![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Congratulations to all those who have been mangling this page over the last while, either in pursuit of political positions or just out of plain incompetence. For those who have been making coherent contributions, my sympathies.
Perhaps the 'current event' template should be modified to read, 'This article documents a current event. It will remain instable and probably unreadable until further notice.' Palmiro | Talk 13:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
While reading through the article, I noticed it claimed two different areas, 28 km² and 10 km². I went to the Shebaa Farms article and calculated its area using my adept skills in math (2.5*14). I assumed the page on the Shebaa Farms was the most accurate. Does anyone know the actual correct area? I will try to find a source later today if I remember. RyanEberhart 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This page (http://www.meib.org/articles/0105_l1.htm) also gives the 25km² measurement, and the Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture describes the area as "14 kilometers in length and one to two kilometers in width". A spokesperson for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon claims that the Farms' area is around 10km². Presumably, the disparity arises because Hezbollah's claims to the Farms have been rather inconsistent: some sources describe the area as a set of 14 farms, while others regard the Shebaa Farms as the entire Golan Heights region. MeredithParmer 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the article seems to be original research and alot of the statements lack citations. Perhaps this should be an ongoing task. --Cerejota 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is getting waaay too long and detailed for something that has a reference link to a much-trafficked page of its own at 2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis. Needs a major re-edit, down to a few highlight of the main events, not minutiae of the naval attacks, for example. Tarc 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Surely there's a better way to deal with disputed facts in this article, the [citation needed] tags just make a mess of a generally decent article. And many are needless... for example, in the first paragraph, the dispute over the well known fact that Israel occupied southern Lebanon until 2000. Do people feel that there is a need to make a citation to accompany every sentence in Wikipedia?? 69.140.65.251 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"However, it expresses support and sympathy [2] for the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamist groups responsible for suicide attacks and armed resistance in Israel and the Palestinian territories."
As far as I can tell the cited source does not mention Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I do not doubt that Hezbollah has expressed support and sympathy for those groups, but it is not unreasonable for a Wikipedia editor to ask for citations to sources that document it. --JWSchmidt 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I addressed at least half of the tags. Hope that helps.--Zereshk 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This important article is extremely bloated and lacks a coherent structure. I'm going to 'wikify' tag it. Any objections please follow up below. Nick Fraser 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph claims the IDF "still occupy "Sebaa" area in the south of lebanon." This statement, I don't believe to be Neutral - most of the world agree the Sebaa area to be part of Israel, and it is not under military occupation, only farmers live there..
Furthermore, the Shebaa farms were formerly part of syria, and though hezbollah and lebanon claims them, syria remained quiet until the possibilty of their return appeared. Then, it demanded them.
For whatever purposes, political or otherwise, Syria and Lebanon currently both seem to agree that the Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon. Israel, the UN, and the international community, however, say that the Shebaa Farms are part of Syria and the UN has verified that Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000 was 100% complete.
It's rather NPOV on both sides of the dispute to recognize at least that, rightly or wrongly, the Hezbollah is firing Katyusha rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
My question is merely an honest logistical one, and I HOPE it can be answered without descending into a shouting match.
The essential question is this: Who is it that is supplying the Hezbollah with these missiles? Syria is an obvious candidate for two reasons: it both supports the Hezbollah, and as well, it geographically borders Lebanon, making the delivery of these missiles easy enough. Yet missiles are expensives, and Syria is not the richest of countries. Iran, on the other hand, also a supporter of the Hezbollah, is oil rich, and is considered by most to be the main supplier of military equipment to the Hezbollah.
There's only one problem, Iran doesn't border Syria or Lebanon. The only land route from Iran to these two countries is either through Iraq or Turkey.
Now Iraq is crawling with US troops, and it would be reasonable to assume that those shipping arms from Iran to Lebanon would avoid this route at all costs. However Turkey is also a strong ally of both the US and Israel, and going that route wouldn't seem completely safe either. Are the arms airlifted in? Are they brought by sea? How does Iran supply the Hezbollah with arms? Loomis 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Iran supplies the Hezbollah with weapons through Syria. Civilian and non-civilian flights from Iran land in Syria, and then the weapons are taken by trucks to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This introduction needs to be cleaned up. It is too long, there are a number of incorrect citations, there are too many citations, and its simply confusing and poorly written. --Infernallek 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)infernallek
In the second paragraph, the sentence "Hezbollah...was formed primarily to commit genocide against Israelis and Jews" uses this article as its citation. I can't really find anything in that article that supports that assertion, unless I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps the Wash. Post link changed since this is a dynamic event? Or it could be a well-hidden act of vandalism? JD79 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I love how people use the word "regime" to describe islamic government groups (or any group our government and media deems unworthy of US support). "Regime" has a negative connotation, basically discrediting the organization in question...All too often, this kind of propaganda is used by the regime that rules the US of A.
The claim in the first paragraph that Hezbollah "founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces" is not represented in the two citations given. I believe Hezbollah has a formal charter, and it should be referenced if we are to speak on why Hezbollah was founded. --Infernallek 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)infernallek
A couple of days ago the article had Hezb'Allah as an alternative (lit party of God). Could someone knowledgable about the subject explain why this is incorrect in usage or inappropriate etc.? Thank you. Also what pronunciation in English is preferred? Chomsky seems to use "Hezb'Allah".... - Abscissa 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the proper DIN 31635 spelling. For spelling issues, refer people to Arabic transliteration, in particular to Allah for orthographical quirks of that word. For Arabic phonology (pronunciation of ḥ and the like), refer people to Arabic phonology, this simply cannot fall within the scope of this article. The u is the nominative desinence of the hizb-, see i`rab: it's hizbu-llah, not hizb-ullah. Anglicize it (Hezbollah etc. are fine), or give a proper transliteration, but not some pseudo, intellectual-looking typographic fantasy like "Hezb'Allah". dab (ᛏ) 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated through German mediators Israel agreed on an exchange of prisoners. " from Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal section doesn't make any grammatical sense. Editing when I figure out what it's supposed to mean. 65.115.38.32 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. Changed to: "On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners with Israel, through German mediators."
All the above mentioned are irresponsible remarks, neither Hezbollah nor Israel are fighting for the right cause. Hezbollah clamis its fighting for the Lebanon people and their lands,instead it got hundreds of cilivians killed for their caused. In my own subjective view, Hezbollah is just another terrorist group with their own agenda using the Lebanonese cilivians as shields for their "cause". Israel on the other hand, they are a legitimate country with an aggressive and mindless, dumb, government. They are using the excuse of trying to disarm Hezbollah to invade Lebanon. At the cause of both Israeli and Lebanese civilians. Any government who is willing to do that with their little regards to civilians are no better than any other terrorist group. They are just better armed hiding behind support of big powerful nations. I would just refer them as jewish terrorist group. Both Hezbollah and Israel government should be tied up like dogs and shot up to pieces for the world to see. They do not deserve a place in the world for their disregard for precious human lives.
Hezbollah is the strongest force in Lebanon, and they are trying to destroy Israel. Israel's counter-attack on Lebanon is therefore not an attack on the original Lebanese people, but is with the Hezbollah terrorists that have taken over Lebanon.
Funny way to try to destroy a State. Kidnapping a couple of soldiers for a prisoner exchange, then firing rockets as part of a military esculation from both sides in which civilians are effectively targeted. If Hezbullah want to destroy Israel, then they have a long way to go befoe they are in a position to make a serious attempt. - Anton (210.185.17.92 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
This article has reference both in link format and cite.php (ref) format. I find these mixed pages hard to read, and would like to convert all to one style, cite.php. I thought I was done but apparently a large section had been missing, with 30+ more links. Does anybody mind having them all converted to cite.php form? In the process of going through them, I checked a couple links. Some of the references don't seem to me to support the statements they supposedly reference. One is a reference at the end (#52 currently) about UK saying this is a terrorist organization, but the link is an EU page that had no obvious reference to UK in it. Also, references are supposed to be after punctuation per MOS. Gimmetrow 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Jacoplane, one of the purposes of footnoted references is to make the source transparent and evident. Hiding a footnote behind a [45] makes it worse than an inline reference. I strongly believe that the complete URL should be visible unless a very good descriptive alt-text is provided instead. Gimmetrow 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Does it really make sense to maintain the two following headings? Shouldn't these be combined? JiHymas@himivest.com 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is full of terribly written text, a rewrite is needed (I don't want to, I just want to gripe about it). Example:
"Iran funded Hizbullah in order to offset the funding of Israel by the USA. When the USA began to arm Israel with F16 Warplanes and advanced bombs. Which are being used to kill civilians in Lebanon. Iran decided that it was time to give the Hizbullah some wepons too. Both the USA and Iran accuse each other of having a hand in the conflict." J Shultz 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Open paragraph list George W Bush as leader of Hezbollah?
This article has been given this tag. Would the person that did so please state why, or else I see no reason for it to be there. RyanEberhart 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The intro to section 6 currently states : "The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.[82] [83]", providing two references. The first reference, to the Forbes article, does not support the statement: in fact, it contradicts it: "Saniora told the paper that "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms," the statement said." Are there any actual citations supporting the referenced statement? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is an article about this separately in wikipedia. I suggest that we cut down this section severely and simply refer readers to the separate page. Any objections? JiHymas@himivest.com 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put how big an army they can muster so we can get a better idea of their force. Reaper7 01:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah was foolhardy to instigate this crisis
Actually, it seems like racial hatred against anything Jewish has clouded their judgement. That kidnapping was their version of crossing the Rubicon, and they are forcing all of Lebanon to reap the whirlwind of destruction they started. May Allah forgive them for all the deaths and misery they have caused. User:Expatkiwi File:No-hez-flag.gif
I started a section on social services provided by Hezbollah, moved the commentary in the intro to the new section and linked from the intro to the new section, but these edits were reverted. The intro is way too long and is used by both supporters and critics of Hezbollah for POV pushing. I feel the social services provided by Hezbollah are important enough to have their own section. Can we discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line; This group and the radical groups terrorising ther own and the world have only the same goal, the same goal Hitler had in mind of any non Gremanic peoples GENOCIDE . All that are diffrent from them ,all muust die that is a world plan of eradication of all persons not of thier belief. look deep at the core motavation of hate and mass murder, see what Hitler did and mutlpy it with the cloak of religon. dh (Unsigned contribution by 68.231.81.110
Why did somebody put this tag:
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
I'll revert it. JiHymas@himivest.com 08:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Israel has been looking for an excuse to exercise it's military right against Lebanon. IDF soldiers have made numerous excursions into Lebanon and fought with Hezbollah soldiers, though this is not readily reported in the western media. The IDF even left some kit behind [[4]]. Also Hezbollah only started firing missiles into Israel after the bombing of bridges, the airport and civilian areas. In my opinion Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance force which now provides schooling, social functions (they run the annual music festival) and legitimate buisness. This is even reported in the Telegraph newspaper, or the "Torygraph" as it is commonly refered to. Anyone who denies this conflict was provoked ultimately by Israel, which has far superior military might, cannot see the facts which go back as far as 1982. -- Tompsci 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Jewish state of Israel has been under fire since 1948, you remember that, Tompsci. They just want to live in co-existence with the rest of the Middle East, but is under threat after threat each day. They aren't looking for any damn excuse to fire missles at Lebannon, I'd be pissed off, as well, so don't act like this is about Lebannon, it's about Hezbollah and those cowards.
Leopard Gecko 04:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko
The Netherlands stays in line with EU policy and doesn't declare Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. See this document of the Department of Foreign Affairs (in Dutch). Bontenbal 09:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The EU policy isnt that simple. A Resolution of the European Parliament declares that it "Considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities on the part of Hezbollah..." look at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0076+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN under point 8..
EuroTrash are too afraid to call things for what they really are. The fact still is that Hezbollah are TERRORISTS who kill innocent people ON PURPOSE, and no amount of grammatical gimmicks will ever change it.
I yesterday made all the references short links, so that they would not be displayed as urls. The next step, which I had planned to do today, was to start going through the references and add the titles of the articles to the refs. However, User:Gimmetrow has gone through and removed all the links again, in the name of "link transparency". Personally I think the references look terrible with the urls like this, but I won't start fixing them up again if my efforts will just be reverted again. jaco♫plane 11:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The current text states...
then in the next line says...
I am removing the first reference to britain here as it is strictly speaking untrue. Britain does not officially consider Hezbolah a terrorist organisation, even the BBC has recently ceased to call it so, in response to the complaints of its listeners. DavidP 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am also removing the statement "fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks" because the source provided is speculation on the part of the author and by no means is any indication of the official position of those nations. Unless a direct source can be provided to back up these claims. --slaman 10:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I put a part of it between <!-- --> This part is qouted from a weblog [6] and the weblog refered to a Jewish virtual library [7]. There isn't any evidence or refrence in that article and it seems biased. So I proposed to remove this part.--Sa.vakilian 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
About malkolm kerr:There is written in his biogrophy that On January 18, 1984, Malcolm was shot outside his office by two gunmen. Later Islamic Jihad made a telephone call to claim the credit for his death. [8]. Maybe US claims that Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are the same but is there any evidence for it.--Sa.vakilian 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
About David Dodge :Tere is written "Perhaps the first victim whose case was widely publicized was American University of Beirut president David Dodge, abducted by Shia terrorists in 1981 and freed in 1982. "[9] Because Hezbollah at least formed at 1982 so it can't participate in an event in 1981.--Sa.vakilian 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- nice bias research.How about how many civilians have died in lebanon because of israelis? That list is far longer. Stop killing innocent people.
I like the conversation. What proof do you have that Israel killed 400 civilians and not terrorists? Don't point me to random images of suffering children, those could've been taken anywhere by anyone with bias. Honestly, I'm sure lots civilians got killed, I'm just using your rediculous argument that a biased source is not necessarily telling a fact, and just because there are 40 million journalists in Lebanon reporting this conflict with the ease and use of the internet, does not erase smaller terrorist acts that got almost no coverage from the history of the conflict, which you and I both know, and whether it is justified by your sources or not, is Jihadism against Jews. Labaneh 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
In the revision "18:12, 24 July 2006 Ladlergo" the link to
has been deleted as "linkspam". This doesn't look like spam to me ... the site presents both viewpoints (as presented by senior officials of various governments and organizations) and contains links to further materials. Why is it deemed "linkspam"? JiHymas@himivest.com 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the world doesn't. I'm changing that to "Some consider it to be a terrorist organisation". --82.183.224.40 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, some troll is going rampage on this article right now. I'll wait with the edits. --82.183.224.40 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"Most" and "Some" are still weasel words, and should be discarde either way. The article should just list the nations that do and be done with it. Tarc 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --82.183.224.40 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia reference for total war, The most identifiable consequence of total war in modern times has been the inclusion of civilians and civilian infrastructure as targets in destroying a country's ability to engage in war. The targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war. Total war also resulted in the mobilization of the home front. Propaganda became a required component of total war in order to boost production and maintain morale. Rationing took place to provide more material for waging war. With this in mind, Hezbollah's targeting of civilian cities with rockets in this most recent conflict, and Israel's targeting of the infrastructure of Lebanon meets this criteria. The term 'total war' is not being used though in the media... User:Expatkiwi File:No-hez-flag.gif
With regards to -
"Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[65] and has co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal."
I feel the source given for such a direct statement is too old, especially as it was from a time when Israel were occupying Lebanon. I couldn't find a newer source for this other than opinion.
Unless a newer source can be provided maybe something like...
"Hezbollah leaders have, in the past, suggested that the destruction of Israel is the only way peace can be obtained in the Middle East and have co-operated with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas"
I think this matches the actual quote in the source a lot better as well.
No doubt someone can write it better than me but what does anyone think?
Cheers, Andy
Is it still a national liberation organization? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Not going to revert anything since this has been put in several times today, alternatively with a mention about the Republican Party, which has been reverted 2 or 3 times already.. So; Why do we need a link to other uses of Party of God in this article? I have read the first footnote and understand what Hezbollah means, but who would type in Hezbollah when they really was looking for Party of God - which has a disambig page with two links; This article and one for Hizbullah (Mauritius), and how would that help? I suggest we remove it on the basis off not making sense, but perhaps it is just me? Thoughts? Mceder 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Several quotes and sources have been added found from recent speeches in the Official Hezbollah Website.
Any good arguments for overloading the intro with references to undisputed facts, that all are dealt with in greater detail in the article, such as it is a party and that Israel withdraw from (most of) southern Lebanon in 2000? Bertilvidet 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What should it read? Hezbollah: Definition: Hezbollah? There is no way of defining them without bias. They claim to be a legitimate resistance against Israel and call for a Global Jihad. Others (especially Hezbollah's enemies) consider it a terror organization. How would you like the introduction to read? Labaneh 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree its fine "now", as in: Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله[1], meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite political party[10], with a military arm and a civilian arm [11]. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[12] that lasted until 2000[13]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.
However, I still do not see any reason for having all those disturbing footnotes confirming undisputed facts. Bertilvidet 20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone else agree that Israeli Occupation is a loaded term? Occupation implies a colony like British occupying Palestine or India. Most Israelis do not see "Lebanon" of the 80s as an occupation.Labaneh 04:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Credible sources call Hezbollah a terrorist organization, we're not going solely by sources here, we're going for NPOV, and for the record, many view BBC as a news outlet as having a virulent Anti-Israel bias. Labaneh 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this would be better stated as: "Hezbollah during the unoccupied period", or "From the 2000 Withdrawal to the 2006 Invasion" or something like that. Discuss? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the first part of this section, dealing with Hezbollah's popularity, would be better placed in the Political Activities section. Are there any objections to me moving it? Also, I had thought that the sentence "Their popularity is seen to be lower among Evangelical Christians, however.[citation needed]" referred to the poll cited in the previous sentence and that the fact tag was just a nuisance. Having searched the cited document for "Evangelical" unsuccessfully, I've come to the conclusion that this sentence was put in as a joke (referring to American Evangelical Christians). Are there any objections to my removing this? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what this Evangelical Christians part is all about. As far as I know it's completely out of the debate. Christian Maronites however, supported Israel in the past, particularly in the original Lebanon war. Their sudden retreat from the war was one of the major factors to the Israeli withdrawal. Whether they support Israel today is subject to question. To the Western media, Maronites have generally shown a negative response, but it's difficult to asertain their true beliefs as Hezbollah imprisons those considered collaborators or spies, as published on their official website: (Scroll through updates) ->[14](Direct) ->[[15]] Labaneh 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Read the articles about the new oil pipeline near Lebanon nd Syria, the article about the Russian plans for a naval base near the temrinal, and how the U.S. wanted to have a base near the pipeline to secure it for both ISraeli and American interests. Its nice to hear that there will be foreign troops in Lebanon maybe the U.S. will get its base after all.
READ THIS...then you will see why Israel is attacking Lebanon (not Hezbollah, but all Lebanon) and why the U.S. and Britain have savatoged all ceasefire agreements...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824
An article on the oil link with the Israeli attacks
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060728&articleId=2839
the Russian base in Syria
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060523&articleId=2508 The militarization of the area near the oil pipeline
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25004&hd=0&size=1&l=e
The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon....the U.S, base was for securing the oil pipeline
http://www.rense.com/general63/aahi.htm The murder of Hariri according to intelligence sources and his opposition to U.S. base in Northern Lebanon
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25005&hd=0&size=1&l=e Lebanon as also a pretext for war in Iran, to secure Iranian oil too
69.196.164.190
The "dispute" tag was added by user 217.37.203.130 in the revision 18:24, 30 July 2006. This user has not yet seen fit to let us in on the secret of which fact he disputes. I will remove the tag 24 hours from insertion unless there is some discussion. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
24/07/2006 Hezbollah's Official Webpage Sites Achmenijahd calling Israel to Leave the Middle East [16]
It's an AFP article...Bertilvidet 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whose article it is, it is posted on the official Hezbollah website. Labaneh 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's an interview from Al-Arabiya TV (Dubai) Interview of - 5/4/2006 Former Hizbullah Secretary-General Subhi Al-Tufeili Hizbollah definitely fosters it's relations with the Syrians, but Hezbollah's real leadership is 'the rule of the jurisprudence'. In other words, Khamenei (Iranians).[2]
Also, notice in this speech to Hezbollah who's picture is hanging in the background. It's Iran's Khamenei. [3]
Iran has admitted this week of Supplying Hezbollah with Fajr5 and ZelZal Missiles.
Please lokk at this text which is written in idealogy part:
As you know idealogy doesn't reffer to the definite time, place or event. But this text reffers to difinite event.--Sa.vakilian 04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I know his quotation is important. But it's not appropriate for ideology part. You can add it in another place.--Sa.vakilian 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
By Nasrallah's speeches, it's clear that he envisions a Palestine where Israel is now. This is definitely part of ideology, I would venture to say dogma. Furthermore, due to the unstable state of Hezbollah, would it be possible to store their official speeches on a different more stable media?Labaneh 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a movie link to an important movie on the subject of Islamic Fundamentalism - it has several speaches in it with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasralla calling for the Destruction of Israel and the US as well as Global Jihad, and also shows thousands of his followers making a heil Hitler arm motions calling out "Death to the Jews". I welcome any documentary about Lebanese struggles but this film is a must see to understand Israel's preemptive attacks.[17]Labaneh 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Dozens of Nasrallah speaches that were videotaped live can be found here: [18] Labaneh 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this part make many problems and everybody wants to add something . I propose to merge it to relative parts. --Sa.vakilian 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that Arabs were not "red Indians" and will not be liquidated or driven into exile by Israel and the United States.
Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah said that "Christian Zionists" were gaining strength and had a powerful impact on US foreign policy.
Nasrallah alleged that oil companies and weapons firms that have financed the "Christian Zionists," the Arabic term for the right-wing Christian supporters of Israel, were in alliance in the United States.
"Their aim is to redraw the world's political map," he said. "It is said that several US presidents are affiliated with the Christian Zionists."
Nasrallah said their aim was to return the Jews to Israel and rebuild their temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
However, Nasrallah added, "if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
I have just clarified the position of the UK, Australia and The Netherlands with regard to the status of Hezbollah as a terrorist org. It seems that it is easy to label anything terrorist these days, and one should be careful in doing so. Thinking it strange that the UK was listed as a country that 'branded' Hezbollah as terrorist, yet a few lines later was one of the nations reluctant for the EU to do the same - so I decided to read the citations. These three countries have made a distinction between Hezbollah proper and its external security organisation (ESO). furthermore the UK has only banned the ESO from operating in the UK. This distinction may be a fine one, but it is what enables the UK to recognise the legitimate elected lebanese Hezbollah MPs and exert pressure on the EU not to label Hezbollah as terrorist. To state that there is some kind of blanket condemnation on the part of these countries, wether true or not, should only be made with some direct evidence. simply generalising the situation to give a false impression really doesn't help anybody to understand the complexity of the issues. DavidP 03:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The Dr. Alon Ben-Meir Part 2 interview on the Daily Show, today, suggested that Hezbollah was trying to reestablish something (it says this about 45 seconds into the video clip). Unfortunately, I can't quite make out the word. They're trying to reestablish the calibat? The talibat? Neither seem to return many relavent hits on Google. Any ideas? TerraFrost 09:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
http://seattlepi.com/national/1103AP_Russia_Terrorist_Organizations.html - Hezbollah not on Russia's terrorist list.
What's more: Lavrov said that Russia's support for a Hezbollah role in decision-making in the Mideast crisis was shared by European countries and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. -G3, 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the article becomes too long, I proposed to move the history part.--Sa.vakilian 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I still want someone to explain to me why calling for the Death of America and Israel is not a part of ideology? Put it in context put it in quotes, You can't deny it's a major part of their rhetoric, it must be a part of ideology.