Talk:1978 South Lebanon conflict

Background

The background was rather sparse, missing many of the most famous attacks on Israel by Palestians from Lebanon, though it did seem to cover the most famous attacks by Israel on Palestinian or Lebanese targets. I've put in the major incidents in chronological order, incorporating all the existing material, as follows:

• On 26 December 1968 two Palestinian gunmen travelled from Beirut to Athens, and attacked an El Al jet there killing 1 person. In response, on 28 December 1968 Israeli Defense Force (IDF) troops destroyed 13 civilian aircraft in Beirut International Airport.
• On 8 May 1970 three Palestinian gunmen crossed the Lebanese border into the agricultural community of Avivim and ambushed the local schoolbus, killing nine children and three adults, and crippling 19 other children.
• Three PLO figures were assassinated in Beirut on 10 April 1973.
• On 11 April 1974 three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine infiltrated Kiryat Shmona from Lebanon, killing eighteen residents of an apartment building, including nine children; the terrorists were eventually killed in an exchange of fire with IDF forces.
• On 15 May 1974 members of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) who had infiltrated the Israeli border town of Ma'alot from Lebanon, killing five adults and taking grade 11 children in a local school hostage. They eventually shot 21 of the children, before being killed by IDF soldiers.
• On 5 March 1975 eight PLO gunmen travelled from Lebanon to Tel Aviv by sea in a rubber dinghy, entered the Savoy Hotel and took dozens of hostages. During the rescue mission three IDF soldiers were killed and eight hostages wounded; the PLO gunmen retreated to a room and attempted to blow themselves up, killing eight hostages and wounding 11, as well as killing seven of the POLO gunmen.
• On 11 March, 1978, 9 Fatah gunmen killed several tourists and hijacked a bus near Haifa. The bus was stormed by the IDF soldiers. The gunmen and all 37 Israelis were killed.

Jayjg 20:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not good enough. None of your additions have sources, not even the usual partisan websites. If you don't have sources, we can't take the word of somebody who has repeatedly made false claims (such as that the IRC only counted 320 bodies at Sabra and Shatila).

And please refrain from abusing admin rollback. You're hurting Wikipedia. --style 11:49, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you denying that these events occured? See List of terrorist incidents [1] [2][3][4][5] The 320 number for the IRC rep was sourced; it actually comes from an exhibit submitted to the Kahan Commission. As for unsourced and false claims, it was actually the claim that the ICRC counted over 2,000; where is that document? Jayjg 19:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Partisan websites such as Jewish virtual library and Palestine facts are not credible sources. You need to find a credible source, like I have provided.

And, again, this page is about Operation Litani, not about patterns you imagine you see in PLO's behaviour. If you want to start an article about [[PLO's bloodthirsy child killing patterns]], feel free to take a fling at it, and include the material there. As it is, it is a theory about the PLO, not information about Operation Litani. Please stop intersting extraneous political agenda information in this article. (Sound familiar?) --style 23:31, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

The multiple websites provided are more credible than anything you've provided; if you doubt the veracity of any of the incidents listed please explain which one and why. The background section about Operation Litani is about the background to Operation Litani, which is a series of incidents between Palestinian groups in Lebanon and Israel. The section itself already listed a number of incidents between Palestinian groups in Lebanon and Israel, going back for many years. I filled in the other major incidents. What would you suggest instead? As for your "analogy", weak as always; this is an article about an on-going conflict, not a biography of an individual. Jayjg 23:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that those blatantly partisan websites are more credible than Robert Fisk, an internationally claimed war reporter? I cannot understand that position. I cannot accept your version, you have not put your cites in the article itself, and, worse, you removed one of my cites again, for reasons I cannot gather. --style 10:51, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Fisk is well known for his highly political views; he is anything but impartial. In any event, I've provided sources, if you have sources which contradict them, feel free to provide them as well. Jayjg 16:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I've put your cite it; I'm glad to see you're willing to modify the previous false statement you had entered. Jayjg 16:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well can't see why it is POV while an important discussions was made in the talk section.

If one part of the discussion quits due to huge pressions against him, and beacuase he knew that he can't "fight" alone the disinformation made by a well-established zionist "mafia" in wikeipedia, that doesn't mean that the article is disputed.

And why just revert the article? You can delete the npov, and keep the other info. The other info are more trustful then the list of incidents you (or others) "create" and put without any trustful link provided.

The backgroung section is known for any person who can think, that is is made like that to justify the invasion (and justify the kill of lebanese civilians).. If you want to put a background, put an exact background.. Like why paestinians act from lebanon (and not from jordany), and why they attack Israel (you didn't say they were kicked from their land in 1948)... You didn't say about the israeli attacks against lebanon before the invasion and etc....

lots of things you should put you didn't.. and when people try to put them, you just revert them//

Not very NPOV for me... Addoula 10:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility (or any other editor's) to NPOV someone else's edits; rather, it is their responsibility to edit in a NPOV way to begin with. If there is other relevant information that should be entered, and is entered in a NPOV way, then I'm all for it. And please review the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those attacks are REAL and happened... don't just delete them saying "give sources".. Tell me how can i found an internet link, from an English website that talk about that? In 1978, there were no online newspapers, there was no internet at all...

And about the attacks against israel, can you provide a source? (not an israeli or zionist source, just an independant source) can you? i think not... And i am NOT attacking you... just look at NPOV and NPOV_dispute, you may understand better what is NPOV... Addoula 17:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your claims are very specific; they state casualty numbers, and that the casualties were all "civilians". Please provide sources for these claims; a quick internet check was not able to turn up any of them. If you can't provide any references, I will be forced to delete them again as unsubstantiated. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My dear friend... the people killed were all civilians, they were not palestinians, neither policemen, and not from the lebanese army. Hezbollah didn't exist at that time... If you want some links, here is some : [6] [allaahuakbar.net/jew/israeli_massacres.htm] [7] ... And don't say they are the lebanese or arab point of view... Generally those "small" massacres and attacks are not published in american websites, they only publishe massacre with more then 50 people killed, like the qana massacre, or they publish more recent attacks (since internet is widely used)... Addoula 10:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addoula's and Style's comments are quite comical. These terrorist attacks are all well documented, and the only sources who dispute them are the same websites that say the halocaust was a Zionist lie and Jews run the world, and even they admit most happened they just say they were justified because Jews are fair game and evil. It is hard to believe that someone claiming to be neutral would point the finger at a "Zionist Mafia" then expect people to take his word that he is unbiased. Then again I am sure websites called "DeathMasters" or "Allahakbar" would be completely neutral, oh wait Addoula said not to say they are Arab point of view so I guess they can't be. I am putting Jayg comments back on the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Text from History of Lebanon Article

I think some or all of this may find a proper home here. Kaisershatner 16:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In August, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin was re-elected, and in September, Begin and his defense minister Ariel Sharon began to lay plans for a second invasion of Lebanon for the purpose of driving out the PLO. Sharon's intention was to "destroy the PLO military infrastructure and, if possible, the PLO leadership itself; this would mean attacking West Beirut, where the PLO headquarters and command bunkers were located" (Smith, op. cit., p. 377). Sharon also wanted to "ensure the presidency of Bashir Gemayel, to be elected under Israeli auspices....As a payment for Israeli assistance, Sharon expected Gemayel, once installed as president, to sign a peace treaty with Israel, presumably stabilizing forever Israel's northern border" (Ibid.). Begin brought Sharon's plan before the Knesset in December 1981; however, after strong objections were raised, Begin felt compelled to set the plan aside. But Sharon continued to press the issue. In January 1982, Sharon met with Gemayel on an Israeli vessel off the coast of Lebanon and discussed a plan "that would bring Israeli forces as far north as the edge of Beirut International Airport" (Time, February 15, 1982, cited in Chomsky, op. cit., 195). In February, with Begin's input, Yehoshua Seguy, the chief of military intelligence, was sent to Washington to discuss the issue of Lebanon with Secretary of State Alexander Haig. In the meeting, Haig "stressed that there could be no assault without a major provocation from Lebanon" (Smith, op. cit., p. 378).

Thus far, there had not been such a provocation; in fact, during the entire effective period of the cease-fire, August 1981 to May 1982, there was a total of one PLO rocket attack from Lebanese territory, in May. The attack was a retaliation for Israel's May 9 bombing of PLO positions in Lebanon, which was itself a retaliation for the PLO bombing of a Jerusalem bus. (Chomsky, op. cit., p. 196-7.) This particular exchange points up a central problem with the cease-fire from the Israeli perspective: it applied only to the border with Lebanon, meaning that PLO attacks from other locations, such as Jordan and the West Bank, could (and did) continue unabated, while an Israeli response directed against the PLO in Lebanon would technically be a violation of the cease-fire. Arafat, for his part, refused to condemn attacks occuring outside of Lebanon, on the grounds that the cease-fire was only relevant to the Lebanese theater. (Smith, op. cit., p. 376). Arafat's interpretation underscored the fact that the cease-fire agreement did nothing to address ongoing violence between the PLO and Israel in other theaters. Israel thus continued to weather PLO attacks throughout the cease-fire period; at the same time, it violated the terms of the cease-fire by committing "2125 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters" from August 1981 to May 1982, including the abovementioned May 9 bombing and the April 21 bombing of coastal PLO targets south of Beirut (Chomsky, op. cit., p. 195; the figures on territorial violations are cited by Alexander Cockburn & James Ridgeway, Village Voice, June 22, 1982, quoting UN records).

Not here; I suggest this belongs to the 1982 (Big/Little Pines) invasion of Lebanon, not 1978 (Operation Litani) invasion. Joffan 19:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Yuber and Guy, please discuss your differences here on talk without continually reverting to previous versions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to put in some compromise wording. In particular, as I am not sure that everyone here is a native speaker of English, I would like to emphasize that "attack" is significantly stronger and pejorative compared to "invasion." So this back and forth makes no sense at all, as it is opposite to Guy'a and Yuber's apparent POVs. Otherwise I tried to keep all the disputed material in here, whether or not I thought it was relevant or correct, and tried to meld Guy's and Yuber's wording where I thought it would help. I think it is a good thing that people fight about things they care about here, but I think the process should converge, however slowly, and people should argue about specific texts one by one. After all, what's the point of writing something that is completely impermanent, never getting to a text which might not be your preferred one, but is an acceptable compromise?--John Z 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, if you revert one more time cited information that is relevent, this page will be locked. Syrian withdrawal is relevent because it relates to UN SC Resolution 425. Read the article first.

Guy Montag 02:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. What does Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon have to do with it?Yuber^(talk) 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must be dealing with a blind man. It says:"The twenty nine year Syrian military occupation of Lebanon has led to UN Security Council Resolution 1559 demanding the remaining 14,000 (of 50,000 originally) Syrian troop withdrawal and the dismantling of Hezbollah and Palestinian militias."

Can you read that Yuber? I bolded it just for you since you have a tendency to not read and erase what you don't like. That Withdrawal directly relates to that passage; that is why it is directly beneath what I bolded. I am not dealing with your nonsense anymore.

Guy Montag 01:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the request for page protection, isn't it possible for you both to reach an agreement instead? Yuber, it would be best to find a source other than Fisk for precise figures because he has a tendency to exaggerate. Guy, I don't see the need for a separate section on Syrian withdrawal. I'd probably just tack it onto the end of the last paragraph, like this:

The 29-year Syrian military occupation of Lebanon led to UN Security Council Resolution 1559 demanding that the remaining 14,000 (of 50,000 originally) Syrian troops withdraw, and that the Hezbollah and Palestinian militias be dismantled. Following the passage of this resolution, and in the aftermath of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the last Syrian troops left Lebanon on April 26,2005. [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Resolution 425 has nothing to do with Syria, it is only about Israel.Yuber^(talk) 04:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy and Yuber - none of the disputed sections were "mine" and I don't vouch for their accuracy or relevance, so please don't call them mine. As I didn't want to censor anyone, I just put together a version that contained all the disputed edits, which I thought "belonged" to one of you.--John Z 12:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli occupation

We cannot call Syria's presence an occupation and Israel's not an occupation. It's either they both are, or they both aren't.

Here's a source showing that Israel withdrew its own forces: After consultations throughout the weekend, the Security Council this afternoon endorsed the work done by the United Nations as mandated by the Security Council, including the Secretary-General’s conclusion that, as of 16 June, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Yuber^(talk) 00:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a new article where this can be discussed: Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Yuber^(talk) 01:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, WP:POINT is a terrible reason for creating an article. Please stop doing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who made this earlier edit [9]? I thought there was an agreement that either both are presences or both are occupations. Yuber^(talk) 01:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, I'm talking about the article you created for WP:POINT, please don't try to re-direct. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber stated: "We cannot call Syria's presence an occupation and Israel's not an occupation. It's either they both are, or they both aren't." I understand your point, however after the inital Israeli invasion of lebanon they really only controlled south lebanon through the SLA, while Syria continued to station it's own troops in Lebanon. So in my opinion, presence is an accurate word, as long as it is used to only refer to the time period after the initial invasion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but that is just POV-pushing and you are just trying to make your POV seem neutral. Israel had military forces in its "security-zone" for 18 years and the UN and the international community verified this. When Israel withdrew its forces, the SLA was overrun by Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. Yuber^(talk) 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow Yuber, that is amazing that you can just read my mind like that, are you pyschic? Give me a break, how could you be so pretentious as to presume you know my motives? 1. Israel definitely occupied Lebanon for a substantial period of time. 2. After the war became increasingly unpopular back home they withdrew to the 20 mile strip in south lebanon, to avoid taking casualties they left the defence of this area up to the SLA which they supplied and supported. 3. Since Israel actually had very few soldiers in south lebanon it is better described as a presence instead of a military occupation. I am not saying that in this situation it was any better but it is still what it was. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If there's a controversy about the name (occupation or presence), it's not for you to decide. If there's in the world different views you should include them in the article after stating which party support it. The only thing you should discuss is the title which is luckily totally NPOV. As for your method, they're wrong and misleading. First, no one is putting evidence or references, he's just stating his own point, which would be called original research. And why this discussion has turned into a political battle to proove who's right? Wikipedia is not a place for this. I recommend you to take example from the introduction of the Hezbollah article, which may be the only Lebanese controversial article that is NPOV. All views are stated and by which parties. In addition it's written that Hezbollah has an army, but also that he runs hospitals. A perfectly NPOV intro.
And if the military presence of Syria in Lebanon is used as an argument, it shouldn't because this very name is still POV and under discussion in Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Finally, I'll state my point of view: The Syrian presence wasn't an occupation in the usual meaning of the word. There wasn't a Syrian invasion, it was invited. It could be compared to the Soviet Union pressure on its satellit countries, which aren't called as an occupation in Wikipedia. Anyway, it isn't the place to discuss this, go instead to Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
I'm also opposing to the fact that Israeli-users aren't taking the UN POV as a reference, Which I find it very NPOV. A similar thing happened on the article Qana where the word massacre was ommited even if it was recognised as this by the UN.
One last thing, Yuber and Guy Montag, your revert wars are really annoying the community. Please before doing any edits discuss it. It's ok if the article remains POV a little time as long as a consensus is reached. CG 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You are suggesting that we have to accept the UN's viewpoint or else we are being POV? That is so ridiculous as to be comical. I reverted Yuber's edit once, that is hardly a revert war. Did you join this argument just to act superior to other editors? If so I think it would make sense to at least pretend you are unbiased.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong. I'm not here to act superiority or to threat anyone, but it's my right to criticise some editors' methods. About the UN's neglected viewpoint, but also about some editors trying to express therir own viewpoint. We don't care about these POVs but about each party opinion involved in any article, with good references. What is sometimes done is to find a compromise instead of embracing all opinions. CG 11:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've found a compromise by removing the contentious bit of text altogether. It didn't add anything to the article, and the UN Resolution it referred to didn't mention occupation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

My understanding is that now the article is essentially a copy-paste from http://operation-litani.biography.ms/. I do not believe the source is entirely reliable, so the totallydisputed tag is probably justified.--Pecher 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That link is actually a copy of this article, rather than the reverse. Do you have any specific objections to the content here? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The previous version of the article called PLO terrorists who perpetrated the Coastal Road massacre "seaborne commandos", probably the low point of terrorism whitewash in Wikipedia. I have have reworded the sentence, though. The sections on the course and consequences of fighting are mostly based on Robert Fisk's writings, though he is neither a scholarly, nor a neutral sources. For example, the statement that "With Israeli aid, the SLA continually harassed UNIFIL." is heavily biased and not supported by the rest of the section. I have placed the tags in those two sections.--Pecher 11:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction misleads the reader on the UN Security Council decisions. Resolution 425 calls on an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon before deciding on creating an interim force. The resolution is more important than the force itself and if any of them to be mentioned in the introduction, it is the resolution. Cheers--A rihani 09:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The suggested introduction is as follows, please comment. --A rihani 10:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Litani was the official name of the Israel Defense Forces 1978 invasion of Lebanon up to the Litani river. It was a military success, as PLO forces were pushed north of the river. The Lebanese claims led the United Nations Security Council to adopt Resolution 425, which called on Israel for an immediate withdrawal and created the interim peacekeeping force, UNIFIL. Following Reolution 425, Israel carried out a partial withdrawal which was followed by another invasion four years later.

The above intro will replace the current one in 24 hours if no comments were posted. Cheers--A rihani 10:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares for your blackmailing attempts: "say something or else". You've already inserted that into several times. Please remember that the intro is meant to summarize the article, not to repeat it, and the current intro does a fairly decent job at summarizing. Pecher ^Talk 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, blackmail is something I will never consider doing. I am sorry that you took it that way. Apologies for all. Anyways, the introduction is better now. However, I do not think it does its job in summarizing the article because a major consequence of the invasion is Resolution 425 which calls on immediate withdrawal and decides on sending peacekeeping forces. I would appreciate if you better explain your point of view against mentioning that resolution. Cheers--A rihani 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why "Partial withdrawl"?

According to all I know, Israel withrew completely from Lebanon by June 1978. Do you have any sources to the contrary?85.250.252.140 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"The background was rather sparse, missing many of the most famous attacks on Israel by Palestians from Lebanon, though it did seem to cover the most famous attacks by Israel on Palestinian or Lebanese targets."

Well, now Wikipedia has done the opposite - this article overwhelmingly focuses on attacks by Palestinians from Lebanon on Israel, but downplays attacks on Lebanese and Palestinians targets by Israel. The article should let us know the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians from 1969 to 1978 and the number of Palestinians and Lebanese killed by Israel from 1969 to 1978. Even worse, the article only gives one sentence to the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Operation Litani.

Talking about the background to Operation Litani, it's also worth noting that,with the exception of the Coastal Road Massacre, virtually all the attacks Jayig mentions occured in 1975 or before. As Benny Morris writes, "By 1975-6 the IDF had managed substantially to seal the northern border and the Meditteranean coastline against PLO incurisions. The main means were the electronically monitored barbed-wire fence, flanked by minefields, which stretched from the slopes of Mount Hermon to the Meditteranean; ambushes and patrols, many of them inside Lebanese territory; and land, air and sea radar and other surveillance systems" (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p.499).

This article takes as its starting point that Operation Litani was to protect Israeli civilians, and doesn't even entertain the Palestinian viewpoint that the Coastal Road Massacre was a pretext, and that the real purpose of Operation Litanti being to weaken or destroy the PLO as a political force. Let me quote Noam Chomsky (if Jayig can quote the Jewish Virtual Library, I can quote Chomsky):

"From the early 1970s, Lebanon was drawn into the conflict as a result of cross-border PLO terror and far more destructive Israeli attacks on Lebanon, sometimes retaliatory, often not. Thus in February 1973, Israeli forces attacked north of Beirut, killing many civilians, in a raid justified as preemptive. In December 1975, Israeli bombing killed over 50 Lebanese in an attack Israel described as "preventive, not punitive"; it appears to have been a reaction to the UN Security Council meeting debating the diplomatic settlement that Israel opposed and Washington vetoed. There are many other examples. " (Israel, Lebanon, and the "Peace Process", Noam Chomsky, Z Magazine, April 23, 1996)

Similarly, this is what the Egyptian Daily Al-Ahram (March 17, 1978) wrote at the time of Operation Litani:

"[The Israeli occupation of South Lebanon] indicates that Israeli intends to add new cards to the hands she hopes to use for exerting pressure and bargaining in future negotiations, cards that will be taken from the Arab hand."

And the Jordanian Daily Al-Dustur (March 16, 1978) wrote that: "The slogan of vengeance was used as a cover for other motives. These motives were essentially political....Washington and Tel Aviv, and some Arab Capitals, all want to see a different 'Palestinian legitimacy' from the present one, and as the Arabs concerned have been unable to effect this change, it was decided that Israel could pave the way for it by striking at the basic material of the present legitimacy - the fighting Palestinian."

The Palestinian viewpoint may be wrong, but it violates the mission of Wikipedia to leave it out of the article. --Peter FH 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New standard name

Name changed in acccordance to the guidelines. Operation Litani was Israeli-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLA patch.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Preamble

I've added some history relating to this conflict at Maroun al-Ras. It details events starting March 1, 1978, two weeks prior to the invasion. __meco (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I still believe this article is amiss for not including mention of that. __meco (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/bb095796d02d589785256b910058cc00!OpenDocument
  • In History of Lebanon on 2011-03-29 15:05:24, 404 Not Found
  • In 1978 South Lebanon conflict on 2011-05-25 04:48:43, 404 Not Found
  • In 1978 South Lebanon conflict on 2011-06-07 00:35:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:South Lebanon Army Patch.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1978 South Lebanon conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624033011/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1977-1979/133%20Statement%20to%20the%20press%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1977-1979/133%20Statement%20to%20the%20press%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

10,000 killed

10,000 Lebanese and PalestiniNs were killed according to Robert Fisk. Intro is biased and not sourced Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2024

The sentence "On 19 April 1978, the SLA shelled UNIFIL headquarters, killing 8 UN soldiers" citing Robert Fisk's 'Pity the Nation' is incorrect; Fisk reports that they were wounded. Source from the book quoted below.

"At midnight on 19 April 1978, UNIFIL headquarters was attacked with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machineguns; six Irish and two Dutch soldiers were wounded." Cloutician (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rainsage (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)