Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon

Five reservists were killed on Saturday according to the IDF, the death toll is now 42. ^[1]

Actually is 41 according to IDF and Israeli Gov.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Already done M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since the U.S is listed as supporting Israel, it should make sense to list Iran as supporting Hezbollah Mauzer's random BS (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree 142.169.16.44 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the US being listed as supporting Israel. While it's true that the US is an ally of Israel, Israel has a lot of allies. Should all of them be listed? There can be a new "foreign involvement" section that details US involvement in this war, but I'm not sure what could be talked about there. Let's focus on belligerents in the infobox only. JasonMacker (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the removal of “supported by” from the infobox. It is not informative. I think that we could write “supplied by” — as is in the infobox of the article Russo–Ukrainian war.

I will probably add “Supplied by: United States” for Israel, and wikilink in the case of Hezbollah — “Supplied by: See Hezbollah armed strength § Supply”. The supplies to Hezbollah are much less homogenous and transparent than those to Israel, which principally come from the US and Germany in this current phase. Y. Dongchen (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the key difference is that with Ukraine, military assistance is being sent specifically in response to the Russian attack. On the other hand, Israel has been receiving weapons from foreign countries from literally its inception. So the question becomes, does the consistent long-term military assistance to Israel that has continued through the invasion of Lebanon be considered assistance for this invasion of Lebanon specifically and be noted here? I'm okay with doing that. As I said, I'm not opposed to a "foreign involvement" section similar to the one for Russian invasion of Ukraine. We could note that several countries (US, Germany) have continued their military aid to Israel even after the Israel invasion of Lebanon. If I have time, I'll add that section this week myself and put a hatnote next to Israel in the infobox that links to that section of the article. For sources, I found this where Germany announced military aid to Israel even after Israel invaded Lebanon. It should be easy to find other sources too. JasonMacker (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Allies" has been added to the infobox columns. Thanks to whoever did that. Y. Dongchen (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

With regard to Germany, here are two sources (in German) by German papers that I came across last month:

• https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nahost-deutschland-erhoeht-seine-ruestungsexporte-an-israel-deutlich-a-32be6dda-6f7c-496f-aee4-c2d2436f4a6b. Der Spiegel
• https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/ruestungsexporte-ausgeweitet-deutschland-israel-100.html. ZDF (website of one of the public broadcasters)

Summary: foreign ministry stated late October that €94.05 million of armaments had been approved since August, in response to a parliamentary question. This contrasts sharply with the figure provided a few days earlier by the economy ministry, of €45.74 million for the year leading up to 13 October. Chancellor Scholz had said in parliament on 10 October 2024, "We have delivered weapons, and we will deliver weapons" ("Wir haben Waffen geliefert, und wir werden Waffen liefern"). It was in response to an intervention by Christian Democrat members accusing his government of not adequately arming Israel (more detail on that parliamentary debate: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/olaf-scholz-kuendigt-weitere-waffen-fuer-israel-an-a-d0072db3-313a-465c-bb9c-0d51736a05e3).

Then there is this article in Legal Tribune Online about a petition filed in the Frankfurt Administrative Court contesting the decision: https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/vg-frankfurt-neuer-eilantrag-ecchr-waffenexporte-ruestungsexporte. Y. Dongchen (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would make for more sense if Iran-Israel proxy conflict was also included as one of the conflicts that this invasion is a apart of. Hezbollah is a major proxy of Iran and has been since the 1980s, and it is clear that most of the resources of Hezbollah is allocated by the IRGC(specifically Quds Force). Kianmehr443 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should the infobox be updated to include civilian casualties on both sides? 104.218.158.89 (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would support this, although there have been 0 Israeli civilian casualties, something pretty typical for invasions. Mason7512 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hezb has been killing a few with their rocket attacks 185.127.127.22 (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe those would fit more into the causalities of the wider Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present), as they were not killed in/ as a result of the invasion. Mason7512 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we do: Latest says the official entire total is "2,865 [Lebanese] since October 2023"[1] Mason7512 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://t.me/HezbollahOperation/1357 2A02:AA1:1646:1CEC:8EB2:AAB5:33E4:2805 (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The total number of Lebanese army casualties is 11 not 7 so please update the number here is a source that say it's 11 (Lbc) 70.26.36.11 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just 7 days ago Hezbollah claimed they suffered 900+ dead, this should be included, although I suggest it'd be written as "1,000+" since it is likely higher. Some sources also claim 62 IDF soldiers were killed since the invasion and Hezbollah claims 90+ IDF soldiers were killed. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-forces-lebanon-and-gaza-suffer-deadliest-month-2024 Mauzer's random BS (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Support: This should be put into the War crimes sections of Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Use quotes from those allegations for more detail. Prodrummer619 (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait: Given that there is a significant amount of sources, the article could be expanded further, enough to warrant a stand alone status. Support per other arguments. ByteBaldur (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait per ByteBaldur's reasoning Mason7512 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose That article currently has 8 different sources listed. Give it time to grow, as it was only created just a few days ago. JasonMacker (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just three of them are cited for claims of a genocide in Lebanon; of those

• Mondoweiss makes such a claim only in the WP:HEADLINE of an WP:NEWSOPED
• Jacobin does in the WP:HEADLINE and a politician's quote.
• Green Left doesn't at all, verification fails for me.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support as from the online material I have read, there are no substantial arguments or evidence or sources supporting this allegation - yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, but that's a reason for why the title would be Allegations of genocide in Lebanon' instead of 'Genocide in Lebanon', and not for notability. ByteBaldur (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's when the allegation passes the threshold of being considered as fact; but what I was saying is that the earlier threshold for it to be even considered an appropriate allegation hasn't been met yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support Can always recreate if situation warrants.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support. especially given the page has no prose substance and references are vague at best. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support With the irrelevant references now removed, the page has very little standing in terms of sourcing, and the one sentence of content should definitely be merged. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per JasonMacker. Skitash (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How is this a genocide? I dont undestand can someone truly explain this to me, please? 198.105.46.252 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support - very little substantive sources to warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support merge not independently notable. Andre🚐 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support merge for now, but this article could be moved to a draft. Prodrummer619 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support - it simply fails WP:GNG. Not one source is really discussing the topic of Lebanon genocide accusations. Quoting a brief statement by a politician falls short of the significant coverage that GNG requires. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - it's not "genocide" and the article has 1 source, Al Jazeera. Shaman007 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shaman007: I think you meant support (the merge)? But also, it looks like you're not extended confirmed. Per WP:PIA, you should hold off on participating in the Israel-Palestine topic area (other than edit requests) until becoming extended confirmed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support Genocide is the most serious allegation of all against any state, surpassing even terrorism or mass murder. We need better sources than Jacobin if we are to write a page about genocide allegations. Bremps... 23:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support. Fringe accusation, not independently notable. Whizkin (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support I am just not seeing how reliable sources have made substantial allegations of genocide in this case let alone whether those allegations were to be credible. Without trying to substitute any editor's position for the position of the reliable sources we should note whatever the reliable sources say in the main article at most. Jorahm (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait We have Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel that resulted in 1163 deaths. Death toll from the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon already surpassed 3000[2] and it's going up fast. We also have sources that call it a genocide Crampcomes (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Strong support for merging or deleting this article. We are not going to create a new article for every allegation thrown at Israel.Instead of this article, might I suggest some neutral articles like International reactions to the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and War crimes in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Those would be neutral topics, unlike this one.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

tl;dr The colors of the map are confusing. Especially Israeli-occupied Lebanon. You can hardly tell the difference in colors between it and Israel.

And the colors on the key do not match the colors on the map.

Wall of text:

I'm VERY good at recognizing patterns. It's one of my gifts. And if I'm having issues, most other people will as well.

A map should illustrate something like an event in a quick snapshot. Most people won't take the time, as I did, to try and figure out faint differences in color or recognize the blue Israel key equals the soft purple on the map, the red Syria key equals the pink on the map, the bright blue teal key/soft green teal on map, much less the magenta key on the key that is just a slightly different shade of soft purple than Israel.

I like the map itself and how it's separated out. And I did learn something from it. I'm feeling very foolish as I thought Gaza was on the west side of Israel for some reason! (I think perhaps because I knew it was near a big water source and forgot about the Sea of Galilee!)

I'm not a graphic artist so don't know how to fix it. I know the key colors are too dark. I'd say, make the key colors match the map colors and change the Israeli-occupied Lebanon area to something more contrasting. Orange or green, maybe? Morphidae (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iraqi militias, specifically the Islamic Resistance of Iraq militia, should be included as they're directly involved with their drone attacks on Israel and the Golan, which have been significant and destructive in cases Mauzer's random BS (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you can cite it and write it properly, you can add it (or make an edit request with your proposed material). Sirocco745 (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iraqi-resistance-executes-operation-against-israeli-targets Mauzer's random BS (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The infobox is currently bloated; I think there is no need to place UNIFIL and Lebanese army in separate columns; they should be placed below Hezbollah, but with clear dealination to avoid implying they are fighting together, but rather all being hit by the invading Israeli army. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would not be opposed to this or some other alternative to the current crowded situation. Mason7512 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree. Can we move the LAF to the footnote because they are not even a belligerent in the conflict? ByteBaldur (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The inclusion of the LAF is currently justified by this, I believe. Just putting the reasoning out there, not saying it is logical or illogical. Mason7512 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and done what you've suggested. Please let me know what you think. Personally, I do think that this is a better format, since all three of the belligerents listed in that column (Hezbollah, LAF, UNIFIL) are being attacked by Israel and haven't fought each other. JasonMacker (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, the casualty counts for Lebanon and Hezbollah overlap. The Lebanese Ministry of Health includes all Lebanese casualties (including Hezbollah). Likewise, RS include Hezbollah medics[3] among total medics killed.

Secondly, UNIFIL's mandate is to be neutral. I don't think we should put them under Lebanon/Hezbollah, rather they should indeed be in a third column.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't alter any of the content of the infobox. I only moved around what was already in it. Lebanon and Hezbollah's casualties were already overlapping before I slimmed it down from 4 columns to 2. So that has nothing to do with me changing the number of columns.

The fact that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and UNIFIL are in the same column does not imply that they are on the same "team". They have those horizontal divisions that separate them. What they have in common is that all three have been attacked by Israel. For comparison, see the infobox of War_against_the_Islamic_State that puts the United States, Iran, Russia, Egypt, Israel, and Nigeria all in the same column, but uses the same horizontal divisions to show the "teams." JasonMacker (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The fact that Hezbollah, Lebanon, and UNIFIL are in the same column does not imply that they are on the same "team"" - Maybe not to you, but definitely to our readers. This is ridiculous and urgently needs to be changed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Both Lebanon and UNIFIL have clarifying hatnotes explaining their positions in this conflict. Using that dividing line is standard for infoboxes. You're demanding changes based on hypothetical readers when you've provided no evidence for their existence in the first place. JasonMacker (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neither Lebanon or UNIFIL belong in the infobox. If they absolutely must be there, there is no reason to keep them in the same column as Hezbollah. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please address the arguments already presented. As I pointed out, War against the Islamic State has the United States, Iran, Russia, Egypt, Israel, and Nigeria all in the same column, but uses the same horizontal divisions to show the "teams." Has there ever been a reader complaining that it's confusing that these different parties are in the same column? Do you want that article, and countless other articles that use similar infoboxes, to instead make a whole bunch of columns for every separate fighting group rather than use the horizontal division lines? As I explained, it actually makes sense to put Hezbollah, LAF, and UNIFIL in the same column because all three of them are being attacked by Israel, while little, if any, fighting is taking place between those three belligerents. To put LAF and UNIFIL in separate columns could falsely imply that Hezbollah is targeting LAF and UNIFIL too, and reliable sources make no mention of that happening. This war is primarily between Israel and Hezbollah, and by having only two columns, the infobox reflects that fact. But it also has hatnotes explaining why LAF and UNIFIL are involved in this conflict and listed in the infobox.

The reason why I made the edit in the first place was because three users in a row said that they disapproved of having 4 columns in the infobox, so I went ahead and got bold. Would you prefer if we have an RFC for editors to decide which infobox format they prefer? JasonMacker (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The comparison with the War against the Islamic State doesn't hold up. These countries/factions were not allied, but nevertheless fought against the same enemy (ISIS). Whereas both UNIFIL and the LAF are neutral, a fact recognized by the warring parties. Including them at all sets a problematic precedent, and we should at the very least not create an impression that it's Israel vs. co-belligerents Hezbollah/UNIFIL/LAF. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Israel has engaged in combat operations against both LAF and UNIFIL, multiple times. That's the whole reason they're even listed in the infobox in the first place. Take a look at Template:Infobox_military_conflict's description of when to use "combatant3":

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional –the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion).

This, I think, is very clear guidance on what we should do here. This conflict is primarily between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon and UNIFIL don't really have a distinct "side" in this conflict. And if they do, they're not fighting against Hezbollah. Contrast this with the Aerial incidents in Switzerland in World War II article, where Switzerland is listed as a separate combatant because both they returned fire on both the allies and the axis. However, here, LAF are not engaging in hostilities with Hezbollah (or UNIFIL, for that matter), so I don't think it's appropriate to list them completely separately. Again, if you're not satisfied with this explanation, feel free to start your own RFC on the format of the infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You correctly point out that the LAF and UNIFIL side with neither Israel and Hezbollah, which is expected, as both are formally neutral. Isolated incidents with the IDF do not render this point moot, although some editors have tried to push the narrative that the LAF is a party in this war (although the IDF has even apologized for hitting them on one occassion). In short, listing Lebanon and UNIFIL is problematic in the first place; listing them in Hezbollah's column makes it even worse. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks much better, thanks to whoever changed this. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The IDF withdrew from Khiam according to al-mayadeen a reliable source whose been monitoring the ground invasion since the start https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/hezbollah-forces-israeli-troops--withdrawal-from-khiam--sout 185.142.40.148 (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Al Mayadeen is pro-Hezbollah. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So? The fighting in Khiam has stopped as well has any new advance attempt. If you read Hezbollah's statements its pretty clear that 1- they never entered the village the fighting was always on the outskirts of it and 2- in the past few days the they targetted gatherings of IDF troops outside the city a few times compared to the multiple times a day during the fighting which proves that the fighting has died down. Hezbollah is a much morw reliable source than the IDF which is looking to achieve and military gain in order to please their populus. If you don't think so please provide to me a reasonable agrument 185.142.40.114 (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Israelis have captured Kafr Kila and Khiam per TOI. And to add to that they have almost certainly taken most of the towns south of Khiam (they didn't just spawn there). edit: entered not captured — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleon583 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources: ^{[1] [2]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleon583 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• What I think should be changed:

In the info-box

• Why it should be changed:

Additional 8 Austrian UNIFIL troops were injured in a rocket attack on October 29th.

• References supporting the possible change:

reuters Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

News has just broke out that Benjamin Netanyahu has fired Yoav Gallant[4][5]. How should we note that in the infobox? JasonMacker (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest a footnote or small text that his participation was from October to early November and similar for Israel Katz with a footnote or small text that his participation was from early November onward. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A footnote is fine. It is not unusual for leaders to be replaced during a war. Their term is not retrospectively diminished by the fact that they got replaced. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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