources (the French government, Jeffrey Goldberg, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, and perhaps the Daily Star, just to name the ones that are already listed in the article). No source except Hezbollah themselves say that they aren't anti-Semitic. --GHcool (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again,

1:POV.

2:POV.

3:POV.

4:POV.

If POV is to be taken as fact, let's show both sides of the conflict, and categorise Hizballah as a "resistance movment". That's the consequence.

Or let's not, and stay neutral. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when all evidence points in the same exact direction, then it is no longer a POV, but a statement of fact. All of the above are not POV. They are all evidence to support the same conclusion.
What Funkynusayri is engaging in something called denialism. This is how deniers work:
First, they make a ridiculous claim such as "the Holocaust never happened" or "global warming isn't true" or "Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic." Then, they are confronted with a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts their world-view. Then they ask for more proof. Once that burden of proof has been met, they ask for more. And then more, and then more, and then more. Unlike a rational person, the denier is never satisfied with any amount of proof that his/her claim is false. These are the logical fallacies of moving the goalpost and argumentum ad nauseam.
Another denial tactic used by the "Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic" clan is denying the validity of sources that everybody else thinks are reliable. Holocaust deniers say that Holocaust survivors can't be trusted, global warming deniers say that climatologists are "bought" by the liberal media, and Hezbollah anti-Semitism deniers say that Jeffrey Goldberg, the Daily Star, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, the French government, and the UJC are all either blind POV-pushers or downright liars.
The burden of proof has been met long ago that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. So far we have only one source that it is not anti-Semitic and it comes from Hezbollah themselves. If there truly were a debate within the academic community and the media about whether Hezbollah was anti-Semitic, then there must be a literature out there saying the opposite opinion of the literature we currently have in the article. I challenge anyone to find not just one, but several reliable sources that say that Hezbollah is not anti-Semitic. --GHcool (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, though I believe Hezbollah is antisemitic, and that the Holocaust did happen, and that the global warming is a real threat, I am also, in consistent logic with my rationale here in life, that everything is possible, and accordingly, I am of the notion that the Holocaust being a fraud, Global Warming being exaggerated, and that Hezbollah isn't really antisemitic, all being likelihoods. However, at the moment, I think we should stick to what's 'common knowledge' in these articles, until new proof/sources/evidence emerges. In other words, Hezbollah should have the antisemite category, because that's how the world perceives them. I realize this is an ad populum fallacy, but it's not like Hezbollah is making their case Jewish-friendly. It would be nice though, if we could cite independent academic experts (i.e., of non-Arab/Muslim and non-Jewish descent) who classify Hezbollah as antisemitic. And yes, neologism was a bad choice of word from my part. The term "antisemite" has indeed existed for a while now, but I disagree with its connotation (i.e., it's exclusively Jewish meaning and disregards of other semitic peoples) and its modern usage (i.e., its usage in often disregarding criticism of Israeli/Jewish political influence). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So far we have only one source that it is not anti-Semitic and it comes from Hezbollah themselves. — Then we should reflect this source, obviously, because it's a notable and important source regarding this article, since it comes from Hezbollah themselves. For instance, the article David Duke reflects that he doesn't consider his book, Jewish Supremacism, antisemitic, even though, his critics do. I think the same should be applied on this article, for WP:NPOV measures. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, not everything is possible, but even if it were, that is not a case for including or excluding anything from Wikipedia. On this, I'm sure that EliasAlucard and I agree. Secondly, one does not have to be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or Buddhist to be an authority on what is and is not anti-Semitic. The French government is a reliable source and their labeling of Hezbollah as anti-Semitic is 100% accurate and unrelated to religious dogma or ethnic solidarity. Thirdly, all evidence points in only one direction: that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. This statement is not an ad populum fallacy because it does not rely on public opinion. It relies solely on the evidence presented, and 100% of the evidence supports the statement that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. Similarly, 100% of the evidence is consistent with the theory that the Holocaust actually did happen, which makes the historicity of the Holocaust more than just an ad populum. Find a reliable source outside of Hezbollah that makes the opposite claim and then we can talk about it. If such a source cannot be found, then admit you're wrong and stop wasting my time. --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I really can't imagine how could Muslims and Arabs particularly be accused of Anti-semitism. Everybody who thinks like this is ignorant. Why? Simply thanks to two reasons. First, the present Jews who claimed the land of Palestine aren't Hebrews. Second because Arabs are descendant from Ismael the son of Abraham so they are cousins of the Hebrews, and so, they Semites at the same scale of Hebrews and more. Arabs memorized the genealogy of their tribes since the beginning of Islam and also before, and it simple to make the genealogical tree of an Arab going back to Abraham. As for the Jews, they are not smite though their language is indeed. Last but not least, Semites have been on the land of Palestine centuries before the Exodus: Jebusean, Moabite, Ammonitea and others... So everyone who got these small historical truths can't say Hezbollah is anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.24.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

GHcool, the content I removed is biased, if you are going to say that "Hezbollah was responsible for thousands of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israeli civilian towns and cities in northern Israel." then you also need to say that Israeli jets targeted Lebanese civilians in southern Lebanon. It's better to Remove both sentences in my opinion, I just put the casualties summary at the end of the paragraph. (Imad marie (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

How is it biased? It's just stating a fact of the last war. If you feel like adding a summary of Israel's berserk-rampage mode, that's fine. But it surely isn't biased to mention that Hezbollah fired many Katyusha rockets against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I can find a source that states that Israel targeted Lebanese civilians, but my suggestion that is was better to just remove those sentences and put a casualties summary at the end of the paragraph. (Imad marie (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
Why is it better to remove the sentence? It sounds more like censorship to me (per WP:CENSOR) because you somehow take offence to the line in question. I seriously don't see the problem with the line. That is what happened, and that is what we should report, regardless of the sensibilities of Middle Eastern people who feel it's biased for one reason or another. If a Jew came over here to this article and removed a line on how Israel went totally crazy and ruined half of Lebanon in the process of that war, I would have reacted the same way. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be censor Elias, it's just that those details are explained in the lengthy 2006 Lebanon War article, anyway I hope my last version is better. (Imad marie (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
Not saying you were censoring the article. BUT, it's close enough to WP:CENSOR when you remove a line/sentence on the basis that it's "biased" (I see no real bias in that sentence). Anyway, your recent addition is entirely okay with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The line a neutral statement of fact complying with all Wikipedia guidelines. Lebanese death statistics are an important factor in the 2006 Lebanon War, and are referenced in that article, but they are tangental to the topic of Hezbollah. By Imad marie's faulty logic, we should add statistics for German casualties of World War II in the Nazi Party article for "balance." --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say that "Hezbollah was responsible for thousands of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israeli civilian towns and cities in northern Israel." you are criticizing Hezbollah, and you are ignoring the fact that those Katyusha rockets were launched as a response to the massacre that the IDF was committing... which is biased. Now please explain to me where is the faulty logic ? (Imad marie (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
"Hezbollah was responsible for thousands of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israeli civilian towns and cities in northern Israel" is not a criticism of Hezbollah. It is a statement of fact. Even the most zealous supporter of Hezbollah would agree with the statement. "The sky is blue" is not a criticism of the sky. --GHcool (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a criticism, human rights watch has criticized both Hezbollah and Israel for attacking civilian targets. When you are talking about the 2006 Lebanon War it only makes sense to state facts about both parties in the war, that is Hezbollah and Israel. So please don't bring up any silly examples like the German casualties of World War II. (Imad marie (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
Stating the obvious doesn't equal criticism, condemnation or bias. Now, if the sentence would have had something along the lines of, the entire war was Hezbollah's fault, that would be biased. But fact of the matter is, the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war was a very notable event as far as Hezbollah is concerned, therefore, it should be mentioned that Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets against Israel (after all, it was all over the news at the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So what's wrong with the sentence: "Both Hezbollah and Israel were criticized for targeting civilians, it's more neutral. (Imad marie (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC))
I don't think there's anything wrong with that sentence. In fact, as I stated before, I think it should be included in the article. However, I think it was notable that Hezbollah fired rockets against Israel. It's also worth including in the article. I remember at the time, every Internet forum went wild and discussed the fact that Hezbollah fired rockets against Israel and that Israel was in open war with Hezbollah. I fail to see how you consider this to be POV. If you want to, you can add that Israel responded to Hezbollah with disproportionate fire and damaged half of Lebanon, or something, if you feel it will make it more "balanced". — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, please justify your last revert. (Imad marie (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

I can try for him, as I just reverted it back myself. Did HZB or did they not fire thousands of Katyusha rockets against Israel, including Israeli civilians? If they did, is there reliable sources that back it up? If so, the statement fits in the section. The long rambling about Israels massive retaliation is of no consequence and needs to be removed. It would be very relevant in the article about the conflict. But not here, in the way it is written. It reads almost like a 3rd grader would describe a quarrel for which they are in trouble by describing the horrible acts of other, AFTER the attack none the less, to lessen the impact or severity of its own actions.
We can go on forever for each statement. We could describe each and every tiny reason why Hezbollah decided to fire thousands of Katyusha rockets into Israel, and we can describe the reason for each of those actions with background information until we have thousands of pages for this one line.
GHCool is a pro-Israeli editor. And he is a very good one. I myself tend to lean some sympathy towards Hezbollah, after i read about them. But white-washing their acts of violence does not help people who read this article understand what Hezbollah is. To understand Hezbollah you must be informed that they fired thousands of rockets, and that they commit acts of violence without describing how horrible Israels counter attacks are at every turn. Their violence is part of who they are. --mceder (u t c) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Mceder, I believe you are missing a point. Hassan Nasrallah has specifically stated on many occasions that the Katyusha rockets were a reaction to the Israeli offense, and that they will stop as soon as the Israeli mass offense stops. So, saying that "Hezbollah was responsible for thousands of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israeli civilian towns and cities in northern Israel." without explaining the context in which those rockets were launched, and without explaining that those rockets were launched as a retaliation to the Israeli massive and "crazy" offense is, in my opinion, biased. (Imad marie (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
We can not fully explain the context for each statement, there simply is not enough room and would make for quite the impossible to read article. They launched the rockets, against Israel. I think it fits under the Conflict with Israel heading. As far as biased, I think the context is summarized nicely just a few lines below: "According to The Guardian, "In the fighting 1,200 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed. Of the dead almost 1,000 Lebanese and 41 Israelis were civilians."". The difference in casualties is and has been staggering. That says something, without going to great lengths to try and create the opinion that Israel are using unjust force, because that is an opinion. The death tolls are facts that speak on their own. --mceder (u t c) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Israeli offense paragraph was lengthy. Maybe we can find a summarized sentence, which I'm not sure what it is yet, that explains that the offense was from both sides and that the rockets were a reaction to the Israeli offense. The guardian paragraph at the end is not enough to do that. (Imad marie (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
I disagree with mceder's rationale. I personally think this article should mention Hezbollah's reason for why they fired Katyusha rockets on Israel. It doesn't have to be anything spectacular or lengthy, but at the very least, it should summarize a short reason or something why Hizbollah did it. Otherwise it would arguably be an article trying to portray Hezbollah as a violent group without reason, and that can be considered a biased article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We can say something like: "Hezbollah managed to launch thousands of Katyusha rockets against targets in northern Israel in retaliation to the Israeli massive air attack", something like that. But I'm not sure if we can find a reference that says the word "retaliation". In my opinion there is no need to use the word "civilian" at this point. (Imad marie (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

The reason is already stated: "The 2006 Lebanon War was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon and northern Israel. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military." The implied premise is that Hezbollah fired Katyushot into Israel because Hezbollah was at war with Israel. This is all perfectly understood by anyone who reads the article and is a completely neutral statement of fact.
I'm sorry, there is a reason to use the word "civilian." The reason is that it happened and it should be documented and not censored. If a source for "retaliation" cannot be found, then it must not be included in the article. --GHcool (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to use the word "civilian" then you have to explicitly say that Israel committed attacks against civilian Lebanese targets, and not leave it for the reader to make the conclusion from the guardian report. And again, it must be obvious to the reader that those rockets were launched as a response to a massive Israeli attack, you can not point facts against Hezbollah and then ask the reader to make implicit conclusions. (Imad marie (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

No, the Guardian report is quite clear. A war was on and civilians were killed on both sides. Hezbollah was responsible for Katyusha rocket attacks. Its all in the article as it should be. Tu quoque doesn't work in Wikipedia articles. --GHcool (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, Please justify why you removed the sentence: "in which Hezbollah said those attacks were retaliation for Israel's killing of civilians and destruction of Lebanese infrastructure". (Imad marie (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

WP:CITE and ignoratio elenchi. --GHcool (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
First, the sentence was cited. Second, you think that Hezbollah's claim that those rockets were a retaliation makes irrelevant conclusion ?! (Imad marie (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
WP:CITE clearly states, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber." I'll rescind my charge of ignoratio elenchi until an English language source can be found that says the same thing as the Arabic source. --GHcool (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe "Asharq Alawsat" is a reliable reference. Anyway, here you go. (Imad marie (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
Fair enough. Use The Independent since its in English. Also, don't remove anything that's already there. Only add what you feel accurately and fairly relates the facts without crossing the line int WP:Undue weight or WP:NPOV. I reserve the right to edit whatever is ultimately written. --GHcool (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I too reserve the right to edit whatever is ultimately written, and I hope you will not automatically revert any edits that you do not like, as no one has ownership over this article. (Imad marie (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

So how are we going to remove the page protection now? (Imad marie (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

GHcool, are we going to have an edit war again? the source says: "Israeli forces blockaded Lebanese ports and bombed runways at Beirut airport yesterday in a series of fierce reprisal attacks that Lebanese officials say have killed 55 civilians." so what is your point exactly? I don't understand. (Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Page protected

Since multiple editors are edit warring, I have protected the page. Please consider resolving disputes by seeking consensus here instead. --slakr\ talk / 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed per request from Imad marie (talk · contribs). If reactivation of protection is needed, please contact requests for page protection. Cheers. :) --slakr\ talk / 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added reference

GHcool, about your edit here, I read the article you referenced and I didn't find anything that says that "Hezbollah abducted and later murdered 3 Israeli soldiers", please point me out to any information I have missed. (Imad marie (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

You're right. The article mentions the abductions, the dates, the people involved, and the exchange of the bodies, but they don't explicitly mention the killing (although it is heavily implied by the fact that Hezbollah had the bodies and were able to exchange with them). Here are sources that are more explicit about the killing that I plan to add to the article once it is unlocked: [19], [20], —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responsilibity for 1992 bombing

The wiki page says that Hezbollah denies responsibility for this attack, but according to this AP article, "Hezbollah accepted responsibility for the bombing and the U.S. has held Iran responsible for helping finance and organizing the group's activities." Castrovalva (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jewish Virtual Library got it wrong this time. I'm editing the article right now. --GHcool (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, this is a typo in the article. Hezbollah has always denied involvement. Knowingly using mistakes in articles to make false statements in wikipedia is borderline vandalism if you ask me. Count Iblis (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to back up your claim using a reliable source, but until then, the AP article is unambiguous about this. Also, please assume good faith. Nobody is trying to "trick" the Wikipedia public into thinking that Hezbollah is evil. --GHcool (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool, stop playing these silly games. Also, what I'm used to assuming is usually not good faith or bad faith but simply that other people are intelligent beings. Also, I know that you have been editing this aticle for a very long time, so you are quite knowledgeable about Hezbollah, Israel and the Middle East.
So, in a nutshell, that's what I'm assuming about you. And an intelligent man/woman like you who has read a lot about Hezbollah should know that Hezbollah did not claim responsibility for the attacks in Argentina. In fact, I'm sure that if you read something like that you would know that this was a new surprising development, and you would thus be very interested in learning more about that, like what statements did Hezbollah precisely make recently about this, who said what etc. etc.
You would either find out that the statement was misleading (perhaps the judge ruled that the organization who did claim responsibility should be considered part of Hezbollah), or you would find the more interesting stament by Hezbollah itself. Either way, the AP source would not be included in the article by you, because you would have found other sources that better explain what the situation is.
So, I was surprised to find that you used that AP source to back up the claim that Hezbollah has claimed responsibility. Now, do you really want me to assume good faith about an expert when that would necessarily imply that this expert has lost his mind? Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not an expert on Hezbollah or the Middle East. I never claimed to be one. I just have an interest in the subject. If I see an AP article that says Hezbollah accepted responsibility for a terrorist attack, I would accept it as plausible. To imply that I should start looking for a source that contradicts the AP article is inappropriately shifting the burden of proof. You are welcome to take on the burden of proof yourself and I'm willing to keep an open mind if you find any evidence to support your claim. Unless such evidence turns up, however, the AP article passes all Wikipedia guidelines and deserves a place in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GHcool in this perspective. If a reliable source says so, then we have no reason to assume that it is in any way mistaken unless another reliable source disagrees. Assuming that another Wikipedia user is an expert and should thus know better is ridiculous. However, my problem with this is that stating Hezbollah has accepted responsibility for the attack is in direct contradiction to the sentence below which states that "These accusations are denied by Hezbollah", supplemented by three other sources. These do seem to be reliable sources that contradict the AP source. The Lebanon source is also, in my opinion, quite factual. There is no reason to suspect that the Lebanon source is unreliable (it is, after all, a simple fact), just like there is no reason to suspect that the AP source is so. If four reliable sources contradict one reliable source in a fact, there is no reason for us to dimiss the four reliable sources and follow that one reliable source. You are the one who added the source which contradicts the other sources given, GHcool, and the burden of proof, that another source is wrong, not that a fact is correct, is ultimately yours. Herunar (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool, ok., neither of us here are real experts, but anyone like you and me who have been interested in this subject for at least a few years would know that "an AP article that says Hezbollah accepted responsibility for a terrorist attack" would be, if true, a very surprising new development worthy of further investigation. It is just as Earth shattering news when Clinton admitted having sex with Lewinski after having repeatedly denied it many times before. For that earth shattering news to appear in an article mentioning it in a sentence burried in the article as if it is nothing special, is a priori very strange.
Of course, you can play a tactical game using the formal wiki rules. You edit in something you know is wrong, but leave it to others to take it out when they find sources contradicting it. But that's not a good way to edit wikipedia aticles.
These sort of games played by many editors prompted me to stop editing this and the Hamas article some time ago (I just returned here yesterday to have a look). In case of the Hamas article, I could not write that "Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks" (plenty of unambiguous sources for that), to resolve a dispute between the two sides about the sentence saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" (problem: best known where? In Israel, all of the world?, how does one measure "best known"? In all the sources, the "Best known" statement is just the opinion of the author about the public opinion).
A strange coaltion of pro-Plalestinian and pro-Israeli editors made my solution impossible. The behavior of the pro-Israeli editors was especially strange. I guess that they were protecting their habit of using vague statements from "reliable" pro-Israeli sources be used in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Count Iblis's assertion that the AP article is as "Earth shattering" as the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I think the claim is baseless, or if it is not baseless, Count Iblis has failed to provide a basis for it. Count Iblis's argument is kind of a proof by assertion.
Count Iblis's accusation that I know that the AP article is wrong and that I am deliberately distributing disinformation on Wikipedia is fallacious, insulting, and violates WP:AGF. I welcome future argument that are free of logical fallacies and Wikipedia faux pas, but so far I'm afraid I have not come across one on this issue. --GHcool (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit that I cannot rigorously prove my point. But to me it would have been earth shattering news, like O.J. confessing to the murders, Ghadaffi saying he was behind the Pan Am bombing, Bush saying he deliberately misled the world about Saddam's WMD, or something similar. Not in the way that would affect world news, but in the way someone interested in Hezbollah (most of the world isn't) would react to that news item. Count Iblis (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Both sides need to cool off and stay on track. GHcool, we don't need preaching about logical fallacies, logic will speak itself. And Count Iblis, simply proving your point is enough. There is absolutely no need to get personal and accuse others of hypocrisy. For me, GHcool's rationale is good enough.Herunar (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to consider lebanon.com unreliable. To me it's a reliable reference just like other references used in the article like haaretz.com. Imad marie (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Ideally, one would only consider peer reviewed scientific studies to be reliable sources. This is what we do in the wiki science articles. It is no accident that these articles turn out to be the best wikipedia articles. According to this review of wikipedia: "Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." "
For articles like this one it is not possible to use only accademic sources. But we can at least recognize that many RS sources contain false/misleading information from time to time and stop gaming the RS rule. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". The way GHcool inteprets the RS clearly does not lead to a better wiki article (regardless of one's POV, you'll will feel deceived if a text makes a claim if that later turns out to be false or misleading). Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This AP article is no longer available for some reason.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Israelis then just Mofaz claim this

GHCool, where does it say in your reference that "many" Israelis think that? Imad marie (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference #108 in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You are being inaccurate in your edits. The reference says: " left their parents unable to conclude if the sons were killed during the kidnap or murdered later by their captors." so it's not clear how they died.
Maybe you are referring to: "Ya'akov Avitan, father of Adi, said that the film indicates that, (the boys were alive when they were kidnapped... they murdered our boys in cold blood after the kidnap.)" I don't know if you want the article to quote the parents of the killed now and turn the article into an emotional story. Imad marie (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, are you here to add encyclopedic content or to express your anti-Hezbollah feelings? About your last edit: "Upon viewing a film of the kidnapping, one of the fathers of the soldiers was convinced that the soldiers were kidnapped while they were alive and then murdered them while they were in Hezbollah's captivity". I have many objections to that:

  1. The opinion of the father of the kidnapped is not important or significant to include in the article.
  2. "kidnapped while they were alive"?? can you kidnap someone when he's dead?!
  3. "murdered them while they were in Hezbollah's captivity": this is implicitly clear, you don't have write trivial conclusions.

I tell you again, your edits are not encyclopedic and inaccurate. A simple sentence like: "it is unclear if the soldiers were killed during the kidnap or murdered later by their captors." is just sufficient! Imad marie (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am here to add encyclopedic content. The fact that encyclopedic content on Hezbollah almost always confirms my anti-Hezbollah feelings is irrelevant to the discussion. Secondly, I disagree with your specific objections:
  1. The opinion of the father is significant enough for Ha'Aretz. Saying that the father's opinion isn't significant without explaining why is a kind of proof by assertion fallacy.
  2. Imad marie challenged me on Feb. 21 to prove that the soldiers had been kidnapped while they were alive and then murdered while in Hezbollah's captivity (as opposed to being killed in the battle and Hezbollah stealing their already dead bodies to exchange for prisoners). I met that challenge with the Mofaz quote and with an article from Newsday and then later with the Ha'Aretz article. I didn't find a source that contradicted series of events Mofaz, the father, and Newsday related.
  3. I agree that it is implicitly clear, but to avoid future challenges like one Imad marie presented on Feb. 21, I think it should be made explicitly clear.
I'm sorry that Imad marie thinks that my "edits are not encyclopedic and inaccurate," since they clearly are both encyclopedic and accurate. I hope this clears things up. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You enter false information, misinterpret resources, and you wait for other editors to correct your edits, and if it goes unnoticed, then hey, it's my lucky day.
Your edits here, here and here are just false interpretations of the references, it's obvious that you deliberately misinterpret resources against Hezbollah. Imad marie (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Imad marie's opinion is noted, but I ask that he assumes good faith in the future. --GHcool (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources about drug traficing

Hizbullah uses smugglers to flood Israel with drugs, acquire intelligence : [21], [22], [23] , [24] , [25] there is more. Zeq (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hizbollah.org

This washington post article [26] talks about;

Update, Mar. 26, 9:42 a.m. ET: NetworkSolutions on Monday pulled the plug on Hizbollah.org, one of the official Web sites of Hezbollah, a political and paramilitary group in Lebanon. NetworkSolutions spokeswoman Susan Wade confirmed that the company suspended the domain in response to numerous complaints, and to findings that the site violated the company's acceptable use policy. As noted in the comments for this post, Hezbollah is rather prominently included under the U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. FTOs are designated under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and under that law it is illegal "for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide 'material support or resources' to a designated FTO." So, complaint or no, NetworkSolutions would appear to have been in violation of that law until it terminated its contract with Hizbollah.

should this go in here or is there a sub-article for this. This is part of the Fitna (film) fall out. (Hypnosadist) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It borders on trivia, but I think its appropriate for this article. --GHcool (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Labelling Hezbollah as terroristic organization

The article mentions that the EU intended to list Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but due to pressure from France, Spain and the UK, it was not applied. However, the UK is listed in the earlier table as one of the countries that considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. This seems contradictionary. Appreciate if anyone can clarify, thanks. Riemerb (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The UK designated the security/military wing of Hezbollah as terrorist, not the organization as a whole. What they objected to was the EU designating the whole organization as terrorist, I believe. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide sources showing that the so-called "military wing" exist ? that it is seprated from the organization as a whole and that the leadership is not controling it ? If it is under the control of the same leadership there is really no distiction between the oragnization and "the wing" Zeq (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your request is without merit, and beyond the scope of the topic here. The fact that the EU, among others, makes a distinction between the two is all that was needed to address the concern posed by Riemerb. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you at least show where does it say that the EU does not consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization? The reference inside the text has no mention of Hezbollah directly. After looking through some pdfs in that link I noticed that the group is mentioned as an "armed militia" (http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_csp_nip_lebanon_en.pdf page 5) 170.140.93.108 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're asking me to prove a negative? Um, no, I don't think I will be doing that. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not "proving a negative". It's proving that France, Spain and the UK actually exerced pressure for Hizbullah not to be labeled as a terrorist organization. Or that they consider Hezbllah to be something else (a link saying that Brown believes Hezbollah to be a LGBT group, for instance). As the citation on the text has no reference for this, I'm removing the link. Maybe a [citation needed] would be more adequate, though.170.140.93.108 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "...is a terrorist organization" repeatedly added to the lead.

As I have a rather dubious 3RR warning hanging over my head now, could others around here that have a watch on this page keep an eye on this? Per WP:WTA I have been removing this 77.127.240.203 single purpose account's "additions", who along with 74.63.75.130 is also having a go at my user page. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that in reference to 62.128.48.134. I have requested that this page be protected until the issue of whether Hezbollah should conclusively be labeled a terrorist organization in wikipedia has been resolved here on the talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Check page 8 of this[27], there's an organised outside effort to slant this article in a rather non-neutral way. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the evidence given, it looks like there's an organized outside effort to just discuss something. No need to resort to Jewish conspiracy theories. --GHcool (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Now you're making the assumptions. Why specifically "Jewish" conspiracy theories? What are you insinuating? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That website is acually islamic Gbuch (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Muslim Zionist" isn't necessarily an oxymoron, so yeah, I bet you nailed it there... Funkynusayri (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sic?

The Ideology section appears to quote the objectives from page 3 of the given cite, [28], but:

  • it does not use the same punctutaion
  • it adds "(sic)" after "allies"

Why not just quote the whole text verbatim and avoid the sic (what exactly is it referring to anyway?) There are also minor mistakes (punctuation, lowercase/uppercase differences and "onto" instead of "into") in the quotes of (b) and (c) from the same PDF. Why not use the exact same text? -84.223.78.86 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the sic refers to the lack of a serial comma after the word "French." I wouldn't mind seeing it quoted verbatim. --GHcool (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing 1996 Electoral program?

The Ideology section seems to depend a lot on the 1985 manifesto provided by StandWithUs but appears to be missing the 1996 program. here is a link to The Electoral Program of Hizbullah, 1996. I could find it in neither subarticles Ideology of Hezbollah nor Hezbollah political activities. The article seems incomplete without it, just going from 1985 to 2000 or so. Compare with the German wikipedia article. The German section covers the 1980s, through to the mid 1990s (goal of Islamic state in Lebanon), addresses the 1996 election manifesto (seven points, but Islamic state no longer a goal, distancing from Ruhollah Khomeini), the 2006 coalition and (chronologically out of order) Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's 1999 unacceptance of Israel's existence. -84.223.78.86 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original English translation

The claim that "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated" is not in "the original English translation" is dubious. What is "the original translation?" Is there a source that backs up this bold claim? --GHcool (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

From the existing source in the article:

*This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985... It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996.

It should likely be noted in the article that the original translation which lacked this paragraph was published in al-Safir, for the sake of clarity. Essentially there are a lot of pro-Israel websites that publish this paragraph, while none of the copies put out by Hezbollah include it. ← George [talk] 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allah|God

Our last consensus was using [[Allah|God]]. Please refer to [29].--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism

I think Anti-Zionism is better fit to Hezbollah. It written in The Shifts in Hizbullah's Ideology by Alagha that Hizbullah considers the Jews as People of the book and only regards the Jews living in Israel as Zionists, who should be killed, as Nasrallah puts it... Hizbullah neither discriminates against the Jews as a religion nor as a race. Thus it seems that Hizbullah is not anti-Semitic in its overall orientation.[30]

Hezbollah or Nasrallah may use anti-semitic quotations in rare occasions but due to the fact that they follow Islamic Sharia' they can't be considered as anti-semitic. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that conversation, but just read through it. It's rife with logic errors and assumptions that show deep, troubling personal biases of the editors involved. The discussion should likely be reopened with cooler heads and fewer preconceived notions. ← George [talk] 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well, thanks. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Funkynusayri, I didn't mean it personally. In fact, I had a hard time telling who was saying what, with all the numbers and bullets everywhere, going back and forth. However, the discussion was full of original research and personal points of views, and some of the opinions stated and conclusions drawn just make no logical sense:

"If we accept the fact that Al-Manar distributes anti-Semitic propaganda, then we must accept the fact that the people that own and operate Al-Manar are anti-Semitic propagandists. Since Hezbollah owns and operates Al-Manar, we can then conclude that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic."

If we accept that all apples are red, and that apples are a type of fruit, then all fruits are red?? This "logic", to use the term loosely, makes zero sense. Unfortunately this discussion was chock-full of similarly illogical arguments. One of the only logical threads of discussion I saw was that it was worth mentioning that some people consider Hezbollah to be anti-Semitic. I have no problem with that, but the categorization of "Islam and antisemitism" would be incorrect in that case. The correct categorization would be "Accusations of anti-Semitism in Islam" or similar, in the same line as usage of "Organizations designated as terrorist" rather than "Terrorist organizations". ← George [talk] 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
George's apples analogy is a false one. The original argument about Hezbollah wasn't syllogism. --GHcool (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Rewriting the initial argument as a categorical syllogism:
  1. (The people that own and operate Al-Manar) are anti-Semitic.
  2. (The people that own and operate Al-Manar) are Hezbollah.
  3. Therefore, Hezbollah are anti-Semitic.
This is an AAA-3 syllogism, the exact same syllogism I gave as an example above, and a syllogism which is not valid. Even if you argue that this is an IAA-3, or III-3 syllogism, it is still an invalid argument; in fact there are no syllogism's in figure 3 that can return an All inclusive conclusion. ← George [talk] 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't active at that time. Now I'm ready to participate in a cool discussion.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
George's counter-argument is correct only if one forgets that "(The people that own and operate Al-Manar) are Hezbollah" is a tautology, and therefore, valid. "Apples are red" is very different from "Hezbollah are the owners of Al-Manar" because (red) is a property of (apples), whereas "the owners of Al-Manar" is "Hezbollah" by definition in the same way that all bachelors are unmarried by definition. (Note: We are purely discussing the current owners of Al-Manar, not some hypothetical owners that Hezbollah may sell the network to in the future). --GHcool (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You're incorrectly crossing the major and minor premises between the two examples. Red is a property of apples, as anti-Semitic is a property of Al-Manar (per the initial quote's assumption). However, the correct corresponding point to the minor premise, that Al-Manar is a subset of Hezbollah, is that apples are a subset of fruit. Even if this statement didn't fail a basic logic test, the statement itself constitutes original research and improper synthesis. Regardless, the previous discussion was full of similar problems, and should be reopened to further discussion. ← George [talk] 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a little more thinking and discovered that my original argument was a modus ponens:
  1. The group that owns and operates Al-Manar are an anti-Semitic.
  2. If Hezbollah is group that owns and operates Al-Manar, then Hezbollah is anti-Semitic.
  3. Hezbollah is the group that owns and operates Al-Manar.
  4. Therefore, Hezbollah is anti-Semitic.
I realize now that I should have replaced the word "people" in my original argument with the word "group." This is an error in diction that made it appear as though I was referring to "people who run Al-Manar" as a subset of "Hezbollah," when what I really meant was defining the group "Hezbollah" in terms of the group that "owns and operates Al-Manar." I apologize for the error, but now that I've explained myself, it should be easy to see that the argument is a valid one. --GHcool (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Of these, the only statement that is non-controversial (in my opinion) is the third. The first would require proper sourcing, and the second has major logical holes (akin to our discussion). However, this is all rather beside the point. What I would suggest for you to do is to find some (reliable) sources that make the explicit statement that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic organization (ignoring these various levels of indirection with Al-Manar, et al), and those who disagree can present sources that reject this notion, and the editors can consider both sets of evidence. This label isn't something that can be applied by reason alone. If Hezbollah the organization (not specific individuals, and not sub-groups within it) is widely considered to be anti-Semitic, then it should be quite easy to find sources to back up the point (akin to finding sources that say the Nazi party was anti-Semitic, or the Ku Klux Klan was and is anti-Semitic). ← George [talk] 09:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know what is actually being argued here, at least in terms of specific content for the article, but the Category:Islam and antisemitism is clearly justified here. Placing an article in a general category like that does not mean that WP is taking the antisemitism allegations as fact, only that we consider them noteworthy. <eleland/talkedits> 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any Wikipedia policy pages that discuss when a category should or should not be added to a page? ← George [talk] 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources for the claim that Al-Manar is anti-Semitic: [32], [33], [34], [35]
Sources for the claim that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic: [36], [[37], [38], [39]
All of the above sources are cited in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, let's avoid the issue of Al-Manar that got us derailed, since Al-Manar has its own article, with its own categories. Now, regarding the four articles you provided for Hezbollah... The first is from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which likely doesn't count as a reliable source. The second and the fourth both cite the same person Jeffrey Goldberg (original article here by the way), who is an American journalist, and a good start in our search for sources. The third source cites Jeff Goldblum, an American actor (note that it's from the Arts section of the newspaper), as calling Hezbollah anti-Jewish, so again, wouldn't be a reliable source (also, in order to avoid further derailments to the conversation, I would suggest looking for sources that use the exact terminology "anti-Semitic" if you can). Please keep us apprised if you find any other sources, and I'd again call for those who think the label is incorrect to provide any sources they have that support their arguments. ← George [talk] 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I re-read your third source, and it may be acceptable: "Last fall, Hezbollah... issued a statement calling the film 'propaganda for the so-called genius of the Jews and their alleged concern for humanity.'" The problem is that while you and I may or may not agree that this statement is or isn't anti-Semitic, other editors will argue the point. Let's try to find some reliable sources that make the exact claim that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic. ← George [talk] 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how United Jewish Communities could be considered an unacceptable RS with regard to what is and is not anti-Semitic. Jeffrey Goldberg is a reliable source. I just placed a hold on the book by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb that Goldberg references in his article at my local library. --GHcool (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I started posting on the reliable sources noticeboard to get some editors to review whether or not the JCPA can be considered a reliable source or not, when I noticed that this is just a transcript of an interview with the same person as two of your other sources, Jeffrey Goldberg. So I think we've established that Jeffrey Goldberg believes that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, but of course other sources verifying this view would be great. I fully encourage you to check out your local library if it helps in tracking down these sources. ← George [talk] 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'Anti-Zionism' heading, where it states that Hezbollah regards only Jews that reside in Israel as being enemies, and how it respects Jews elsewhere, it fails to mention the bombing in Argentina which Hezbollah committed. Were those Jews that were harmed living in Israel? I think not. As a result i hope to see this fact added into this section, rather than being left until the very end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirlwindz (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yet again, it's an allegation, not a fact, and it is already mentioned as such. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah's antisemitic childrens material

Can someone please find a source to verify this one?

"Kamel el Batel, Director of Human Rights of the World Council of the Cedars Revolution... showed slides of Hezbollah antisemitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts, and asked: 'How can you speak of peace when Hezbollah teaches children to hate Jews?'"

My concern is that this World Council of the Cedars Revolution appears to be a group diametrically to opposed to Hezbollah (politically aligned with those who fought Hezbollah in Beirut this last month). ← George [talk] 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this as a citation for the passage as well. --GHcool (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate spellings

The spelling Hezbollah semms to be the most commonly used variant. However, the article mentions other anglicizaitons in a footnote. I personally believe that the alternate spellings should be actually in the writing of the article as in the al-Qaeda article. Asphatasawhale (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Bless sins (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amal Saad-Ghorayeb quote dubious

This also applies to same citation used in the Ideology of Hezbollah article.

Can anyone please find a source to verify this quotation? Per GHcool's recent edits (based, I suspect, on his reserving the book at his local library that he recently mentioned), this quotation has a footnote identifying a Muhammad Fneish. The problem is this footnote and quotation have been brought into question by Charles Glass:

The source of the quotation is cited in footnote 20 of Chapter 8 of Saad-Ghorayeb’s book: an interview, not with Nasrallah, but with a Hizbullah member of the Lebanese Parliament, Mohammed Fnaysh, conducted by the author on 15 August 1997. Saad-Ghorayeb informs me that the footnote is a mistake, although she is certain there is a valid source for the statement. However, when at my request she examined her PhD dissertation, from which the book originated, she discovered the same mistaken citation. Footnotes in a long work can easily go astray, but it is unfortunate that neither her dissertation adviser nor her publishers spotted the error. Therefore, until someone discovers where and when Nasrallah uttered the words above, the case is unproved.[40]

I would seriously question the quotations inclusion unless we can find something to verify the statement as belonging to Nasrallah, instead of Muhammad Fneish. ← George [talk] 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This hardly matters given the amount of literature and quotations proving that Hezbollah does not differentiate between their hatred of Zionists, Israelis, and Jews, but are you accusing Saad-Ghorayeb of lying? --GHcool (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking for a verification of a controversial quotation whose attribution has come into question, from a source I'm unfamiliar with, attributed to one person here on Wikipedia, but apparently someone else in the sources itself, which may constitute a violation of policy. I have zero interest in lies or truths, as I'll remind the editor that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and "the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia... rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." ← George [talk] 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, I misunderstood George's intent. I thought he was talking about the "If we searched ..." quote. He (and Glass) appears to be talking about the "if [Jews] all gather ..." quote. Since Glass does not appear to have a problem with the "If we searched ..." quote, then I guess it stays. Since Glass does appear to have a problem with the "if [Jews] all gather ..." quote, then the quote stays along with Glass's reservations. --GHcool (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the quote: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, we do not say the Israeli," which is the one Glass identifies as cited by Saad-Ghorayeb to someone other than Nasrallah. ← George [talk] 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
@George - I'm not sure if I can fully understand what's going on here, but it appears that this clip is unreliable. If there are other sources that can provide the same thing, then by all means they should be put in. But in the meantime, this particular one should come out. PRtalk 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. At this point, it should stay in since its one man's word against another (actually, the other is a woman, but I digress). Right now we have both sides and that's fine. --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, as the quotation is being attributed to a living person, it should be deleted unless verified. As I haven't laid my hands on this book yet to verify Glass' claim, I have not done so yet. I suspect there is confusion over which quotation is. The quotation in question is: "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, we do not say the Israeli." ← George [talk] 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to verify all you want, but at this point, we have a quote that was found in a reliable source. I offered to find the book Jeffrey Goldberg cites in his article. I did. The book says the same thing. My work here is done.
Also, if Charles Glass believes that Elvis Presley is alive, feel free to put his opinion in the article on Elvis Presley. In fact, feel free to ask for verification that Elvis is dead on Talk:Elvis Presley. --GHcool (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If possible, perhaps you could scan the page in the book where this quote is, as well as the page where the footnote for this quote is (if it's on a different page), and post them online somewhere so that editors can try to review it, and we can get a better sense of the issue at hand.
I'm unable to verify the quotation, which is why I'm requesting help to do so. If no one is able to verify that Nasrallah made the statement, then it will be removed. Unlike Elvis Presley, Hassan Nasrallah is a living person, and under Wikipedia policy, living people are afforded extra protections in "any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace." In fact, strictly speaking, this statement should have been removed immediately, however I'm trying to avoid an edit war by first asking for some verification of it. Policy also requires the use of "high-quality reliable soruces" when adding "apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources," or "a statement by someone that seems... controversial," which this statement does. This being the first book published by an author, based on their dissertation, and based on the apparent questioning of the reliability of the source by another reliable source, and based on the fact that another reliable source has stated this this source was unable to find the original source of the citation, I am far from convinced that this constitutes a "high-quality" reliable source. It must be verified, or it will be removed. ← George [talk] 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to scan the page and post it somewhere. I'll scan it tomorrow, but where shall I post it? --GHcool (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia? It might get taken down for copyright violation or something (or it may fall under fair use; I'm not a copyright expert). Or you could try one of the free image hosting websites, like this one. Thanks! ← George [talk] 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the hyperlink, George. Here's pg. 170 of Saad-Ghorayeb's book and here are the relevant footnotes. I hope this helps. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking the time to do this; it's a great help. I notice that the book passage itself directly attributes the quotation to Nasrallah, while the footnote references Fneish. Given the direct quotation in the passage itself (which is what I was interested to see), I'm not going to remove this quote, but it will still need to be properly framed with Glass' concerns of the footnote inconsistency. That's not to say that other with a more strict interpretation of WP:BLP won't remove it, or that they're not right to do so, it just means that I won't remove it at the moment. Cheers. ← George [talk] 02:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I respect and appreciate your position. I sincerely mean that. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)