
Hezbollah (Arabic language حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a political and military organization in Lebanon founded in 1982 to fight Israel in southern Lebanon. It is regarded by most in the Arab and Muslim world as a legitimate, militant, Shia political party in Lebanon, and by the Israeli government and several Western governments as an Islamic fundamentalist, or Islamism, terrorism organization. The organization was conceived in 1983 as a guerrilla group, started by Lebanese clerics and financed by Iran, to oppose the 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of southern Lebanon. Some critics argue that the real reason it was set up by Iran was to spread the Iranian Revolution into Lebanon and throughout the Arab world. It maintains an active fighting force, or militia, known as the Islamic Resistance. In addition to its military wing, Hezbollah maintains a civilian arm, which runs hospitals, schools, orphanages and a television station. After the Lebanese general election, 2005, Hezbollah held 23 seats (up from eight previously) in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament. It is primarily active in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. The group is headed by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and is financed largely by Iran and Syria, though it also raises funds itself through charities and commercial activities. ==Designations== Hezbollah has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States [http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2450.htm] the United Kingdom [http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/lebanon/intro/], Canada [http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/eng/publications/advisories/index_supervisory.asp?#Supter][http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/eng/documents/advisories/docs/entstld.txt] and Australia [http://www.ag.gov.au/www/attorneygeneralHome.nsf/Alldocs/9F22AF531A4693F2CA256D66007C1F14?OpenDocument]; the U.S. Department of State notes that Hezbollah has killed more than 300 American citizens (over 200 of whom were United States Marine Corps in Lebanon.) Russia has only recently begun to draw up a list of organizations it classifies as terrorist, which may reflect that of the EU [http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7029-5.cfm]. The European Union has designated Hezbollah's so-called External Security Organization or international wing as "terrorist," which can be construed to afford legitimacy to the group's political wing. On March 10 2005 the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (473 in favor 33 against) on a resolution branding Hezbollah in whole as a terrorist organization. The resolution stated that the "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them"[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/550729.html]. The EU has also decided to block Hezbollah's Al-Manar television from European satellites due to its anti-Semitic content[http://www.daneshjoo.org/publishers/currentnews/printer_1668.shtml]. The United Nations has not included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups (which is just being drawn up). However it has called for the disbanding of Hezbollah's military wing in the UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Hezbollah has denounced some acts of terror, like the September 11, 2001 attacks[http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah2.html] and the murder of Nick Berg[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3710057.stm]. However, as a stated aim of Hezbollah is the destruction of the state of Israel, it expresses support [http://www.unb.ca/web/bruns/9900/issue14/intnews/israel.html] for the activities of Hamas, an Islamist group responsible for suicide attacks inside the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as inside Israel itself. Using names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization, Hezbollah is also believed by the United States to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Army colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy (journalist), the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan (writer/hostage). Hezbollah was also implicated in the suicide truck bombings that killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut in 1983; the 1984 truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 24; the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome; the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, which killed 29; and the 1994 bombing in Argentina of a Jewish community center, which killed 95. Hezbollah denies involvement in some or all of these attacks. Hezbollah's role in the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon gained the organization widespread respect in Lebanon, particularly among the country's Shia community, which makes up 40% of Lebanon's three million citizens. The List of Presidents of Lebanon, Émile Lahoud, said: "For us Lebanese, and I can tell you a majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement." [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/main550000.shtml]. However, others in Lebanon, particularly the Christian community, criticize the movement as extremist and divisive. The continued existence of Hezbollah's military wing, and its presence on the Israeli border, violates the Taif Agreement that ended the Lebanese civil war, which stipulates the "disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" and requires the government to "deploy the Lebanese army in the border area adjacent to Israel." The Lebanese government has evidenced no interest in enforcing this aspect of the agreement. Some argue that Hezbollah is being used by Syria and Iran as a proxy against Israel.[http://www.merip.org/mero/mero042803.html] On September 2, 2004 the UN Security Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1559, authored by France and the U.S. in an uncommon show of cooperation. Echoing the Taif Agreement, the resolution "calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon" and "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." Lebanon is currently in violation of Resolution 1559 over its refusal to disband the military wing of Hezbollah. Syria was also in violation of the resolution until recently because of their military presence in Lebanon. On October 7, 2004 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council regarding the lack of compliance with Resolution 1559. Mr. Annan concluded his report by saying: "It is time, 14 years after the end of hostilities and four years after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for all parties concerned to set aside the remaining vestiges of the past. The withdrawal of foreign forces and the disbandment and disarmament of militias would, with finality, end that sad chapter of Lebanese history." [http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12147&Cr=lebanon&Cr1=] The January 20, 2005 UN Secretary-General's report on Lebanon states: "The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The Government of Lebanon should heed the Council’s repeated calls for the parties to respect the Blue Line in its entirety." [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8299.doc.htm] On January 28, 2005 UN Security Council Resolution 1583 called upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of sufficient numbers of Lebanese armed and security forces, to ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8299.doc.htm] == Names == The word حزب الله is transliterated in a number of ways. A scientific transliteration would be hizbu l-llahi. Hezbollah is used by CNN and the BBC. It is also written as Hizbullah, Hizballah, Hizbollah, Hezbullah, and Hizb Allah, which is used by Al-Jazeera. Hezbollah is also known as Al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (''Islamic Resistance''), Organization of the Oppressed, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of Right Against Wrong, and Followers of the Prophet Muhammed. [source: Canada's United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations (SCHEDULE 1), SOR/2001-360, Registration: 2 October, 2001][http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor1-360/whole.html] == History == Hezbollah was formed from numerous other Lebanese Shia groups shortly after Israel's 1982 invasion of the mainly Shia southern part of Lebanon. The group was conceived by Iran, or at least was aided in its inception by the arrival in Lebanon of 1,500 Revolutionary Guards from Iran, three years after that country's own Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran, as an Islamic republic -- a Shia one -- remains a close ally, financial backer, arms supplier and model for Hezbollah. Syria backs Hezbollah morally and has also supplied it with money and arms. In return, Hezbollah protects Syria's interests in Lebanon and serving as a card for Damascus to play in its own confrontation with Israel over the occupation of the Golan Heights.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm] === Combat Operations === ==== Prior to 2000 ==== ''Main article'': Hezbollah (Pre-2000) After emerging during the civil war of the early 1980s as an Iranian-sponsored second militia (besides Amal) for Lebanon's Shia community, Hezbollah focused on expelling Israeli and Western forces from Lebanon. It is the principal suspect in several notable attacks on the American, French and Italian Multinational peacekeeping force, whose claimed purpose was the stabilization of Lebanon: the suicide bombings of the April 1983 US Embassy bombing, which killed 63 including 17 Americans, of the USMC barracks in Beirut (see Marine Barracks Bombing), which killed 241 American servicemen, and of the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. Seven months after the US withdrew its forces from Lebanon a second attack upon the United States embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984 killed 20 people including 2 Americans[http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/20/newsid_2525000/2525197.stm]. Elements of the group have been linked to involvement in kidnapping, detention and torture of American and other Western hostages in Lebanon by groups such as Islamic Jihad who claimed the hostage-takings were in retaliation to the detentions, hostage-taking and torture by the Israeli ally South Lebanon Army (SLA). After the Israelis were forced out of central Lebanon, by a variety of Lebanese armies including Hezbollah, they occupied a so-called "security zone" along the southern border. During the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah fought the SLA and IDF. Despite being greatly outnumbered, it soon became an opponent to be reckoned with. Casualties inflicted by Hezbollah were a major factor in Israel's decision to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. Aside from fighting the IDF in Lebanon Hezbollah may have been involved in international terrorism. In 1992 and 1994, Hezbollah is claimed to have carried out the Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires and the AMIA Bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Eight days after the AMIA Bombing the Israeli Embassy Attack in London in London was car bombed by two Palestinians linked to Hezbollah. ==== 2000 and Later==== In January 2000, Hezbollah assassinated the commander of the South Lebanon Army Western Brigade, Colonel Aql Hashem, at his home in the security zone. Hashem had been responsible for day to day operations of the SLA.[http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/lebanon/ind01b_lebanon_ca.pdf] In May 22 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon to the UN-agreed Israeli border, and their pullout was certified by the UN as complete[http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000618.sc6878.doc.html]. However, Hezbollah claims the Shebaa Farms area, which is still occupied by Israel, to be Lebanese territory, and on that basis has continued to attack Israeli forces in that area. For more details see: History of Lebanon. Israel continues to overfly Lebanese territory, eliciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General's representative in Lebanon. Hezbollah's anti-aircraft fire has on some occasions landed within the northern border region of Israel, inciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General [http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=449]. On November 7, 2004, Hezbollah responded to what it described as repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace by flying an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle over northern Israel.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3990773.stm] With the aid of a local UN peacekeeping force, Hezbollah snatched the bodies of three IDF soldiers during an October 2000 attack in Shebaa Farms, and sought to obtain the release of 14 Lebanese prisoners, some of whom had been held since 1978. On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah and Israel agreed on an exchange of prisoners. The prisoner swap was carried out on January 29: 30 Lebanese and Arab prisoners, the remains of 60 Lebanese militants and civilians, 420 Palestinian prisoners, and maps showing Israeli mines in South Lebanon were exchanged for an Israeli businessman and army reserve colonel kidnapped in 2001 and the remains of the three IDF soldiers mentioned above. On July 19, 2004, a senior Hezbollah official, Ghaleb Awwali, was assassinated in a car bombing in Beirut. Hezbollah blamed Israel; credit was claimed, and then retracted, by a previously unheard of Sunni group called Jund Ash Sham, while Israel denied involvement[http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/07/19/story157767.asp]. According to Al-Arabiya, unidentified Lebanese police also identified the group as a cover for Israel[http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aGFhFUAb_8d0&refer=top_world_news]. Israel alleges that Hezbollah had been increasingly involved in training and arming the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas (see section in this article: ''Hezbollah activities in the al-Aqsa Intifada''.) This claim has been strengthened by Nasrallah's own words. In 2001 Jordan arrested 3 Hezbollah members attempting to smuggle Katyusha rockets into the West Bank. Nasrallah responded that "it is a duty to send arms to Palestinians from any possible place."[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/lebanon/2004/0914lcard.htm][http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6519] After Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin Hezbollah attacked the IDF along the Blue Line (Lebanon)[http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=1315&categ_ID=2&edition_id=1]. Most recently, during Awwali's funeral, Nasrallah proclaimed that Aawali was "among the team that dedicated their lives in the last few years to help their brothers in occupied Palestine"[http://www.moqawama.org/archive/drep_2004/july/dr_0720.htm], which some take to refer to aiding Hamas. On February 9, 2005 Palestinian Authority officials blamed Hezbollah of attempting to derail the recent truce between Israel and Palestine by offering increased funding and bonuses to the militant cells it operates in Israel and Palestine for any terrorist attack they carry out[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050209/wl_nm/mideast_hizbollah_dc ][http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hezbollah_threat ]. === Hezbollah activities in the al-Aqsa Intifada === ''Main article'': al-Aqsa Intifada In December 2001 three Hezbollah operatives were caught in Jordan while attempting to smuggle Katyusha rockets into the West Bank. Nasrallah responded that "It is a duty to send arms to Palestinians from any possible place."[http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6519] During 2002, 2003 and 2004, the Israeli Security Forces thwarted numerous suicide bombing attacks, some of which Israel claims were planned and funded by Hezbollah and were to have been carried out by Tanzim activists. Israeli officials accused Hezbollah of aiding Palestinian terrorism and participating in weapon smuggling (see also: Santorini, Karin A). After the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing (October 4, 2003) the Israeli Air Force bombed what were described as terrorist facilities in ''Ein-Saheb'' as a warning to Syria. On June 16, 2004, two Palestinian girls - aged 14 and 15 were arrested by the Israeli Defence Forces for plotting a suicide bombing. [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/439981.html] According to IDF statement, the two minors were recurited by Tanzim (Fatah's armed wing) activists, and guided by Hezbollah. [http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=32081.EN] On June 23, 2004, another allegedly Hezbollah-funded suicide bombing attack was foiled by the Israeli security forces. [http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=8960] . In February 2005 the Palestinian Authority accused Hezbollah of attempting to derail the truce signed with Israel. Palestinian officials and former militants described how Hezbollah promised an increase in funding for any cell able to carry out a terrorist attack [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hezbollah_threat]. == Political Activities == Hezbollah is an active participant in the political life and processes of Lebanon, and its scope of operation is far beyond its initial militant one. In 1992, it participated in elections for the first time, winning 12 out of 128 seats in parliament. It won 10 seats in 1996, and now holds 8. In the 2005 elections a pro-Syrian Amal_Party-Hezbollah alliance won all 23 seats in southern Lebanon. Since the end of the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon on May 22 2000, Hezbollah has been involved in activities like building schools, clinics, and hospitals. == Foreign relations == [[Image:BND Hezbollah.jpg|thumb|right|Good Foreign Relations: President of the German intelligence service Bundesnachrichtendienst in front of a flag of Lebanon and a Hezbollah flag, January 30, 2004]] Hezbollah claims that it forbids its fighters entry into Iraq for any reason, and that no Hezbollah units or individual fighters have entered Iraq to support any Iraqi faction fighting America. However, on April 2, 2004, Muqtada al-Sadr announced his intention to form chapters of Hezbollah and Hamas in Iraq [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/middleeast/05SADR.html?8bl]. He is not known to have consulted Hezbollah or Hamas before making this statement. Hezbollah has no known links to Al-Qaida. Though Hezbollah has a Shia ideology, this does not exclude it from co-operation with Sunni groups. However, Al-Qaida and the Taliban, which are respectively a Wahhabi and a Deobandi group, have long histories of conflict with Shia groups and with Iran in particular, Hezbollah's strongest backer. Hezbollah is closely allied with Iran and has a complex relationship with Syria. Hezbollah is strongly anti-Zionism, anti-Western World, and anti-Israeli. It is widely believed that Hafez al-Assad and Hezbollah were closely linked; this did not significantly affect his relations with the rest of the world. Bashar al-Assad, his son and successor, has been subjected to sanctions by the United States due to (among other things, such as occupying Lebanon) his continued support for Hezbollah, which it views as a terrorist organization. However, on March 3, 2005, the Bush administration would consider Hezbollah legitimate if it disarmed, but also said that this did not represent a change in their view of the organization, which is unlikely to do so.[http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7869278] Those who consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization consider its sponsors (in particular Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) to stand in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and UN Security Council Resolution 1566. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantling of Hezbollah and all other militias. Israel has lodged continuous complaints[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/2005131e10c4ac7485256cb10053e171!OpenDocument] about Hezbollah's actions. Israel has bombed several Syrian targets in retaliation for terrorist and guerrilla attacks by Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that Israel claims were sponsored by Syria. An Israeli official said that those attacks are a "message to Syria to stop sponsoring terrorism". The pro-Iranian Hezbollah stands out among those who benefit from the Kremlin's support. Vladimir Putin`s declarations about "Russia's uncompromising battle against international terrorism" are taking place simultaneously with the contacts of the [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah1.htm Russian Ministry of foreign Affairs with the leaders of Hezbollah]. Their emissaries in Russia [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah3.htm recruit potential suicide bombers without] restraint or opposition on behalf of the local authorities. They purchase arms in the areas of the ex-USSR, which are now under Russian control. [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah4.htm Russian ex-military experts train militants of Hezbollah before they infiltrate Iraq]. == Ideology == The organization views an Islamic republic, on the Iranian model, as the ideal and eventual form of state. However, as their conception of an Islamic republic requires the consent of the people, and Lebanon remains a religiously and ideologically heterogeneous society, their political platform revolves around more mundane issues. According to their published political platform in 2003, Hezbollah claims to favor the introduction of an Islamic government in Lebanon by peaceful democratic means. According to the United States Department of State and reports submitted to Defense Technical Information Center (among other United States agencies) as late as 2001, the organization is seeking to create an fundamentalist Iranian-style Islamic republic and removal of all non-Islamic influences. Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[http://www.unb.ca/web/bruns/9900/issue14/intnews/israel.html] and co-operates with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal. == Media operations == Hezbollah operates a satellite television station from Lebanon, ''Al-Manar (TV station)'' TV ("the Lighthouse") as well as a radio station, ''al-Nour'' ("the light"). ''Qubth Ut Alla'' ("The Fist of God") is the monthly magazine of Hezbollah's paramilitary wing. They are watched widely by West Bank and Gazan Palestinians as well as Lebanese Muslims. The broadcasting of Al Manar in France (even via satellite, not by any station based on French territory) is controversial. It has been accused of promoting religious and racial hatred (against the Jews), which is a criminal offense in France. On December 13, 2004, the French ''Conseil d'État'', acting on the request of the French TV authorities, issued an injunction to Eutelsat to cease the broadcasting of Al Manar in France. ([http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0460.shtml full text of the decision], [http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/actual/index_ac_lc0418.shtml press release], in French language; [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4093579.stm BBC report]). ==See also== Anti-Israel movements | Arab-Israeli conflict | Axis of evil | Council on American-Islamic Relations | Foreign relations of Iran | Foreign relations of Lebanon | History of Lebanon | Imad Mugniyah | Islam | Islam as a political movement | Islamic Terrorism | Islamism | Katyusha | List of terrorist groups | Politics of Lebanon | Qassam rocket | Special Force (computer game) | War on Terrorism | William Francis Buckley == External links, resources, and references== ===Official site=== *[http://www.hizbollah.org/ Hizbollah] (an [http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm English version] is also available) * [http://www.manartv.com Al-Manar TV Network] * [http://www.al-nour.net Al-Nour radio] ===UN Resolutions regarding Lebanon=== * [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm UN Press Release SC/8181] UN, September 2, 2004 * [http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11823&Cr=Lebanon&Cr1= Lebanon: Close Security Council vote backs free elections, urges foreign troop pullout] UN, September 2, 2004 * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3622260.stm UN vote due on Syria resolution] BBC, September 2, 2004 * [http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040901/wl_mideast_afp/un_syria_lebanon_040901185248 US draft resolution at UN demands respect for Lebanon's sovereignty] AFP, September 2, 2004 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1391 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1496 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1559 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1583 ''See also: History of Lebanon'' ===United States Department of State=== ''see also: United States Department of State'' * This article incorporates text from the United States Department of State, "[http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm Background Information on Foreign Terrorist Organizations]," released by the Office of Counterterrorism, October 8, 1999. * This article also in incorporates text from the United States Department of State, "[http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/fto1999.htm Foreign Terrorist Organizations]," Secretary of State, October 8, 1999. ===Information=== * [http://www.hizbollah.org/english/info.htm Hizbollah.org] identity and goals * ''Hizbullah: Politics and Religion'' by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, (Pluto Press Ltd, 2001), ISBN 0745317936 * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm What is Hezbollah] BBC, March 2005 * [http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Terrorism/Terrorist_Organizations/Hizballah/ Open Directory Project - ''Hizballah''] directory category *[http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Lebanon/Government/Politics/Parties/ Yahoo - ''Hezbollah''] directory category * [http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/hezbollah.html Hezbollah: Lebanon, Islamists], Council on Foreign Relations * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn42.htm Hezbollah in Profile], Parliament of Australia ([http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn42.pdf PDF] version) * Abridged translation of "''[http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm Nass al-Risala al-Maftuha allati wajahaha Hizballah ila-l-Mustad'afin fi Lubnan wa-l-Alam]''" (Hizballah Program), February 16, 1985 in al-Safir (Beirut). *[http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/15/cp.00.html CNN transcripts] * [http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/hezbollah/ Rotten.com article on Hezbollah] ===Articles=== * [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah1.htm Dangerous liaisons: covert "love affair" between Russia and Hezbollah] Michel Elbaz, AIA, May 28 2005 * [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050209/wl_nm/mideast_hizbollah_dc Palestinians Say Hizbollah Trying to Wreck Truce] Diala Saadeh, Reuters, February 9 2005 * [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hezbollah_threat Hezbollah May Be Threat to Mideast Truce] Mohammed Daraghmeh, Associated Press, February 9, 2005 * [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/479049.html Iranian arrested photographing Israeli Embassy in Azerbaijan] Amos Harel and Yossi Melman, Haaretz, September 20, 2004 * [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/lebanon/2004/0914lcard.htm Hizballah and Syria's "Lebanese Card"] Nicholas Blanford, Middle East Online Report, September 14, 2004 * [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=7297 UNIFIL keeps constant watch in South Lebanon] The Daily Star, August 13, 2004 * [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6519 Sticking to the rules in South Lebanon] The Daily Star, July 23, 2004 * [http://www.mafhoum.com/press7/190P8.htm In Search of Hezbollah], by Adam Shatz New York Review of Books, April 29, 2004 * [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=1315&categ_ID=2&edition_id=1 Nasrallah to Hamas: We are under your command] The Daily Star, March 29, 2004 * [http://www.merip.org/mero/mero042803.html Hezbollah in the Firing Line]. Middle East Report, April 28, 2003 * Zisser, Eyal, "''[http://www.meforum.org/article/499 The Return of Hizbullah]''". Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2003. * Westcott, Kathryn, "''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm Who are Hezbollah?]''", BBC News Online *[http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_l1.htm ''MEIB'' Hezbollah: Between Tehran and Damascus by Gary C. Gambill and Ziad K. Abdelnour] * "''[http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Hezbollah.html Liberals, Labor, ABC unite against Hezbollah but are they telling the truth]''?" * '[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=247609&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 Arms from Iraq caused blast at Hezbollah base]' * [http://www.meib.org/articles/9909_l5.htm ''MEIB'' Hezbollah is Recruiting Europeans for Terrorist Attacks against Israel] Islamist groups Arab-Israeli conflict National liberation movements Political parties in Lebanon Jihadist organizations
==Peacekeeping?== If "peacekeeping" is put in scare quotes all the time, then "defensive" and all the other claims regarding Hezbollah should also be put in scare quotes. Either adhere to NPOV or stop pretending to. :NO. The Hezbollah was formed gradually after 3 years of Israeli state terrorism and Israel's outrageous refusal to leave Lebanon in defiance of UN Security Council's Resolution 425. So they were truly defending themselves and their territory. The US presence at that time, however, was clearly to support Israel (what else is new?) under the dastardly guise of "peace keeping". If USA truly wanted to create peace in Lebanon at that time, it would pressure Israel to withdraw its occupying forces from Lebanon. Therefore, editorially speaking, "defense" in the article needs not be enquoted, but "peacekeeping" clearly does. ::Hey anon user-- you seem like a reasonable and articulate person, why dont you get a login and sign your name with four of these:~ That way...its clearer, not clutter. -User:Stevertigo 19:40, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC) :As you saw on Talk:Israel discussion page, they have already blocked some of the dynamic IP's that I have used before, for no reason at all other than the fact that I have had the audacity of presenting some facts that are unfavourable to Israel. So getting a login ID would be nothing short of entering a game predisadvantageously ... and that would not be smart. For this reason I prefer to work with dynamic IP's. And just in case that limy (and slimy) lush is reading this, allow me to mention that I can come in with a more variegated range of IP's from different blocks than he can imagine. ::Please, don't be a jerk. Your uncompromising attitude is preventing anyone from editing this page, which doesn't allow anyone to correct bias in either direction. This is Wikipedia. You can't have it your own way. Most of us are not Zionists, and in fact some of us are anti-Zionists. But all of us should be committed to making a good, neutral encyclopedia (i.e., not propaganda which selectively omits or colors facts). Please, please, your attitude that this is a "game" will forever leave this page locked. It's not a game, we're trying to produce a serious article. If you can't live by this, go away, and let us edit in peace. User:Graft 16:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- The current article (00:42GMT 13 August 2003) is another failure in neutral point of view. It seems that all that happens are partisan swings in favor of or against, but nothing else. -------------- This article states that \"[The Hezbollah is] seeking to create a fundamentalist Islamic republic to remove all non-Islamic influences in Lebanon\" ..... this is an outrageous lie. Why should such lies and decpetions be tolerated in Wikipedia? Isn't the mainstream media enough?? The article is so grossly false and biased it's actually entertaining. ------- The Hiballah came into existence as a reaction to the Israeli invasion in 1982. I would like to add this. Btw. I was in Lebanon at the time. --RS ------ Isnt this a Copyright infrigement? ''User:AntonioMartin'' That text is everywhere on the Internet and has been in Wikipedia for well-over a year. If anything everyone else copied from us - but it probably is public domain US government text. --User:Maveric149 ------- Well, I wanted to stop people from bashing back and forth, and instead start moving forward. It might be a case of "I don't write 5 words but I change 7", but let's try to add to things instead of (just) delete them/revert them.
~ender 2003-05-07 01:45 MST I still think that we should pare the history of invasion out of this article, and put it elsewhere. This should only be Hizballah stuff. Maybe just put something to the effect that Americans were on the scene, and as part of the occupation forces (to the residents) they were targeted. I'm willing to re-put in that much of the world media depicts Hizballah differently, but I'd really like some cites for that. That's implied when we put 'American media says' but not stated.
I'd also like some current information... but I ain't been following that too much.
~ender 2003-05-07 02:15 MST ----- Is it really true that hizbullah is also known as the "Islamic Jihad Organisation"? I know there is an organization of this name in Palestine, but as far as I know that originated from Egypt and has nothing to do with Hizbullah. So, is this merely a name overlap? Do they need to have disambiguation? "We are not that Islamic Jihad, we're another group of the same name." Or, more likely, is this incorrect information? User:Graft :(Can't help myself...) No, we're the People's Front of Judea! (stifled snicker) -- User:JohnOwens Why have we chosen this spelling? Google finds 17,400 hits for "Hizballah" and 151,000 for "Hezbollah", and a search for Hizballah says, "Did you mean: Hezbollah" - User:Zoe I deleted several paragraphs and links discussing accusations of Israeli bombing of south Lebanon. Although those items might belong in some other article, they seem out of place here. -- User:Zoe :Accusations?? Umm, those are news reports. :Damn, you guys are making me start to side with that anonymous guy who can't spell. :~ender 2003-05-11 21:12 MST ::As I said, put it into an article in which it is more relevant. -- User:Zoe :::If you're gonna be deleting it, then *you* put it in an article that would be more relevant. :::And deleting source documents is not very NPOV. :::~ender 2003-05-11 21:24 MST :::Also, I don't see where it could be much more relevant than in an article on Hizbullah... that would be like saying that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not relevant to an article on Operation Desert Storm... User:Graft ::::Please explain how bombings in May of 2003 have anything to do with Hezbollah. If you want to include discussions of other events which ''led up'' to the creation of Hezbollah, then that's fine, but this is a current event which, unless it's because of Hezbollah attacks on Israel, or are direct attacks against Hezbollah which somehow are more important than any other attacks on Hezbollah, then how is it relevant? -- User:Zoe :::::Who's talking about May 2003? I didn't see any specific dates in the relevant text, actually, but as far as I'm aware the last time Israel bombed southern lebanon was when Barak was in power. Anyway, it doesn't matter much.. the article really just needs to be rewritten from the ground up. User:Graft :::::The rationale by the non-western contigent complaining that we're just spewing department of defense rhetoric is that the Hizballah is a self-defense organization, and that they only operated on lebanese soil (which I tried to disprove using some sources). Part of the rationale behind the Hizballah existing is the terror attacks by Israel, to 'eliminate' terrorists, by bombing power plants and radio stations. Kinda like the US in Iraq, if you look at Gulf war 2 & 3.... :::::But ya know what, have it. Stupid revert wars aren't acceptable. Add information, make information more correct, add new articles. If you want to delete. Have fun. Point is to be adding stuff, and making it better, not removing it. It was an attempt at trying to be more inclusivist to other non-state department views. :::::~ender 2003-05-11 21:38 MST :Oh yeah Zoe you should also mention that you completely removed all references to American peacekeeping forces entering the fray, UN resolutions, and the like :) :~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST Sheez, ender, create a damn login already! User:Graft :Bah, hate logins :P :This is the internet, we're all allowed to be cranks. :) :~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST The last sentence of the article is pretty awful. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, exactly, so I didn't want to unilaterally change it, but it's a terrible sentence. User:Jlk7e 04:05 May 12, 2003 (UTC) Moving my comments to the bottom instead of continuing to post in the middle. Please tell me what American peacekeepers have ever been involved in Lebanon/Israel. -- User:Zoe :Consider reading before editting. :FYI: [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hizballah&oldid=911448] :Which is why Americans have been attacked by the Hizballah. :I've had enough with wasting my time on this. :~ender 2003-05-11 21:52 MST ::Claiming that there were US peacekeeping forces in the area doesn't make it true. -- User:Zoe :::How did US Marines come to be bombed by the Hizballah in Lebanon? They magically appear? Maybe they're some other 'US' forces I don't know about. :::Tell that to Congress and the Department of Defense who awarded those forces medals for excellent conduct. Claiming it is not true doesn't make things false either. I gave you specific references to look up and prove or disprove, that should be enough. I didn't merely claim 'american forces' although that would read cleaner, which is what you seem to be shooting for - delete everything you can get your hands on. Minimal information. I'm not sure that those specific references should've been in there (note above), but I did include them. Because we're talking about the rationale for attacks on Americans in Lebanon. :::~ender 2003-05-11 22:01 MST ::::"Peacekeeprs" implies that they were there to engage in action against either the Israelis or the Lebanese or both. Their sole purpose there was to remove Americans safely from the action. They never engaged in battle against Hezbollah. -- User:Zoe :::::Try reading again, you'll like it. :::::non-combatants -> combatants. :::::Also, I don't make up these names, you have issues with it, tell it to the US Department of Defense & the UN. I don't think invading a country should be called peacekeeping either, but that's what we like to call it. :::::~ender 2003-05-11 22:23 MST Basically I guess my complaint is this: I don't see people attempting to adapt to/address other points of view and refute them with facts. In the places where there may be different interpretations of events, I don't see both sides being given air-time. I don't think that the clueless non-speller user has been taken seriously enough. Yeah *e has issues - but that doesn't mean *ier viewpoint is irrelevant.
I believe this article is pretty much US propoganda at present - that doesn't mean it's without merit, but the suppression of disenting voices/views does not make me feel good that it is even half-way accurate.
But underlying this is a larger problem. I see people deleting information they don't agree with. Removal of sources, etc, etc. I don't believe some people are actually reading what's written before editting/reverting (as is apparent above, re: American forces). I think it's disingenous to imply that all the information is still there, when it's buried in the history page and not visible.
And I'm unhappy with the way the Wiki system seems to be dealing with these issues. Which is an indictment of the people who watch recent changes and do nothing.
~ender 2003-05-11 23:05 MST :And who might those people be? -- User:Zoe Seems to me the main problem with this article is that it's very poorly organized, and not especially well written, at least at present. The last sentence/paragraph remains dreadful, and much of the rest of it isn't much better. I don't know that much about the subject, so I don't really want to get into rewriting it, but I think what really needs to be done is a thorough rewrite that tries to give information about Hezbollah in basically chronological order. As it is, the chronology is extremely garbled and its full of bizarre statements and scare quotes. User:Jlk7e 06:06 May 12, 2003 (UTC) :(American Media) That is only the result of edits :) :Check the history and see the progress before recent reverts. If Zoe had completely reamed all the information in the article, you wouldn't have been bothered at all. :~ender 2003-05-11 23:15 MST ::There ya go, almost completely back to US state department stance. ::C'mon, you guys can delete the rest too... ::"the whole article needs rewriting (but I'm not the man to do it)" ::But you are the man to prevent others from doing it... :D ::~ender 2003-05-11 23:24 MST :::Why don't you revert it back the way you want it, if you're so upset? The fact is that that sentence was just bad. I have no ideologic stance about this, but the article as is is terrible (probably due to the ongoing edit war, I suppose, although it doesn't seem to have ever been particularly good). If you restore what you had before, I could try to work it up into a better-organized and more NPOV article, if you'd like, but as I said, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute anything of my own. Again, I'm really not trying to make the article be the State Department/Israeli view of Hezbollah at all. It's just that that once sentence really grated with me. On your last comment (written while I was writing this), I'm not preventing anybody from doing anything. I'm certainly not the one who deleted most of the content you added. User:Jlk7e 06:22 May 12, 2003 (UTC) ::::Because it won't stay that way without some consensus. I hate revert/edit-wars. I think they're dumb. I'd rather people edit up than delete. ::::Nope you didn't delete most of the content that I *modified*, but you didn't bother to look at it either. Instead of trying to grasp the point that was trying to be made you just deleted it. ::::~ender 2003-05-11 23:56 MST :::I did look at it, but I'm not much good with this whole reverting concept, so I wasn't sure what to do (especially since it's not really my fight). In any event, I've tried to edit your material in with the original material to form a cohesive article (and I've changed around the wording a bit), although I'm not sure how good it is at the moment. It still needs work, I think. User:Jlk7e 07:01 May 12, 2003 (UTC) ::::Hey *I* think it needs a lot of work myself. However, it is hard to work on the article when it's not there. I'd like to see enough done on it that the anonymous poster is happy with it. Or have points lined up to refute their allegations. I think we could say that Hizballah has not restrained themselves to Lebanese borders (disputed or otherwise) with the Argentina attack + Israeli stuff, which make the anonymous poster wrong in stating that they have only done things within Lebanon. I will grant that poster that mostly they've stayed in Lebanese or Israeli territory (embassies are part of a country's territory), and I guess I need a list of hostages they've taken. From what I've seen they've limited themselves to military and political targets. Not sure, but i believe they may have held a journalist for a really long time... They might construe that as a quasi-governmental operative. But that should be stated (if it's true). ::::~ender 2003-05-12 01:47 MST On a separate note, there is not a single shred of evidence that the Hizbullah (or any other group for that matter) were involved in the bombings of the Israeli facilities in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is ONLY Israeli insistence that it is the Hizbullah (and at the same time they say it is Iran!), and naturally, USA also supports the Israeli claims as usual. But who else believes them? Even more and more Amercian people are awakening to the facts that Israel and their incredibly powerful US lobby keep lying, deceiving and misguiding the Americans with misinformation, fabrications and flat out lies. Also, both Iran as well as the Hizbullah have consistently and categorically rejected the accusations about the blasts in Buenos Aires since day one. How irritating. I edited the article to merge the two versions together into one (not-)seamless whole, and it disappears without a trace, not even appearing in the page history. How the hell did that happen? User:Jlk7e 18:11 May 12, 2003 (UTC) ---- What's with the name? I know Arabic names appear in many Latinized forms, but this article deals badly with it. While Hezbollah is the only form I've ever seen it in (until now), I don't really know or care what the best name is, but it's a mess right now. The article's header gives three names (Hezbollah first), but the title of the article's not even among them. In the rest of the text, Hezbollah is mostly used, but Hizballah shows up a several times. I don't know what the name should be, but to those who do, please do the following: * make the first mentioned term the same as the title * mention all others forms in the header * use only the title term in the article User:Jheijmans 13:00, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Jeronimo, I think no one is listening to you: from following the edit histories, it appears that a couple of anonymous individuals have decided to force their preferred version of the article onto the rest of Wikipedia. (Oddly enough, the version they keep removing is not very favorable to Isreal.) A clue to their intentions are the statements, "Reverting game with the Zionists again" & "Wikipedia does not belong to you Jews". :To the partisans involved -- If I am wrong about your intentions, & please prove it by cleaning up the following sentence from your favored version: ::Hezbollah is profesedly anti-Zionist]]. :-- User:Llywrch 19:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) About the name: the official name of the organization is Hezbollah, but Hizbullah is also correct and is used. The reason you see "Hizballah" here is because someone, obviously unfamiliar with Arabic, wanted to make sure that "allah" is present in the name, so they came up with the odd "Hizballah" spelling on their own. Apparently that happens to be the person who initiated the article. As for reverting, just read the differences between the versions yourself and you will see that theh version the pro-Israeli folk try to enforce, is full of lies, deceptions and misinformation. For example, they say the Hezbollah is trying to get rid of all other groups in Lebanon, and make Lebanon an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state. This is so ridiculous that doesn't even desreve an argument. The pro-Israel people, in typical fashion, try to villify the victims of Israeli atrocities, and play down or excuse the atrocities perpetrated by Israel. They do that in mainstream American media all the time, because over there they have direct or indirect control or influence. In the Internet, they have less of that luxury, but sadly, it seems this is also changing. Hezbollah's website was first blocked at most major ISP's and now it will refer you to some pornographic sites. :If the part concerning making "Lebanon an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state" is incorrect, why don't you just correct that part of the page, while leaving the rest alone? There are a lot of misspellings & grammatical errors in the version you (or someone within your internet domain) keeps reverting to. :BTW, I'm puzzled why you had to keep editting & saving this page so many times. Are you aware of the "show preview" button? Frankly, I use it a lot. -- User:Llywrch 21:43, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) Why don't I just correct that one line? Because that was just one example out of many obvious and subtle lies crafted in their "contribution" to the article. :And what do you consider are the other ones? -- User:Llywrch 19:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- Would anyone object if I delete Hezbollah and redirect this article to there? User:RickK 06:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) :I have no objection; best wait a while -- maybe a week -- to see if there are any objections, Rick. If there are none, go for it. -- User:Llywrch 19:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::I object. You fuckers have reverted to a disgusting pro-Israeli version of this article, have locked it so nobody else can edit it, and now are trying to eliminate it. You are abusing you admin status in Wikipedia, and because of ficking racist morons like you, lies and depections are permeated in our world. This article should be here, but without any lies and deceptions. Only with facts, not from a particular angle or point of view. FACTS ARE FACTS. Fuck you cowards. :Language like that isn't going to convince anyone. And for the record, I do not have admin status -- I'm just another contributor, who was trying to find a middle ground & end this edit war. :BTW, why don't you sign these statements where you call everyone cowards? -- User:Llywrch 20:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- A few comments: * The section "American involvement" seems to be disconnected from the rest of the article to the extent that its relevance is unclear. It is also written in a sort of cheerleading style. It should be replaced or deleted (I would vote for deletion). * That Hezbollah has an Islamic state as one of its aims is supported by their own web page: http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm . Clicking "Introduction" we get a summary that states this quite explicitly. -- User:Zero0000 12:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) :I clicked on the URL that you gave, and then read the entire Introduction section. There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind .... I read the whole seciotn. I found this: :: .... ::Today, Hezbollah is one of the most prominent Lebanese political parties that has its presence in the parliament with 8 MPs. ::Hezbollah today also commands respect politically after it proved its strength with its presence by respecting the values of others in the field. ::Hezbollah also sees itself committed in introducing the true picture of Islam, the Islam that is logical. Committed to introduce the civilized Islam to humanity. ::... ::Hezbollah does not wish to implement Islam forcibly but in a peaceful and political manner, that gives the chance to the majority to either accept or refuse. If Islam becomes the choice of the majority only then will it be implemented. If not it will then continue to co-exist with others on the basis of mutual understanding using peaceful methods to reach peaceful solutions. And that is how the case should be to the non-Islamists as well. :Were you smoking weed or drinking something when you read that section? :Ahhh ... I just checked your "contributions" .... all of them to Jewish or Israeli-related issues .... wow, what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate ! As a matter of fact, the Shiites in Lebanon are not even the second largest group, demographically. They are the thrid or the fourth. Lebanese Constitution requires that the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Primse Minister, a Sunni Muslim, and Speaker of the Parliament, a Shia Muslim (not necessarily from the Hizollah). ---- ''There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind '' -- Sorry, I was mislead by the sentence that says "Another of its ideals is the establishment of the an Islamic Government." Silly me to not realise it was just a typo for "Another of its ideals is to NOT have an Islamic Government". ''what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate'' -- Actually that's pretty funny. Now, looking at the Wiki article we see ''Reportedly, the organization is seeking to create an fundamentalist Iranian-style Islamic republic and remove of all non-Islamic influences. ''. -- The final part of that sentence is quite unacceptable. I suggest a replacement like this: :According to its stated policy, Hezbollah favors the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon by democratic means. -- User:Zero0000 00:41, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) :From my understanding of Hezbollah's statements, they are far more liberal about the whole matter than others - they want Islamic rule and government for Muslims, but others should not be governed by Islamic law, since they are not Muslims. Whether this is PR or not, I don't know, but this is what they say they want: Islamic rule for Muslims, self-government for everyone else. User:Graft 05:24, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) There is a clear distinction between ''state'' and ''government''. The Hezbollah is not only fully in accordance with the Lebanese present state and constitution, they in fact take pride in having made political progress within that framework. It's not like they are racist like Israel or anything .... kinda like how last week Israeli parliament passed a double-standard racist law for citizens of Israel that if the citizen is a jew marrying a non-Israeli, the spouse can become an Israeli citizen, but if the citizen is an Arab-Israeli marrying a non-Arab-Israeli, the rules are different. To me it seems that the Hezbollah are fair and tolerant and they just want to protect their own rights and religious and cultural interest in a traditionally difficult environment. ---- ==Disambiguation== On an unrelated note, I think we should add this sentence (I can't, as the article is protected): ''This article is about the Hezbollah based in Lebanon. For an article about the unrelated Hezbollah in Turkey, see Hezbollah (Turkey).'' If for no other reason, it will clarify that these two are not the same organization. User:DanKeshet 21:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC) Since this is of an administrative nature, I will do it. -- User:Toby Bartels 05:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- ==Excerpt from ''Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger''== This article is remarkable for not mentioning the group's beliefs and driving motivations. That is an oversight which needs to be corrected. Some of the following information needs to be incorporated into this article. (Source: ''Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger'' by Robert S. Wistrich) :A similarly radical ideology motivates the Lebanese Shi'a movement, Hizballah ("the Party of God"), which rose to prominence following its resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Its total negation of Israel's existence and its view of Judaism as the oldest and bitterest enemy of Islam owe much to the Ayatollah Khomeini's "anti-Zionist" preaching and the movement's symbiotic relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In accordance with this doctrinal source of inspiration, Hizballah opposes nationalism, imperialism, and "Western arrogance" while laying special emphasis on the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem as a major strategic aim. :As with the Hamas and other fundamentalist groupings, Israel is depicted as a Western puppet installed in the Middle East to enable imperialism to continue its domination and exploitation of Arab regional resources. Israel is invariably seen as the source of all evil and violence in the area and as the main obstacle to Islamic unity. Hence it must be totally eradicated.44 The recent Israeli departure from Lebanon is no more than a prelude to this future obliteration of the great "usurping enemy" of Islam-frequently described by Hizballah (as in Iranian propaganda) as a "cancer" and poison that affects the entire world. :Hizballah's most senior cleric, Sheikh Husayn Fadlallah, continually emphasized through the 1990s that Israel was not just a Jewish state in the formal sense of the word. It was the ultimate expression of the corrupt, treacherous, and aggressive "Jewish" personality. Jews were indeed "the enemy of the entire human race," congenitally "racist" and condescending in their attitude to other peoples, and ruthlessly bent upon global domination. In an interview in the late 1980s, Fadlallah already expressed a widely held fundamentalist attitude toward allegedly boundless Jewish ambitions: :"The Jews want to be a world superpower. This racist circle of Jews wants to take vengeance on the whole world for their history of persecution and humiliation. In this light, the Jews will work on the basis that Jewish interests are above all world interests." 45 :Hizballah's consistently intransigent philosophy of all-out war against Israel, Zionism, and the Jews has an unmistakably virulent anti-Semitic underpinning linked to its overall pan-Islamic, revolutionary perspective. Its special venom also draws from the traditional Iranian Shi'i attitudes toward Jews as unclean, impure, and corrupt infidels. This is a theme that pervaded the outlook of the Ayatollah Khomeini and still influences the present Iranian leadership.46 :Like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Hizballah engages in a total demonization of the Jewish and Zionist enemy, eagerly embracing violence, "suicide bombings," martyrdom, and terror as the only path to "liberate" Palestine, destroy Israel, and defeat the West.47 Everything is made subordinate to the supreme imperative of the jihad-the holy war that must be waged to the death against the infidel-until all Islamic lands are liberated and a truly Islamic state is restored.48 :The Western media, as is its custom, has been extremely reluctant to relate the current terrorist war against Israel and the West to its ideological roots in Islam or to the sources and meaning of jihad. It is equally averse to connecting terrorism with the anti-Jewish obsessions that currently animate millions of Muslims.49 Amazingly little attention has been paid to the sheer abundance, energy, and viciousness of contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism from Cairo and Gaza to Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, and Lahore. The seemingly endless parade of grotesque falsehoods exhibited in Arab and Muslim defamation of Jews and the Jewish state scarcely seems to impinge on Western consciousness. At most it is perceived as a footnote to the raging storm of anti-Americanism or as a form of "political opposition" to Israeli actions. Not even the rampant Arab claims that the Holocaust was a fabrication invented by Zionists and Jews (which attracts much attention in the European media when made by neo-Nazis or far rightists) stir more than the faintest of responses in the West.50 :Footnotes: :43. Esther Webman, Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1994), pp. 17-22. :44. Ibid., pp. 8-9. :45. Middle East Insight, March-April 1988, p. 10. :46. David Menashri, "The Jews of Iran: Between the Shah and Khomeini," in Sander Gilman and Steven T. Katz, eds., Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pp. 353-71. :47. Raphael Israeli, "Islamikaze and Their Significance," Terrorism and Political Violence 9:3 (Autumn 1997): 96-121, emphasizes the planned, premeditated style of the "suicides" organized by Muslim terrorists, which are designed to wreak maximum damage on the "abominable" Zionist enemy. :48. Ibid., pp. 110-11. :49. See Raphael Israeli, The Terrorist Masquerade (Shaarei Tikva, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2001). :50. See Holocaust Denial in the Middle East: The Latest Anti-Israel Propaganda Theme (New York: Anti-Defamation League, 2001). :Source: ''Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger'' by Robert S. Wistrich ::I would hope that something from a source with a less obvious political motivation could be found. --User:Zero0000 03:01, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- ==Why protected?== Why is this article protected? —User:Frecklefoot 15:51, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) From the page history, it sems that an anon IP was going ga-ga with a revert war a couple of weeks ago. On the assumption that the anon has got bored and gone somewhere else now, I have unprotected the page again. User:Tannin 15:57, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- ==State Dept. info on "non-Islamic influences"== Where does the State Department say that Hezbollah is "seeking to remove all non-Islamic influences"? It does not appear in the document mentioned at the bottom of the page and I could not find it on the S.D. site in half an hour of looking. The closest I found was "Hizballah formally advocates ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon" which doesn't even contradict what Hezbollah claims. --User:Zero0000 10:15, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) : I couldn't find the exact phracse on the dept of state page ... but on other pages i did find the reference ... :heres a few links ... : (link to item and google's cache of it in []) : http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/terorism.pdf [http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:gddyv3r6870J:www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/terorism.pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] : http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/handouts/terrorism.doc [http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:dAtb0UtyLqsJ:www.ltcconline.net/lukas/handouts/terrorism.doc&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] : http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1992/9235/923504.PDF [http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:L8dTmGSTD9IJ:www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1992/9235/923504.PDF&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] :I'll modify the statement accordingly ...User:Reddi 12:58, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) : Ah I found one page from the US dept of state page with the reference to the "seeking to remove all non-Islamic influences" ... http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/fto1999.htm ... User:Reddi 13:20, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- ==State Dept. Info on Alternate Names == I exposed the one external link at the bottom. I didn't know if there was a reason the rest were hidden, so I left them like that. But I had to find that link through the talk page here, and that's not good. Also, I removed the following sentence: ''According to the United States Department of State, it has been called the Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine.'' Does anybody beside the US Department of State (and the legions of websites that copy their information wholesale) say that Hezbollah have been called these names? If not, then there is no reason for us to include erroneous state department information, even if it is properly attributed. This question was asked above, by Graft, and nobody answered. User:DanKeshet : Please don't remove this information ... it is relevant ... I am reinstating this information User:Reddi 14:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::You haven't even tried to answer my question. Does anybody other than the US Department of State (and people citing or copying their information) say they go by these names? Can you give me any references I can look up that would say the same thing? Why would it be relevant whether the US Department of State erroneously attributes various other names to the organization? User:DanKeshet : the history of what Hezbollah has been called is very relevant to this article. The US Department of State is a very reputable source and the inclusion of their informaiton is generally accepted through out wikipedia. User:Reddi 14:34, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) : BTW, you can find pages and pages through a simple search of the names listed (just like [http://www.google.com/search?q=Revolutionary%20Justice%20Organization&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Revolutionary Justice Organization] does) ... it's not really hard to find references for this ... the info is accurate ... User:Reddi 14:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::I take serious, serious issue with the idea that the US Department of State, or any agency of any government--least of all a government involved in a conflict--should be considered a "reputable" source if challenged. We shouldn't take the Hezbollah website or Lebanese PR at face value, either. Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing, not because we all simply believe what the US state dept says. ::: [snip info souce skepticism] ::: Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing AND it is a reputable source of information (even if it goes against some ppl's POV). The information is reliable and should be include (much like the Hezbollah's own info should be included). ::: I'm all for being skeptical of information from wherever it comes from ... but don't restrict the information ... give the reader as much info as possible and let the reader decide ... ::I have done the web searches for these names. Almost all the references that turns up are wholesale copies of the US State department information, or a 1996 propaganda leaflet by the Israeli foreign ministry (for example, [http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=15 here]). As the Foreign Ministry leaflet pre-dates the State dept. info by 3 years, it's moderately likely the Israeli foreign ministry's information is the source for the (unsourced) information from the US State dept. ::: it's all just State dept / isreali propaganda? I doubt that (and many others do too) ... YMMV on it though ... ::But the Israeli information only uses 3 names: 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance'. And it doesn't say that Hezbollah has "been called" these names like the state dept does, rather that they have created cover organizations using these names so as to misdirect credit and blame for their actions. User:DanKeshet ::: Are you seriously proposing a Conspiracy theory? ::::*Laugh*! I'll come back to this later, but I don't know what the "conspiracy" I'd be proposing was! A conspiracy to assert that Hezbollah has been known by other names?! User:DanKeshet ::PS. FWIW, the Hezbollah website refers to their military units as "The Islamic Resistance". ::: I just included that in the intro ... User:Reddi 15:43, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) RickK - what are you doing? Please explain. -User:Stevertigo 02:54, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC) This page is already grossly pro-Hezbollah. "The poor terrorists are only killing innocent people in self-defense. The Hezbollah drove the evil Israelis out of Lebanon." I can't sit by and let more lies be added to the page. I didn't interfere with the addition of the "NPOV dispute" line, that's VERY true. Ironically, the person who included it did so because he or she thinks it's too anti-Hezbollah, which is hardly true. User:RickK 03:01, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) Whenever you do a revert -- explain. To not explain is to paint the other party as a vandal which is clearly not the case here. -User:Stevertigo 03:06, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC) The article is full of nonsense in both directions and Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist. If you look back through the logs, you will see that current dispute is over one word. I objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint. I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement, but that is not good enough for the people here who think that articles should tell people what to think about events and not merely inform them of the facts. I would not object to many of Hezbollah's actions such as kidnapping civilians and shelling Israeli towns being called "terrorist" because they satisfy the accepted definition of that word, but to use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable. It's a clear case of POV that should not be here. The United States was attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing. That is a fact. --User:Zero0000 06:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) : full of nonsense in both directions? YMMV that ... : Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist? again YMMV on that ... : dispute is over one word? I believe that there is more at dispute than that ... the relabeling of a organization that is supports terrorism (atleast in part) [which even the UN acknowledges] ... : Objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint? a viewpoint that correlates to FACTs ... : I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement? may be neutral ... but less accurate .... you leave out the reason why they attack ... which was a political move [to get the US peacekeepers out] : [snip 'tell ppl how to think'] : [snip 'other Hezbollah's actions "terrorist"] : use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable? When it's part of a peacekeeping operation, YMMV on that ... especially when they are try to restablish order [not initating it in the 1st place] : It's a clear case of POV that should not be here? YMMV on that ... : The United States peacekeepers [you keep leaving that bit out] were attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing? yep ... BUT under the mandate to reestablish order ... and take out the Hezbollah terrorists. That is a fact. User:Reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ''state terrorism by Israel'' -- Wji, how is that more NPOV than what was there before? It is just a different POV. This is the problem with the word "terrorism"; it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion. We've seen it a hundred times. Someone describes something as "terrorism", then someone claims it wasn't, then someone makes it "which X regards as terrorism", then someone else adds "but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism", and so on. The resulting article is always awful and I don't think I've seen a single exception. It is a type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events. If the bare facts were presented without such loaded words in the first place, such nonsense could be (partly ;-( ) prevented. If it was up to me, I'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism. -- User:Zero0000 08:11, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) : ''state terrorism by Israel''? nothin wrong with stating that some view it as this IMO, YMMV ... : different POV? nothing wrong with a view, as long as the editor isn't introducing it himself [as far as I can tell, from other articles] and it reflects REAL views in the world. : This is the problem with the word "terrorism"? terrorisms is real and factual ... sorry you don't see this ... I see how others can view certian actions as terorrism, while others don't ... and if you state who is viewing what as what, it's not that big of deal [the reader can tell which is telling the truth from the respective source] ... : it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion? YMMV on that ... : [snip 'hundred times' "which X regards as terrorism but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism"] : Resulting article is always awful? YMMV on that ... to me, it make the article more informative .... : A type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events? umm no, IMO ... it's an insult to not provide the reader the appropriate facts [as you seem to want to leave out the facts of what it is and what exists] : bare facts were presented without loaded words? loaded IYO ... others don't see it as loaded ... just a staement of facts of what is ... : If it was up to you, you'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism? ... mabey the is part of the problem .... you have a problem with the fact that terrorism exists and terrorists are real ... User:Reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) On further reflection, and the latest semi-literate addition, I've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on. There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one. So I hope you all enjoy yourselves here; I'll be working on other articles. --User:Zero0000 10:49, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) : you've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on? great, hope you do some good work with other articles .... here's the fish ..... : There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one? IYNSHO ... User:Reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ::Reddi, the point that I think Zero is trying to make (and which I, and others probably, agree with) is that the way many people seem to deal with perceived POV problems is injecting an alternate POV into the article. The writing then turns into a hodgepodge of "X says A. Y, however, believes B. Some have alleged that C." Which is not only ugly and horrible reading, but it doesn't really serve to inform the reader. It would be -much- better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL. There is no need to go back and forth over who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't - let's just clearly explain who they are and what they have done, and let people decide these things for themselves. Many Wikipedia articles suffer from this same see-saw style of "N" POV editing, which results in really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them. ::While I disagree that we should just run away from this article, I do agree that this article has serious problems, because it doesn't try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply to paste together two wildly divergent viewpoints into one article. Result, incoherence. User:Graft 11:28, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ::: Ugly and horrible reading? mabey ... mabey not ... ::: It does really serve to inform the reader of what position organizations of society worldwide think ... ::: Better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL? So leave out Hezbollah's POV? Mabey leave out the United Nations's POV? ::: There is a need to state who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't .... IMO (others may disagree or agree) .... ::: Let's clearly explain who they are and what they have done BUT let's also clearly explain what other organizations have stated on this group (not just what they state that they do and what they have done) .... ::: I do agree that we let people decide these things for themselves, but with all the facts .... ::: Really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them? hmmm ... 1000 monkeys @ a typewriter =-) .... ::: Incoherence? YMMV on that .... ::: IMO, it does try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply state the two divergent viewpoints into one article. Not allowing the Hezbollah view's alone ... nor the UN's view (among others) alone ... User:Reddi 14:50, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ::Having been around for a while, and having given this topic some good Christian thought-- I would define who is NPOV on this topic with a question: ::::"Do you think its acceptible for beautiful young Palestinian men and women to make sweet love with beautiful young Israeli men and women? Yes or No? ::If you say "no" then you are not neutral on the ethnic issues underlying this whole subject matter (and this article), and you cannot claim to be neutral in editing this article -- all edits by such person are suspect, and subject to scrutiny. Only NPOV -- or "WPOV"-- a "world point of view" deserves the last word here. ::The word of God is Love, ::~S~ ::: ---- Please notice that this article is constantly modified by a bunch of Zionists in concert and if anyone tries to remove their lies and decptions from the article, they keep reverting it back and since some of them have admin status, they eventually lock their version of the article until things \"cool down\", then they unlock their version of the article. Wonder why the rest of humanity has always hated this vermin. This is abuse of the Wikipedia and the freedom that we should all enjoy in the Internet. Unfortunately they do this same disgusting practice on many articles in Wikipedia which were initially contributed by people in good faith. (anon) ---- '' American forces were at the time engaged in fighting against Hezbollah, both viewing the others party as the aggressor.'' And this is how an Islamic apologist insists we describe the Embassy truck-bombing. It's the intellectual dishonesty that makes Islamists so repellent to the majority of Americans. User:Wetman 20:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC) :I was just coming here to discuss this. I thought I was reasonably well-versed in what's going on in the world, and I don't think I've ever heard of the US fighting Hezbollah. Could someone cite an instance? User:RickK 08:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I don't have my books here so I'm writing from memory. I think the US forces were not specifically engaging the Hezbollah at that time, but they were certainly conducting military operations (including shelling from ships and air raids) against Lebanese Muslim (as opposed to Christian) forces. So the wording is not quite correct, but not far off either. I'll look up the details. --User:Zero0000 11:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) According to English journalist Robert Fisk's "Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War" the US military was attacking various Lebanese Muslim militias and therefore, to paraphrase Fisk, involving themselves in the war. In reference to the terrorist/guerrilla/violent attack argument about the suicide bombings of the Marines base and US Embassy: In my opinion, since the US military had involved themselves in the fighting an attack on a US military base should probably not be described as a terrorist attack. (Also the US do give $4bn a year to Israel) An attack on the embassy may be described as a terrorist attack however, since embassies are generally considered civilian targets and there are whole conventions--the Vienna Convention and the Convention of the Protection of Internationally Protected Persons (inc. diplomats) designed to prevent such attacks. I guess this may be a bit unfair if a state decides to take advantage of these conventions and turns their embassy into an effective military base. --User:Kingal86 2004-06-11 16:16 UTC The US force was part of a multi-national force in Lebanon overseeing the escape of the PLO out of Beirut. As such it's not exactly an army conquering a state. In fact it was there by request of the Lebanese government along with the French, Italians, etc. An attack on a peace keeping force is terrorism. Further your claim of the US embassy being a base is absurd and baseless. Yes, there were military bases for the US army in Beirut, the embassy was not one of them. It is a clear civilian target. Also, you dare claim Hezbollah didn't attack civilians? I don't remember the head of the American University or Associated Press reporters that were murdered and abducted being military targets. And don't worry, I'm compiling a list of civilian targets attacked. [[User: Doug Danner|Doug] 2004-6-12 ---- As a Canadian, I want to point out that "we" resisted listing the social wing despite the pressure from the Zionsts, our enemies in Washington, and our own little band of scum, the Alliance.[http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/11/hezbollah021211] What tripped things over was a false quote in the Moonies' "newspaper".[http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=644] User:142.177.171.49 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==copy and paste== removed ''copy and paste'' into article from external source ... put the link in the in the list ... :See [http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Hezbollah.html Ozleft articel] :Hezbollah is not on the European Union list of terrorist organisations The Europeans hold the view that, among others, Hezbollah is a party to an official agreement with Israel not to fire on each other's civilians. Israel does not sign agreements with terrorists. :The Israeli court in Upper Nazareth is currently evaluating a legal submission that Hezbollah is a guerrilla organisation and not a terrorist one. The court has decided to accept the affidavit and to rule on its validity. To quote the relevant Haaretz article: "The affidavit, prepared by Prof Moshe Maoz, the head of the University of Tel Aviv's school of government and an expert on Syrian affairs, stated, 'Hezbollah is a typical guerrilla organisation, whose operative goal is to fight the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Its activities made a significant contribution to the change in public opinion and led to a turnaround in the attitude of decision makers,' Maoz said." :The Israeli court in Upper Nazareth is currently evaluating a legal submission that Hezbollah is a guerrilla organisation and not a terrorist one. The court has decided to accept the affidavit and to rule on its validity. To quote the relevant Haaretz article: "The affidavit, prepared by Prof Moshe Maoz, the head of the University of Tel Aviv's school of government and an expert on Syrian affairs, stated, 'Hezbollah is a typical guerrilla organisation, whose operative goal is to fight the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Its activities made a significant contribution to the change in public opinion and led to a turnaround in the attitude of decision makers,' Maoz said. (June 2002) Sincerely, User:Reddi "Qubth Ut Alla (The Fist of God), the monthly magazine of Hezbullah's paramilitary wing. Reportedly, this has more detailed than Israel's Bahamane (In the Camp) monthly magazine of the IDF." - Anyone got a clue what that sentence means? Something obviously got deleted... User:Mustafaa 06:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Fantasy== An IP has recently added a lot of stuff to this article, most of which appears to be delusions. This needs sorting out - but I'm not really sure what is delusion and what is real? User:Morwen - User_talk:Morwen 16:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) This article was full of nonsense. I removed some garbage, but it was reverted while I was editing it again to remove some more. This article has been neglected for a long time, during which it accummulated a lot of nonsense. I suggest discussing it instead of just posting it right back, there was really a lot of nonsense there. --User:Doron 08:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Ghaleb Awwali== Can you source the claim that Israel denied killing him? - User:Mustafaa 02:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Found one claim: [http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/07/19/story157767.asp]. Curious that no major news organization mentions it, but I'll accept it for now. - User:Mustafaa 02:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Can you provide a real source that Israel claimed that ''it did''? maybe BBC, CNN, etc? Also, I've provided 3 artciles from Lebanon's The Daily Star that covers multiple admissions by Nasrallah himself that Hezbollah assists Hamas militarily. Please check the article. User:Doug Danner September 4, 2004. On what basis do you remove a link to a ''Lebanese'' news article? I'm not quoting from an Israeli paper here, but directly from a Lebanese one, which can't be argued as being pro-Israeli. The fact that I use a Lebanese source can't be edited out, whether you like the implacations of Nasrallah's world on the propaganda you peddle or not. Plus, don't remove a sentance that says 'by Nasrallah's own admission', when the following sentance is an example to just that. This is a fact, documented in a Lebanese paper, and it'll stay for that reason User:Doug Danner Mon Sep 6 03:01:33 UTC 2004 "don't remove a sentance that says 'by Nasrallah's own admission', when the following sentance is an example to just that.": no, it wasn't. The sentence you now have following it, though, is. "On what basis do you remove a link to a ''Lebanese'' news article?" - because it's not a primary source, and I've replaced it with a direct quote. A reporter's interpretation of someone's speech is necessarily an inferior source to the speech itself; that should be obvious. - User:Mustafaa 12:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) That source lives and works in Lebanon and the op-ed is published in a main Lebanese paper. Considering Nasrallah's habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth (one thing aimed at foreign media, the other for internal consumption) your carefully editted snippet is out of context. That's also why the op-ed is quoted. Your tortuous attempts to discount Hezbollah's arming of Hamas is an amusing example of propaganda considering other things I've pointed out in that paragraph, such as the failed arms smuggling from Jordan to which Nasrallah admitted as well. I see you're having a hard time with UNSCR 1559 and such, but I suggest you wait until you have real material to post, rather than attempt to manipulate articles to your propaganda ends. - User:Doug Danner 25 October, 2004 == Attention == It is impossible to change this article. If you change it at the next minute someone re-enter the article that is here showed. ---- Nope - it's not impossible to edit the article, it's just impossible to get away with deleting most of it. The flip side of free editing is that, if your edits seriously damage the article, they will be reverted. - User:Mustafaa 12:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) == category:Islamic terrorist organizations == After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron Generally considered? I dispute that strongly. This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed. What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - User:Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'm not going to argue about whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, especially since I don't consider them as such myself, but I don't presume my personal opinions to be accepted by all. As the article states, Hezbollah is officially considered a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, it is often associated with 'terrorism' by Western media, and it seems to be inofficially considered terrorist in nature by others. The article makes it seem that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a significant part of the world, certainly enough to include it in that category even if it is not generally accepted, so I think you should either return the category link, or change the article to make it clear that the United States, Canada, the media, etc., are wrong in this designation and that in fact, Hezbollah is nothing of the sort. Does the dispute over the recognition of Israel justify removing it from Category: Middle Eastern countries? --User:Doron 11:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) In other words, it is considered terrorist by the Anglophone world. As far as I know, it is not considered terrorist anywhere much else, and in much of the world such a suggestion would be found actively offensive. However, I can see your argument; were there some way of making its controversial nature clear, such as adding both that category and "Category : Non-terrorist militias" or something, I would support adding it. But surely in cases like this, when its membership is highly disputed and the very question is politicized and is discussed at length by the article itself, it's inappropriate to jump the gun. That's what we have List of terrorist groups for, after all... - User:Mustafaa 11:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Well, whatever, it's really not such a big deal. Expect this issue to surface once in a while in the future, though. By the way, as you seem to be a veteran around here, what do you reckon should be done for this article to stop being in "need of cleanup"? I've cleaned some rubish myself some time ago, now it doesn't look too much out-of-shape. And can an article cease to be disputed (or is this quality inherent)?--User:Doron 17:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --User:Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) == User attack on me == Hey User:Jayjg, can you stop following me and reverting everything i write? Even though, everything i put is NPOV, or facts, you just revert them, either without explination or saying pov and npov and etc.... Just leave me alone! I added some info and facts in operation Litani, then you came and revert them... even that they are facts, and reality that everyone has in their archive... Then when you finished "attacking my articles" in operation litani, you followed me here, in article about Hezbollah... Just a small sentence saying that "Hezbollah is a politic and military group aimed to fight israel in lebanon", and you revert it.. where is wrong in it? nothing... Is it pov? NO.. Everyone say Hezbollah has as objectives to fight israel in Lebanon.. See Israeli archives and us ones.. they also say the same... I am thinking that you are just reverting what i write, because it is me that i wrote them... Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks ... User:Addoula 00:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Removed quote== I removed the below quote from the introduction. While it is well sourced it is from an inherently biased source and one who is a not a specialist in the region. It could go in the paragraph on western views of Hezbolah, but the quote does not even accurately reflect American policy in the region. The New Yorker used the quote in 2002 to state that "Hezbollah ... may soon find themselves targeted in the Bush Administration's war on terror," something which has largely not come to pass. The best place for the quote might be in Wikiquote. - User:SimonP 05:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) :''U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Hezbollah the "A-team" of terrorism and Al Qaeda the "B-team." [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021014fa_fact4]'' ==Multinational force?== There seems to be a quarrel whether the Hezbollah only attacked US forces (US Marines) in Lebanon, or US and other international (French, Italian, ...) forces. User:David.Monniaux 09:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==The Article== This structure of this article is very difficult to follow. It also says very little about Hezbollah. It does say much about other issues, this is presumably included under other entries? Could this article please be restructured? :Possibly, but please don't delete relevant information. Also, "militant" is the accepted NPOV word here; both "guerilla" and "terrorist" imply a POV. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 19:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Surely the point must be to provide information in a non-biased way? Or is the main aim to discredit this organization? :The former, which is why you shouldn't be trying to bias the article by using POV words and deleting negative links. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) This article IS biased. Removing some of these links would make it less so, please explain why MEIB would be a credible source? I believe it would be prudent to edit this article as it is full of allegations, most of these from 'America' or 'Israel'. The fact remains, for the casual reader this article does not provide much information on Hezbollah: Their ideology, history, involvement in Lebanese political system, involvement in the social sphere, there is little background on their influences, etc As for the picture, it is odd to use the word militant on a guerilla soldier. :If your issue was only the links, then you should have at least left an edit comment while removing them. However, you made other deletions as well, and made POV changes besides, which is why I reverted. I've removed the links since they are not particularly encyclopedic; however, what is odd is to use the word "guerilla" or "militant" to describe what just about everyone on the Western world (including the U.S., Canada, E.U., etc.) describes as a "terrorist". Should we change the description to "terrorist" to reflect that opinion? And by the way, "guerillas" are people who are fighting either a government or foreign troops in their own country; exactly which "geurilla" war are the Hezbollah militants involved in, a fight against the government of Lebanon? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Just referring to your last point - those regarding Hezbollah as a guerilla (including myself), claim so because Hezbollah has mostly fought against the IDF during its occupation of the Security Zone in southern Lebanon. Although there have been Hezbollah attacks targeting Israeli communities in northern Israel, they were an exception, most of their attacks were against Israeli military outposts in Lebanon. There were probably attacks targeting civilians in every war in history, but surely you can't call everyone a terrorist, so I think that in general, calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is wrong. This is in stark contrast to the tactics of Hamas and the likes, who attack civilians almost exclusively. Since the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's pretext for continuing the war is the Shabaa Farms issue, which is perhaps a slim excuse, but on the other hand there have been very few attacks against Israel, nearly all against military targets. I think "guerilla" describes Hezbollah perfectly during the Israeli occupation. Since the withdrawal, Hezbollah is just a militant group trying to keep its power after losing its purpose. The fact that it is labeled as "terrorist" by politicians does not make it so. Given the facts listed in the article, it is not clear at all that Hezbollah ought to be labeled "terrorist".--User:Doron 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Your points are well taken. As I have been saying from the start, I think, given the current state of affairs, that the term "militant" is a reasonable compromise between "guerilla" (a function it certainly does not perform any more, if it ever did), and "terrorist" (a function it has definitely performed in the past, and the designation of most western nations). By the way, lobbing mortars and missiles at Israeli civilian towns isn't a military action, and that's still going on. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::I agree that "militant" is the way to go, I just thought for a moment that you were contemplating to change it to "terrorist". As for Hezbollah's actions since the withdrawal, I can't remember any attack against Israeli civilians (though I may be wrong). Assuming this [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Incidents%20along%20Israel-Lebanon%20border%20since%20May%202000 list] is exhaustive, there is only one attack (the infiltration near Shlomi) that I'd consider "terrorist", and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for that attack, so even ''since'' the withdrawal, Hizbollah generally seems to stick to military targets. On the other hand, there are some claims of Hezbollah support and involvement in Palestinian terrorist activity.--User:Doron 18:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) == main hezbollah wiki article == 1.) I think it's time to add a tagline of 'information may be from a biased source', or whatever it is that's added to the article when anonymous biased sources try to rewrite the article from their point of view. Hezbollah is becoming increasingly mentioned in the media after UN resolution 1559 and the 'side order' to disarm militias in Lebanon will ensure it stays there. Basically, I hope that the article can be stabilised and these anonymous biased edits/re-edits highlighted, so it can be possible to utilise wiki for a link to unbiased background info to Hezbollah. 2.) How about adding a paragraph for Hezbollah culture and mysticism ? There are a lot of mystic references by Khomeini, and probably others, and there are a lot of media resources of Hezbollah music or artful video clips, for example : http://www.baabeilm.org/presentations/wahdat.htm (which is an english remix) . Hezbollah draws from the twofold source of islam and resistance to foreign aggression, and exports well, so i think it's pecularity in cultural matters is worthwhile noticing.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Hezbollah:
Hezbollah
Hezbollah
Hezbollah_(disambiguation)
Hezbollah_(Lebanon)
Hezbollah_(Turkey)
Hezbollah_Movement_in_Iraq
Hezbollah
Hezbollah (Arabic language حزب الله, meaning Party of God) is a political and military organization in Lebanon founded in 1982 to fight Israel in southern Lebanon. It is regarded by most in the Arab and Muslim world as a legitimate, militant, Shia political party in Lebanon, and by the Israeli government and several Western governments as an Islamic fundamentalist, or Islamism, terrorism organization. The organization was conceived in 1983 as a guerrilla group, started by Lebanese clerics and financed by Iran, to oppose the 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of southern Lebanon. Some critics argue that the real reason it was set up by Iran was to spread the Iranian Revolution into Lebanon and throughout the Arab world. It maintains an active fighting force, or militia, known as the Islamic Resistance. In addition to its military wing, Hezbollah maintains a civilian arm, which runs hospitals, schools, orphanages and a television station. After the Lebanese general election, 2005, Hezbollah held 23 seats (up from eight previously) in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament. It is primarily active in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. The group is headed by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and is financed largely by Iran and Syria, though it also raises funds itself through charities and commercial activities. ==Designations== Hezbollah has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States [http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2450.htm] the United Kingdom [http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/lebanon/intro/], Canada [http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/eng/publications/advisories/index_supervisory.asp?#Supter][http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/eng/documents/advisories/docs/entstld.txt] and Australia [http://www.ag.gov.au/www/attorneygeneralHome.nsf/Alldocs/9F22AF531A4693F2CA256D66007C1F14?OpenDocument]; the U.S. Department of State notes that Hezbollah has killed more than 300 American citizens (over 200 of whom were United States Marine Corps in Lebanon.) Russia has only recently begun to draw up a list of organizations it classifies as terrorist, which may reflect that of the EU [http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7029-5.cfm]. The European Union has designated Hezbollah's so-called External Security Organization or international wing as "terrorist," which can be construed to afford legitimacy to the group's political wing. On March 10 2005 the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (473 in favor 33 against) on a resolution branding Hezbollah in whole as a terrorist organization. The resolution stated that the "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them"[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/550729.html]. The EU has also decided to block Hezbollah's Al-Manar television from European satellites due to its anti-Semitic content[http://www.daneshjoo.org/publishers/currentnews/printer_1668.shtml]. The United Nations has not included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups (which is just being drawn up). However it has called for the disbanding of Hezbollah's military wing in the UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Hezbollah has denounced some acts of terror, like the September 11, 2001 attacks[http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah2.html] and the murder of Nick Berg[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3710057.stm]. However, as a stated aim of Hezbollah is the destruction of the state of Israel, it expresses support [http://www.unb.ca/web/bruns/9900/issue14/intnews/israel.html] for the activities of Hamas, an Islamist group responsible for suicide attacks inside the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as inside Israel itself. Using names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization, Hezbollah is also believed by the United States to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Army colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including the American journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy (journalist), the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan (writer/hostage). Hezbollah was also implicated in the suicide truck bombings that killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut in 1983; the 1984 truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 24; the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome; the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, which killed 29; and the 1994 bombing in Argentina of a Jewish community center, which killed 95. Hezbollah denies involvement in some or all of these attacks. Hezbollah's role in the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon gained the organization widespread respect in Lebanon, particularly among the country's Shia community, which makes up 40% of Lebanon's three million citizens. The List of Presidents of Lebanon, Émile Lahoud, said: "For us Lebanese, and I can tell you a majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement." [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/main550000.shtml]. However, others in Lebanon, particularly the Christian community, criticize the movement as extremist and divisive. The continued existence of Hezbollah's military wing, and its presence on the Israeli border, violates the Taif Agreement that ended the Lebanese civil war, which stipulates the "disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" and requires the government to "deploy the Lebanese army in the border area adjacent to Israel." The Lebanese government has evidenced no interest in enforcing this aspect of the agreement. Some argue that Hezbollah is being used by Syria and Iran as a proxy against Israel.[http://www.merip.org/mero/mero042803.html] On September 2, 2004 the UN Security Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1559, authored by France and the U.S. in an uncommon show of cooperation. Echoing the Taif Agreement, the resolution "calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon" and "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." Lebanon is currently in violation of Resolution 1559 over its refusal to disband the military wing of Hezbollah. Syria was also in violation of the resolution until recently because of their military presence in Lebanon. On October 7, 2004 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council regarding the lack of compliance with Resolution 1559. Mr. Annan concluded his report by saying: "It is time, 14 years after the end of hostilities and four years after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for all parties concerned to set aside the remaining vestiges of the past. The withdrawal of foreign forces and the disbandment and disarmament of militias would, with finality, end that sad chapter of Lebanese history." [http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12147&Cr=lebanon&Cr1=] The January 20, 2005 UN Secretary-General's report on Lebanon states: "The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming Israel’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The Government of Lebanon should heed the Council’s repeated calls for the parties to respect the Blue Line in its entirety." [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8299.doc.htm] On January 28, 2005 UN Security Council Resolution 1583 called upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of sufficient numbers of Lebanese armed and security forces, to ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8299.doc.htm] == Names == The word حزب الله is transliterated in a number of ways. A scientific transliteration would be hizbu l-llahi. Hezbollah is used by CNN and the BBC. It is also written as Hizbullah, Hizballah, Hizbollah, Hezbullah, and Hizb Allah, which is used by Al-Jazeera. Hezbollah is also known as Al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (''Islamic Resistance''), Organization of the Oppressed, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of Right Against Wrong, and Followers of the Prophet Muhammed. [source: Canada's United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations (SCHEDULE 1), SOR/2001-360, Registration: 2 October, 2001][http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor1-360/whole.html] == History == Hezbollah was formed from numerous other Lebanese Shia groups shortly after Israel's 1982 invasion of the mainly Shia southern part of Lebanon. The group was conceived by Iran, or at least was aided in its inception by the arrival in Lebanon of 1,500 Revolutionary Guards from Iran, three years after that country's own Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran, as an Islamic republic -- a Shia one -- remains a close ally, financial backer, arms supplier and model for Hezbollah. Syria backs Hezbollah morally and has also supplied it with money and arms. In return, Hezbollah protects Syria's interests in Lebanon and serving as a card for Damascus to play in its own confrontation with Israel over the occupation of the Golan Heights.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm] === Combat Operations === ==== Prior to 2000 ==== ''Main article'': Hezbollah (Pre-2000) After emerging during the civil war of the early 1980s as an Iranian-sponsored second militia (besides Amal) for Lebanon's Shia community, Hezbollah focused on expelling Israeli and Western forces from Lebanon. It is the principal suspect in several notable attacks on the American, French and Italian Multinational peacekeeping force, whose claimed purpose was the stabilization of Lebanon: the suicide bombings of the April 1983 US Embassy bombing, which killed 63 including 17 Americans, of the USMC barracks in Beirut (see Marine Barracks Bombing), which killed 241 American servicemen, and of the French multinational force headquarters which killed 58 French troops. Seven months after the US withdrew its forces from Lebanon a second attack upon the United States embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984 killed 20 people including 2 Americans[http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/20/newsid_2525000/2525197.stm]. Elements of the group have been linked to involvement in kidnapping, detention and torture of American and other Western hostages in Lebanon by groups such as Islamic Jihad who claimed the hostage-takings were in retaliation to the detentions, hostage-taking and torture by the Israeli ally South Lebanon Army (SLA). After the Israelis were forced out of central Lebanon, by a variety of Lebanese armies including Hezbollah, they occupied a so-called "security zone" along the southern border. During the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah fought the SLA and IDF. Despite being greatly outnumbered, it soon became an opponent to be reckoned with. Casualties inflicted by Hezbollah were a major factor in Israel's decision to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. Aside from fighting the IDF in Lebanon Hezbollah may have been involved in international terrorism. In 1992 and 1994, Hezbollah is claimed to have carried out the Israeli Embassy Attack in Buenos Aires and the AMIA Bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Eight days after the AMIA Bombing the Israeli Embassy Attack in London in London was car bombed by two Palestinians linked to Hezbollah. ==== 2000 and Later==== In January 2000, Hezbollah assassinated the commander of the South Lebanon Army Western Brigade, Colonel Aql Hashem, at his home in the security zone. Hashem had been responsible for day to day operations of the SLA.[http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/lebanon/ind01b_lebanon_ca.pdf] In May 22 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon to the UN-agreed Israeli border, and their pullout was certified by the UN as complete[http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000618.sc6878.doc.html]. However, Hezbollah claims the Shebaa Farms area, which is still occupied by Israel, to be Lebanese territory, and on that basis has continued to attack Israeli forces in that area. For more details see: History of Lebanon. Israel continues to overfly Lebanese territory, eliciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General's representative in Lebanon. Hezbollah's anti-aircraft fire has on some occasions landed within the northern border region of Israel, inciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General [http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=449]. On November 7, 2004, Hezbollah responded to what it described as repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace by flying an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle over northern Israel.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3990773.stm] With the aid of a local UN peacekeeping force, Hezbollah snatched the bodies of three IDF soldiers during an October 2000 attack in Shebaa Farms, and sought to obtain the release of 14 Lebanese prisoners, some of whom had been held since 1978. On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah and Israel agreed on an exchange of prisoners. The prisoner swap was carried out on January 29: 30 Lebanese and Arab prisoners, the remains of 60 Lebanese militants and civilians, 420 Palestinian prisoners, and maps showing Israeli mines in South Lebanon were exchanged for an Israeli businessman and army reserve colonel kidnapped in 2001 and the remains of the three IDF soldiers mentioned above. On July 19, 2004, a senior Hezbollah official, Ghaleb Awwali, was assassinated in a car bombing in Beirut. Hezbollah blamed Israel; credit was claimed, and then retracted, by a previously unheard of Sunni group called Jund Ash Sham, while Israel denied involvement[http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/07/19/story157767.asp]. According to Al-Arabiya, unidentified Lebanese police also identified the group as a cover for Israel[http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aGFhFUAb_8d0&refer=top_world_news]. Israel alleges that Hezbollah had been increasingly involved in training and arming the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas (see section in this article: ''Hezbollah activities in the al-Aqsa Intifada''.) This claim has been strengthened by Nasrallah's own words. In 2001 Jordan arrested 3 Hezbollah members attempting to smuggle Katyusha rockets into the West Bank. Nasrallah responded that "it is a duty to send arms to Palestinians from any possible place."[http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/lebanon/2004/0914lcard.htm][http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6519] After Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin Hezbollah attacked the IDF along the Blue Line (Lebanon)[http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=1315&categ_ID=2&edition_id=1]. Most recently, during Awwali's funeral, Nasrallah proclaimed that Aawali was "among the team that dedicated their lives in the last few years to help their brothers in occupied Palestine"[http://www.moqawama.org/archive/drep_2004/july/dr_0720.htm], which some take to refer to aiding Hamas. On February 9, 2005 Palestinian Authority officials blamed Hezbollah of attempting to derail the recent truce between Israel and Palestine by offering increased funding and bonuses to the militant cells it operates in Israel and Palestine for any terrorist attack they carry out[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050209/wl_nm/mideast_hizbollah_dc ][http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hezbollah_threat ]. === Hezbollah activities in the al-Aqsa Intifada === ''Main article'': al-Aqsa Intifada In December 2001 three Hezbollah operatives were caught in Jordan while attempting to smuggle Katyusha rockets into the West Bank. Nasrallah responded that "It is a duty to send arms to Palestinians from any possible place."[http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6519] During 2002, 2003 and 2004, the Israeli Security Forces thwarted numerous suicide bombing attacks, some of which Israel claims were planned and funded by Hezbollah and were to have been carried out by Tanzim activists. Israeli officials accused Hezbollah of aiding Palestinian terrorism and participating in weapon smuggling (see also: Santorini, Karin A). After the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing (October 4, 2003) the Israeli Air Force bombed what were described as terrorist facilities in ''Ein-Saheb'' as a warning to Syria. On June 16, 2004, two Palestinian girls - aged 14 and 15 were arrested by the Israeli Defence Forces for plotting a suicide bombing. [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/439981.html] According to IDF statement, the two minors were recurited by Tanzim (Fatah's armed wing) activists, and guided by Hezbollah. [http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=32081.EN] On June 23, 2004, another allegedly Hezbollah-funded suicide bombing attack was foiled by the Israeli security forces. [http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=8960] . In February 2005 the Palestinian Authority accused Hezbollah of attempting to derail the truce signed with Israel. Palestinian officials and former militants described how Hezbollah promised an increase in funding for any cell able to carry out a terrorist attack [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hezbollah_threat]. == Political Activities == Hezbollah is an active participant in the political life and processes of Lebanon, and its scope of operation is far beyond its initial militant one. In 1992, it participated in elections for the first time, winning 12 out of 128 seats in parliament. It won 10 seats in 1996, and now holds 8. In the 2005 elections a pro-Syrian Amal_Party-Hezbollah alliance won all 23 seats in southern Lebanon. Since the end of the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon on May 22 2000, Hezbollah has been involved in activities like building schools, clinics, and hospitals. == Foreign relations == [[Image:BND Hezbollah.jpg|thumb|right|Good Foreign Relations: President of the German intelligence service Bundesnachrichtendienst in front of a flag of Lebanon and a Hezbollah flag, January 30, 2004]] Hezbollah claims that it forbids its fighters entry into Iraq for any reason, and that no Hezbollah units or individual fighters have entered Iraq to support any Iraqi faction fighting America. However, on April 2, 2004, Muqtada al-Sadr announced his intention to form chapters of Hezbollah and Hamas in Iraq [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/middleeast/05SADR.html?8bl]. He is not known to have consulted Hezbollah or Hamas before making this statement. Hezbollah has no known links to Al-Qaida. Though Hezbollah has a Shia ideology, this does not exclude it from co-operation with Sunni groups. However, Al-Qaida and the Taliban, which are respectively a Wahhabi and a Deobandi group, have long histories of conflict with Shia groups and with Iran in particular, Hezbollah's strongest backer. Hezbollah is closely allied with Iran and has a complex relationship with Syria. Hezbollah is strongly anti-Zionism, anti-Western World, and anti-Israeli. It is widely believed that Hafez al-Assad and Hezbollah were closely linked; this did not significantly affect his relations with the rest of the world. Bashar al-Assad, his son and successor, has been subjected to sanctions by the United States due to (among other things, such as occupying Lebanon) his continued support for Hezbollah, which it views as a terrorist organization. However, on March 3, 2005, the Bush administration would consider Hezbollah legitimate if it disarmed, but also said that this did not represent a change in their view of the organization, which is unlikely to do so.[http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7869278] Those who consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization consider its sponsors (in particular Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) to stand in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and UN Security Council Resolution 1566. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantling of Hezbollah and all other militias. Israel has lodged continuous complaints[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/2005131e10c4ac7485256cb10053e171!OpenDocument] about Hezbollah's actions. Israel has bombed several Syrian targets in retaliation for terrorist and guerrilla attacks by Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that Israel claims were sponsored by Syria. An Israeli official said that those attacks are a "message to Syria to stop sponsoring terrorism". The pro-Iranian Hezbollah stands out among those who benefit from the Kremlin's support. Vladimir Putin`s declarations about "Russia's uncompromising battle against international terrorism" are taking place simultaneously with the contacts of the [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah1.htm Russian Ministry of foreign Affairs with the leaders of Hezbollah]. Their emissaries in Russia [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah3.htm recruit potential suicide bombers without] restraint or opposition on behalf of the local authorities. They purchase arms in the areas of the ex-USSR, which are now under Russian control. [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah4.htm Russian ex-military experts train militants of Hezbollah before they infiltrate Iraq]. == Ideology == The organization views an Islamic republic, on the Iranian model, as the ideal and eventual form of state. However, as their conception of an Islamic republic requires the consent of the people, and Lebanon remains a religiously and ideologically heterogeneous society, their political platform revolves around more mundane issues. According to their published political platform in 2003, Hezbollah claims to favor the introduction of an Islamic government in Lebanon by peaceful democratic means. According to the United States Department of State and reports submitted to Defense Technical Information Center (among other United States agencies) as late as 2001, the organization is seeking to create an fundamentalist Iranian-style Islamic republic and removal of all non-Islamic influences. Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[http://www.unb.ca/web/bruns/9900/issue14/intnews/israel.html] and co-operates with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal. == Media operations == Hezbollah operates a satellite television station from Lebanon, ''Al-Manar (TV station)'' TV ("the Lighthouse") as well as a radio station, ''al-Nour'' ("the light"). ''Qubth Ut Alla'' ("The Fist of God") is the monthly magazine of Hezbollah's paramilitary wing. They are watched widely by West Bank and Gazan Palestinians as well as Lebanese Muslims. The broadcasting of Al Manar in France (even via satellite, not by any station based on French territory) is controversial. It has been accused of promoting religious and racial hatred (against the Jews), which is a criminal offense in France. On December 13, 2004, the French ''Conseil d'État'', acting on the request of the French TV authorities, issued an injunction to Eutelsat to cease the broadcasting of Al Manar in France. ([http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/jurispd/index_ac_ld0460.shtml full text of the decision], [http://www.conseil-etat.fr/ce/actual/index_ac_lc0418.shtml press release], in French language; [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4093579.stm BBC report]). ==See also== Anti-Israel movements | Arab-Israeli conflict | Axis of evil | Council on American-Islamic Relations | Foreign relations of Iran | Foreign relations of Lebanon | History of Lebanon | Imad Mugniyah | Islam | Islam as a political movement | Islamic Terrorism | Islamism | Katyusha | List of terrorist groups | Politics of Lebanon | Qassam rocket | Special Force (computer game) | War on Terrorism | William Francis Buckley == External links, resources, and references== ===Official site=== *[http://www.hizbollah.org/ Hizbollah] (an [http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm English version] is also available) * [http://www.manartv.com Al-Manar TV Network] * [http://www.al-nour.net Al-Nour radio] ===UN Resolutions regarding Lebanon=== * [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm UN Press Release SC/8181] UN, September 2, 2004 * [http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11823&Cr=Lebanon&Cr1= Lebanon: Close Security Council vote backs free elections, urges foreign troop pullout] UN, September 2, 2004 * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3622260.stm UN vote due on Syria resolution] BBC, September 2, 2004 * [http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040901/wl_mideast_afp/un_syria_lebanon_040901185248 US draft resolution at UN demands respect for Lebanon's sovereignty] AFP, September 2, 2004 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1391 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1496 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1559 * Wikisource:UN Security Council Resolution 1583 ''See also: History of Lebanon'' ===United States Department of State=== ''see also: United States Department of State'' * This article incorporates text from the United States Department of State, "[http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm Background Information on Foreign Terrorist Organizations]," released by the Office of Counterterrorism, October 8, 1999. * This article also in incorporates text from the United States Department of State, "[http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/fto1999.htm Foreign Terrorist Organizations]," Secretary of State, October 8, 1999. ===Information=== * [http://www.hizbollah.org/english/info.htm Hizbollah.org] identity and goals * ''Hizbullah: Politics and Religion'' by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, (Pluto Press Ltd, 2001), ISBN 0745317936 * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm What is Hezbollah] BBC, March 2005 * [http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Terrorism/Terrorist_Organizations/Hizballah/ Open Directory Project - ''Hizballah''] directory category *[http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Lebanon/Government/Politics/Parties/ Yahoo - ''Hezbollah''] directory category * [http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/hezbollah.html Hezbollah: Lebanon, Islamists], Council on Foreign Relations * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn42.htm Hezbollah in Profile], Parliament of Australia ([http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn42.pdf PDF] version) * Abridged translation of "''[http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm Nass al-Risala al-Maftuha allati wajahaha Hizballah ila-l-Mustad'afin fi Lubnan wa-l-Alam]''" (Hizballah Program), February 16, 1985 in al-Safir (Beirut). *[http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/15/cp.00.html CNN transcripts] * [http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/hezbollah/ Rotten.com article on Hezbollah] ===Articles=== * [http://www.axisglobe.com/hezbollah1.htm Dangerous liaisons: covert "love affair" between Russia and Hezbollah] Michel Elbaz, AIA, May 28 2005 * [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050209/wl_nm/mideast_hizbollah_dc Palestinians Say Hizbollah Trying to Wreck Truce] Diala Saadeh, Reuters, February 9 2005 * [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hezbollah_threat Hezbollah May Be Threat to Mideast Truce] Mohammed Daraghmeh, Associated Press, February 9, 2005 * [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/479049.html Iranian arrested photographing Israeli Embassy in Azerbaijan] Amos Harel and Yossi Melman, Haaretz, September 20, 2004 * [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/lebanon/2004/0914lcard.htm Hizballah and Syria's "Lebanese Card"] Nicholas Blanford, Middle East Online Report, September 14, 2004 * [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=7297 UNIFIL keeps constant watch in South Lebanon] The Daily Star, August 13, 2004 * [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6519 Sticking to the rules in South Lebanon] The Daily Star, July 23, 2004 * [http://www.mafhoum.com/press7/190P8.htm In Search of Hezbollah], by Adam Shatz New York Review of Books, April 29, 2004 * [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=1315&categ_ID=2&edition_id=1 Nasrallah to Hamas: We are under your command] The Daily Star, March 29, 2004 * [http://www.merip.org/mero/mero042803.html Hezbollah in the Firing Line]. Middle East Report, April 28, 2003 * Zisser, Eyal, "''[http://www.meforum.org/article/499 The Return of Hizbullah]''". Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2003. * Westcott, Kathryn, "''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm Who are Hezbollah?]''", BBC News Online *[http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_l1.htm ''MEIB'' Hezbollah: Between Tehran and Damascus by Gary C. Gambill and Ziad K. Abdelnour] * "''[http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Hezbollah.html Liberals, Labor, ABC unite against Hezbollah but are they telling the truth]''?" * '[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=247609&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 Arms from Iraq caused blast at Hezbollah base]' * [http://www.meib.org/articles/9909_l5.htm ''MEIB'' Hezbollah is Recruiting Europeans for Terrorist Attacks against Israel] Islamist groups Arab-Israeli conflict National liberation movements Political parties in Lebanon Jihadist organizations
Hezbollah
==Peacekeeping?== If "peacekeeping" is put in scare quotes all the time, then "defensive" and all the other claims regarding Hezbollah should also be put in scare quotes. Either adhere to NPOV or stop pretending to. :NO. The Hezbollah was formed gradually after 3 years of Israeli state terrorism and Israel's outrageous refusal to leave Lebanon in defiance of UN Security Council's Resolution 425. So they were truly defending themselves and their territory. The US presence at that time, however, was clearly to support Israel (what else is new?) under the dastardly guise of "peace keeping". If USA truly wanted to create peace in Lebanon at that time, it would pressure Israel to withdraw its occupying forces from Lebanon. Therefore, editorially speaking, "defense" in the article needs not be enquoted, but "peacekeeping" clearly does. ::Hey anon user-- you seem like a reasonable and articulate person, why dont you get a login and sign your name with four of these:~ That way...its clearer, not clutter. -User:Stevertigo 19:40, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC) :As you saw on Talk:Israel discussion page, they have already blocked some of the dynamic IP's that I have used before, for no reason at all other than the fact that I have had the audacity of presenting some facts that are unfavourable to Israel. So getting a login ID would be nothing short of entering a game predisadvantageously ... and that would not be smart. For this reason I prefer to work with dynamic IP's. And just in case that limy (and slimy) lush is reading this, allow me to mention that I can come in with a more variegated range of IP's from different blocks than he can imagine. ::Please, don't be a jerk. Your uncompromising attitude is preventing anyone from editing this page, which doesn't allow anyone to correct bias in either direction. This is Wikipedia. You can't have it your own way. Most of us are not Zionists, and in fact some of us are anti-Zionists. But all of us should be committed to making a good, neutral encyclopedia (i.e., not propaganda which selectively omits or colors facts). Please, please, your attitude that this is a "game" will forever leave this page locked. It's not a game, we're trying to produce a serious article. If you can't live by this, go away, and let us edit in peace. User:Graft 16:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- The current article (00:42GMT 13 August 2003) is another failure in neutral point of view. It seems that all that happens are partisan swings in favor of or against, but nothing else. -------------- This article states that \"[The Hezbollah is] seeking to create a fundamentalist Islamic republic to remove all non-Islamic influences in Lebanon\" ..... this is an outrageous lie. Why should such lies and decpetions be tolerated in Wikipedia? Isn't the mainstream media enough?? The article is so grossly false and biased it's actually entertaining. ------- The Hiballah came into existence as a reaction to the Israeli invasion in 1982. I would like to add this. Btw. I was in Lebanon at the time. --RS ------ Isnt this a Copyright infrigement? ''User:AntonioMartin'' That text is everywhere on the Internet and has been in Wikipedia for well-over a year. If anything everyone else copied from us - but it probably is public domain US government text. --User:Maveric149 ------- Well, I wanted to stop people from bashing back and forth, and instead start moving forward. It might be a case of "I don't write 5 words but I change 7", but let's try to add to things instead of (just) delete them/revert them.
~ender 2003-05-07 01:45 MST I still think that we should pare the history of invasion out of this article, and put it elsewhere. This should only be Hizballah stuff. Maybe just put something to the effect that Americans were on the scene, and as part of the occupation forces (to the residents) they were targeted. I'm willing to re-put in that much of the world media depicts Hizballah differently, but I'd really like some cites for that. That's implied when we put 'American media says' but not stated.
I'd also like some current information... but I ain't been following that too much.
~ender 2003-05-07 02:15 MST ----- Is it really true that hizbullah is also known as the "Islamic Jihad Organisation"? I know there is an organization of this name in Palestine, but as far as I know that originated from Egypt and has nothing to do with Hizbullah. So, is this merely a name overlap? Do they need to have disambiguation? "We are not that Islamic Jihad, we're another group of the same name." Or, more likely, is this incorrect information? User:Graft :(Can't help myself...) No, we're the People's Front of Judea! (stifled snicker) -- User:JohnOwens Why have we chosen this spelling? Google finds 17,400 hits for "Hizballah" and 151,000 for "Hezbollah", and a search for Hizballah says, "Did you mean: Hezbollah" - User:Zoe I deleted several paragraphs and links discussing accusations of Israeli bombing of south Lebanon. Although those items might belong in some other article, they seem out of place here. -- User:Zoe :Accusations?? Umm, those are news reports. :Damn, you guys are making me start to side with that anonymous guy who can't spell. :~ender 2003-05-11 21:12 MST ::As I said, put it into an article in which it is more relevant. -- User:Zoe :::If you're gonna be deleting it, then *you* put it in an article that would be more relevant. :::And deleting source documents is not very NPOV. :::~ender 2003-05-11 21:24 MST :::Also, I don't see where it could be much more relevant than in an article on Hizbullah... that would be like saying that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not relevant to an article on Operation Desert Storm... User:Graft ::::Please explain how bombings in May of 2003 have anything to do with Hezbollah. If you want to include discussions of other events which ''led up'' to the creation of Hezbollah, then that's fine, but this is a current event which, unless it's because of Hezbollah attacks on Israel, or are direct attacks against Hezbollah which somehow are more important than any other attacks on Hezbollah, then how is it relevant? -- User:Zoe :::::Who's talking about May 2003? I didn't see any specific dates in the relevant text, actually, but as far as I'm aware the last time Israel bombed southern lebanon was when Barak was in power. Anyway, it doesn't matter much.. the article really just needs to be rewritten from the ground up. User:Graft :::::The rationale by the non-western contigent complaining that we're just spewing department of defense rhetoric is that the Hizballah is a self-defense organization, and that they only operated on lebanese soil (which I tried to disprove using some sources). Part of the rationale behind the Hizballah existing is the terror attacks by Israel, to 'eliminate' terrorists, by bombing power plants and radio stations. Kinda like the US in Iraq, if you look at Gulf war 2 & 3.... :::::But ya know what, have it. Stupid revert wars aren't acceptable. Add information, make information more correct, add new articles. If you want to delete. Have fun. Point is to be adding stuff, and making it better, not removing it. It was an attempt at trying to be more inclusivist to other non-state department views. :::::~ender 2003-05-11 21:38 MST :Oh yeah Zoe you should also mention that you completely removed all references to American peacekeeping forces entering the fray, UN resolutions, and the like :) :~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST Sheez, ender, create a damn login already! User:Graft :Bah, hate logins :P :This is the internet, we're all allowed to be cranks. :) :~ender 2003-05-11 21:47 MST The last sentence of the article is pretty awful. I'm not sure what it's trying to say, exactly, so I didn't want to unilaterally change it, but it's a terrible sentence. User:Jlk7e 04:05 May 12, 2003 (UTC) Moving my comments to the bottom instead of continuing to post in the middle. Please tell me what American peacekeepers have ever been involved in Lebanon/Israel. -- User:Zoe :Consider reading before editting. :FYI: [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hizballah&oldid=911448] :Which is why Americans have been attacked by the Hizballah. :I've had enough with wasting my time on this. :~ender 2003-05-11 21:52 MST ::Claiming that there were US peacekeeping forces in the area doesn't make it true. -- User:Zoe :::How did US Marines come to be bombed by the Hizballah in Lebanon? They magically appear? Maybe they're some other 'US' forces I don't know about. :::Tell that to Congress and the Department of Defense who awarded those forces medals for excellent conduct. Claiming it is not true doesn't make things false either. I gave you specific references to look up and prove or disprove, that should be enough. I didn't merely claim 'american forces' although that would read cleaner, which is what you seem to be shooting for - delete everything you can get your hands on. Minimal information. I'm not sure that those specific references should've been in there (note above), but I did include them. Because we're talking about the rationale for attacks on Americans in Lebanon. :::~ender 2003-05-11 22:01 MST ::::"Peacekeeprs" implies that they were there to engage in action against either the Israelis or the Lebanese or both. Their sole purpose there was to remove Americans safely from the action. They never engaged in battle against Hezbollah. -- User:Zoe :::::Try reading again, you'll like it. :::::non-combatants -> combatants. :::::Also, I don't make up these names, you have issues with it, tell it to the US Department of Defense & the UN. I don't think invading a country should be called peacekeeping either, but that's what we like to call it. :::::~ender 2003-05-11 22:23 MST Basically I guess my complaint is this: I don't see people attempting to adapt to/address other points of view and refute them with facts. In the places where there may be different interpretations of events, I don't see both sides being given air-time. I don't think that the clueless non-speller user has been taken seriously enough. Yeah *e has issues - but that doesn't mean *ier viewpoint is irrelevant.
I believe this article is pretty much US propoganda at present - that doesn't mean it's without merit, but the suppression of disenting voices/views does not make me feel good that it is even half-way accurate.
But underlying this is a larger problem. I see people deleting information they don't agree with. Removal of sources, etc, etc. I don't believe some people are actually reading what's written before editting/reverting (as is apparent above, re: American forces). I think it's disingenous to imply that all the information is still there, when it's buried in the history page and not visible.
And I'm unhappy with the way the Wiki system seems to be dealing with these issues. Which is an indictment of the people who watch recent changes and do nothing.
~ender 2003-05-11 23:05 MST :And who might those people be? -- User:Zoe Seems to me the main problem with this article is that it's very poorly organized, and not especially well written, at least at present. The last sentence/paragraph remains dreadful, and much of the rest of it isn't much better. I don't know that much about the subject, so I don't really want to get into rewriting it, but I think what really needs to be done is a thorough rewrite that tries to give information about Hezbollah in basically chronological order. As it is, the chronology is extremely garbled and its full of bizarre statements and scare quotes. User:Jlk7e 06:06 May 12, 2003 (UTC) :(American Media) That is only the result of edits :) :Check the history and see the progress before recent reverts. If Zoe had completely reamed all the information in the article, you wouldn't have been bothered at all. :~ender 2003-05-11 23:15 MST ::There ya go, almost completely back to US state department stance. ::C'mon, you guys can delete the rest too... ::"the whole article needs rewriting (but I'm not the man to do it)" ::But you are the man to prevent others from doing it... :D ::~ender 2003-05-11 23:24 MST :::Why don't you revert it back the way you want it, if you're so upset? The fact is that that sentence was just bad. I have no ideologic stance about this, but the article as is is terrible (probably due to the ongoing edit war, I suppose, although it doesn't seem to have ever been particularly good). If you restore what you had before, I could try to work it up into a better-organized and more NPOV article, if you'd like, but as I said, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute anything of my own. Again, I'm really not trying to make the article be the State Department/Israeli view of Hezbollah at all. It's just that that once sentence really grated with me. On your last comment (written while I was writing this), I'm not preventing anybody from doing anything. I'm certainly not the one who deleted most of the content you added. User:Jlk7e 06:22 May 12, 2003 (UTC) ::::Because it won't stay that way without some consensus. I hate revert/edit-wars. I think they're dumb. I'd rather people edit up than delete. ::::Nope you didn't delete most of the content that I *modified*, but you didn't bother to look at it either. Instead of trying to grasp the point that was trying to be made you just deleted it. ::::~ender 2003-05-11 23:56 MST :::I did look at it, but I'm not much good with this whole reverting concept, so I wasn't sure what to do (especially since it's not really my fight). In any event, I've tried to edit your material in with the original material to form a cohesive article (and I've changed around the wording a bit), although I'm not sure how good it is at the moment. It still needs work, I think. User:Jlk7e 07:01 May 12, 2003 (UTC) ::::Hey *I* think it needs a lot of work myself. However, it is hard to work on the article when it's not there. I'd like to see enough done on it that the anonymous poster is happy with it. Or have points lined up to refute their allegations. I think we could say that Hizballah has not restrained themselves to Lebanese borders (disputed or otherwise) with the Argentina attack + Israeli stuff, which make the anonymous poster wrong in stating that they have only done things within Lebanon. I will grant that poster that mostly they've stayed in Lebanese or Israeli territory (embassies are part of a country's territory), and I guess I need a list of hostages they've taken. From what I've seen they've limited themselves to military and political targets. Not sure, but i believe they may have held a journalist for a really long time... They might construe that as a quasi-governmental operative. But that should be stated (if it's true). ::::~ender 2003-05-12 01:47 MST On a separate note, there is not a single shred of evidence that the Hizbullah (or any other group for that matter) were involved in the bombings of the Israeli facilities in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is ONLY Israeli insistence that it is the Hizbullah (and at the same time they say it is Iran!), and naturally, USA also supports the Israeli claims as usual. But who else believes them? Even more and more Amercian people are awakening to the facts that Israel and their incredibly powerful US lobby keep lying, deceiving and misguiding the Americans with misinformation, fabrications and flat out lies. Also, both Iran as well as the Hizbullah have consistently and categorically rejected the accusations about the blasts in Buenos Aires since day one. How irritating. I edited the article to merge the two versions together into one (not-)seamless whole, and it disappears without a trace, not even appearing in the page history. How the hell did that happen? User:Jlk7e 18:11 May 12, 2003 (UTC) ---- What's with the name? I know Arabic names appear in many Latinized forms, but this article deals badly with it. While Hezbollah is the only form I've ever seen it in (until now), I don't really know or care what the best name is, but it's a mess right now. The article's header gives three names (Hezbollah first), but the title of the article's not even among them. In the rest of the text, Hezbollah is mostly used, but Hizballah shows up a several times. I don't know what the name should be, but to those who do, please do the following: * make the first mentioned term the same as the title * mention all others forms in the header * use only the title term in the article User:Jheijmans 13:00, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Jeronimo, I think no one is listening to you: from following the edit histories, it appears that a couple of anonymous individuals have decided to force their preferred version of the article onto the rest of Wikipedia. (Oddly enough, the version they keep removing is not very favorable to Isreal.) A clue to their intentions are the statements, "Reverting game with the Zionists again" & "Wikipedia does not belong to you Jews". :To the partisans involved -- If I am wrong about your intentions, & please prove it by cleaning up the following sentence from your favored version: ::Hezbollah is profesedly anti-Zionist]]. :-- User:Llywrch 19:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) About the name: the official name of the organization is Hezbollah, but Hizbullah is also correct and is used. The reason you see "Hizballah" here is because someone, obviously unfamiliar with Arabic, wanted to make sure that "allah" is present in the name, so they came up with the odd "Hizballah" spelling on their own. Apparently that happens to be the person who initiated the article. As for reverting, just read the differences between the versions yourself and you will see that theh version the pro-Israeli folk try to enforce, is full of lies, deceptions and misinformation. For example, they say the Hezbollah is trying to get rid of all other groups in Lebanon, and make Lebanon an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state. This is so ridiculous that doesn't even desreve an argument. The pro-Israel people, in typical fashion, try to villify the victims of Israeli atrocities, and play down or excuse the atrocities perpetrated by Israel. They do that in mainstream American media all the time, because over there they have direct or indirect control or influence. In the Internet, they have less of that luxury, but sadly, it seems this is also changing. Hezbollah's website was first blocked at most major ISP's and now it will refer you to some pornographic sites. :If the part concerning making "Lebanon an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state" is incorrect, why don't you just correct that part of the page, while leaving the rest alone? There are a lot of misspellings & grammatical errors in the version you (or someone within your internet domain) keeps reverting to. :BTW, I'm puzzled why you had to keep editting & saving this page so many times. Are you aware of the "show preview" button? Frankly, I use it a lot. -- User:Llywrch 21:43, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) Why don't I just correct that one line? Because that was just one example out of many obvious and subtle lies crafted in their "contribution" to the article. :And what do you consider are the other ones? -- User:Llywrch 19:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- Would anyone object if I delete Hezbollah and redirect this article to there? User:RickK 06:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) :I have no objection; best wait a while -- maybe a week -- to see if there are any objections, Rick. If there are none, go for it. -- User:Llywrch 19:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::I object. You fuckers have reverted to a disgusting pro-Israeli version of this article, have locked it so nobody else can edit it, and now are trying to eliminate it. You are abusing you admin status in Wikipedia, and because of ficking racist morons like you, lies and depections are permeated in our world. This article should be here, but without any lies and deceptions. Only with facts, not from a particular angle or point of view. FACTS ARE FACTS. Fuck you cowards. :Language like that isn't going to convince anyone. And for the record, I do not have admin status -- I'm just another contributor, who was trying to find a middle ground & end this edit war. :BTW, why don't you sign these statements where you call everyone cowards? -- User:Llywrch 20:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- A few comments: * The section "American involvement" seems to be disconnected from the rest of the article to the extent that its relevance is unclear. It is also written in a sort of cheerleading style. It should be replaced or deleted (I would vote for deletion). * That Hezbollah has an Islamic state as one of its aims is supported by their own web page: http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm . Clicking "Introduction" we get a summary that states this quite explicitly. -- User:Zero0000 12:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) :I clicked on the URL that you gave, and then read the entire Introduction section. There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind .... I read the whole seciotn. I found this: :: .... ::Today, Hezbollah is one of the most prominent Lebanese political parties that has its presence in the parliament with 8 MPs. ::Hezbollah today also commands respect politically after it proved its strength with its presence by respecting the values of others in the field. ::Hezbollah also sees itself committed in introducing the true picture of Islam, the Islam that is logical. Committed to introduce the civilized Islam to humanity. ::... ::Hezbollah does not wish to implement Islam forcibly but in a peaceful and political manner, that gives the chance to the majority to either accept or refuse. If Islam becomes the choice of the majority only then will it be implemented. If not it will then continue to co-exist with others on the basis of mutual understanding using peaceful methods to reach peaceful solutions. And that is how the case should be to the non-Islamists as well. :Were you smoking weed or drinking something when you read that section? :Ahhh ... I just checked your "contributions" .... all of them to Jewish or Israeli-related issues .... wow, what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate ! As a matter of fact, the Shiites in Lebanon are not even the second largest group, demographically. They are the thrid or the fourth. Lebanese Constitution requires that the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Primse Minister, a Sunni Muslim, and Speaker of the Parliament, a Shia Muslim (not necessarily from the Hizollah). ---- ''There was not a single thing suggesting they have an Islamic state in mind '' -- Sorry, I was mislead by the sentence that says "Another of its ideals is the establishment of the an Islamic Government." Silly me to not realise it was just a typo for "Another of its ideals is to NOT have an Islamic Government". ''what a surprise that one of God's Chosen People should prevaricate'' -- Actually that's pretty funny. Now, looking at the Wiki article we see ''Reportedly, the organization is seeking to create an fundamentalist Iranian-style Islamic republic and remove of all non-Islamic influences. ''. -- The final part of that sentence is quite unacceptable. I suggest a replacement like this: :According to its stated policy, Hezbollah favors the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon by democratic means. -- User:Zero0000 00:41, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) :From my understanding of Hezbollah's statements, they are far more liberal about the whole matter than others - they want Islamic rule and government for Muslims, but others should not be governed by Islamic law, since they are not Muslims. Whether this is PR or not, I don't know, but this is what they say they want: Islamic rule for Muslims, self-government for everyone else. User:Graft 05:24, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) There is a clear distinction between ''state'' and ''government''. The Hezbollah is not only fully in accordance with the Lebanese present state and constitution, they in fact take pride in having made political progress within that framework. It's not like they are racist like Israel or anything .... kinda like how last week Israeli parliament passed a double-standard racist law for citizens of Israel that if the citizen is a jew marrying a non-Israeli, the spouse can become an Israeli citizen, but if the citizen is an Arab-Israeli marrying a non-Arab-Israeli, the rules are different. To me it seems that the Hezbollah are fair and tolerant and they just want to protect their own rights and religious and cultural interest in a traditionally difficult environment. ---- ==Disambiguation== On an unrelated note, I think we should add this sentence (I can't, as the article is protected): ''This article is about the Hezbollah based in Lebanon. For an article about the unrelated Hezbollah in Turkey, see Hezbollah (Turkey).'' If for no other reason, it will clarify that these two are not the same organization. User:DanKeshet 21:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC) Since this is of an administrative nature, I will do it. -- User:Toby Bartels 05:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- ==Excerpt from ''Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger''== This article is remarkable for not mentioning the group's beliefs and driving motivations. That is an oversight which needs to be corrected. Some of the following information needs to be incorporated into this article. (Source: ''Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger'' by Robert S. Wistrich) :A similarly radical ideology motivates the Lebanese Shi'a movement, Hizballah ("the Party of God"), which rose to prominence following its resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Its total negation of Israel's existence and its view of Judaism as the oldest and bitterest enemy of Islam owe much to the Ayatollah Khomeini's "anti-Zionist" preaching and the movement's symbiotic relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In accordance with this doctrinal source of inspiration, Hizballah opposes nationalism, imperialism, and "Western arrogance" while laying special emphasis on the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem as a major strategic aim. :As with the Hamas and other fundamentalist groupings, Israel is depicted as a Western puppet installed in the Middle East to enable imperialism to continue its domination and exploitation of Arab regional resources. Israel is invariably seen as the source of all evil and violence in the area and as the main obstacle to Islamic unity. Hence it must be totally eradicated.44 The recent Israeli departure from Lebanon is no more than a prelude to this future obliteration of the great "usurping enemy" of Islam-frequently described by Hizballah (as in Iranian propaganda) as a "cancer" and poison that affects the entire world. :Hizballah's most senior cleric, Sheikh Husayn Fadlallah, continually emphasized through the 1990s that Israel was not just a Jewish state in the formal sense of the word. It was the ultimate expression of the corrupt, treacherous, and aggressive "Jewish" personality. Jews were indeed "the enemy of the entire human race," congenitally "racist" and condescending in their attitude to other peoples, and ruthlessly bent upon global domination. In an interview in the late 1980s, Fadlallah already expressed a widely held fundamentalist attitude toward allegedly boundless Jewish ambitions: :"The Jews want to be a world superpower. This racist circle of Jews wants to take vengeance on the whole world for their history of persecution and humiliation. In this light, the Jews will work on the basis that Jewish interests are above all world interests." 45 :Hizballah's consistently intransigent philosophy of all-out war against Israel, Zionism, and the Jews has an unmistakably virulent anti-Semitic underpinning linked to its overall pan-Islamic, revolutionary perspective. Its special venom also draws from the traditional Iranian Shi'i attitudes toward Jews as unclean, impure, and corrupt infidels. This is a theme that pervaded the outlook of the Ayatollah Khomeini and still influences the present Iranian leadership.46 :Like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Hizballah engages in a total demonization of the Jewish and Zionist enemy, eagerly embracing violence, "suicide bombings," martyrdom, and terror as the only path to "liberate" Palestine, destroy Israel, and defeat the West.47 Everything is made subordinate to the supreme imperative of the jihad-the holy war that must be waged to the death against the infidel-until all Islamic lands are liberated and a truly Islamic state is restored.48 :The Western media, as is its custom, has been extremely reluctant to relate the current terrorist war against Israel and the West to its ideological roots in Islam or to the sources and meaning of jihad. It is equally averse to connecting terrorism with the anti-Jewish obsessions that currently animate millions of Muslims.49 Amazingly little attention has been paid to the sheer abundance, energy, and viciousness of contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism from Cairo and Gaza to Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, and Lahore. The seemingly endless parade of grotesque falsehoods exhibited in Arab and Muslim defamation of Jews and the Jewish state scarcely seems to impinge on Western consciousness. At most it is perceived as a footnote to the raging storm of anti-Americanism or as a form of "political opposition" to Israeli actions. Not even the rampant Arab claims that the Holocaust was a fabrication invented by Zionists and Jews (which attracts much attention in the European media when made by neo-Nazis or far rightists) stir more than the faintest of responses in the West.50 :Footnotes: :43. Esther Webman, Anti-Semitic Motifs in the Ideology of Hizballah and Hamas (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1994), pp. 17-22. :44. Ibid., pp. 8-9. :45. Middle East Insight, March-April 1988, p. 10. :46. David Menashri, "The Jews of Iran: Between the Shah and Khomeini," in Sander Gilman and Steven T. Katz, eds., Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (New York: New York University Press, 1991), pp. 353-71. :47. Raphael Israeli, "Islamikaze and Their Significance," Terrorism and Political Violence 9:3 (Autumn 1997): 96-121, emphasizes the planned, premeditated style of the "suicides" organized by Muslim terrorists, which are designed to wreak maximum damage on the "abominable" Zionist enemy. :48. Ibid., pp. 110-11. :49. See Raphael Israeli, The Terrorist Masquerade (Shaarei Tikva, Israel: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2001). :50. See Holocaust Denial in the Middle East: The Latest Anti-Israel Propaganda Theme (New York: Anti-Defamation League, 2001). :Source: ''Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger'' by Robert S. Wistrich ::I would hope that something from a source with a less obvious political motivation could be found. --User:Zero0000 03:01, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- ==Why protected?== Why is this article protected? —User:Frecklefoot 15:51, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) From the page history, it sems that an anon IP was going ga-ga with a revert war a couple of weeks ago. On the assumption that the anon has got bored and gone somewhere else now, I have unprotected the page again. User:Tannin 15:57, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- ==State Dept. info on "non-Islamic influences"== Where does the State Department say that Hezbollah is "seeking to remove all non-Islamic influences"? It does not appear in the document mentioned at the bottom of the page and I could not find it on the S.D. site in half an hour of looking. The closest I found was "Hizballah formally advocates ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon" which doesn't even contradict what Hezbollah claims. --User:Zero0000 10:15, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) : I couldn't find the exact phracse on the dept of state page ... but on other pages i did find the reference ... :heres a few links ... : (link to item and google's cache of it in []) : http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/terorism.pdf [http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:gddyv3r6870J:www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/terorism.pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] : http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/handouts/terrorism.doc [http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:dAtb0UtyLqsJ:www.ltcconline.net/lukas/handouts/terrorism.doc&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] : http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1992/9235/923504.PDF [http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:L8dTmGSTD9IJ:www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1992/9235/923504.PDF&hl=en&ie=UTF-8] :I'll modify the statement accordingly ...User:Reddi 12:58, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) : Ah I found one page from the US dept of state page with the reference to the "seeking to remove all non-Islamic influences" ... http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/fto1999.htm ... User:Reddi 13:20, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- ==State Dept. Info on Alternate Names == I exposed the one external link at the bottom. I didn't know if there was a reason the rest were hidden, so I left them like that. But I had to find that link through the talk page here, and that's not good. Also, I removed the following sentence: ''According to the United States Department of State, it has been called the Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine.'' Does anybody beside the US Department of State (and the legions of websites that copy their information wholesale) say that Hezbollah have been called these names? If not, then there is no reason for us to include erroneous state department information, even if it is properly attributed. This question was asked above, by Graft, and nobody answered. User:DanKeshet : Please don't remove this information ... it is relevant ... I am reinstating this information User:Reddi 14:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::You haven't even tried to answer my question. Does anybody other than the US Department of State (and people citing or copying their information) say they go by these names? Can you give me any references I can look up that would say the same thing? Why would it be relevant whether the US Department of State erroneously attributes various other names to the organization? User:DanKeshet : the history of what Hezbollah has been called is very relevant to this article. The US Department of State is a very reputable source and the inclusion of their informaiton is generally accepted through out wikipedia. User:Reddi 14:34, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) : BTW, you can find pages and pages through a simple search of the names listed (just like [http://www.google.com/search?q=Revolutionary%20Justice%20Organization&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Revolutionary Justice Organization] does) ... it's not really hard to find references for this ... the info is accurate ... User:Reddi 14:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::I take serious, serious issue with the idea that the US Department of State, or any agency of any government--least of all a government involved in a conflict--should be considered a "reputable" source if challenged. We shouldn't take the Hezbollah website or Lebanese PR at face value, either. Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing, not because we all simply believe what the US state dept says. ::: [snip info souce skepticism] ::: Wikipedia has state dept info scattered wholesale because it is a public domain text that can serve as the basis for future editing AND it is a reputable source of information (even if it goes against some ppl's POV). The information is reliable and should be include (much like the Hezbollah's own info should be included). ::: I'm all for being skeptical of information from wherever it comes from ... but don't restrict the information ... give the reader as much info as possible and let the reader decide ... ::I have done the web searches for these names. Almost all the references that turns up are wholesale copies of the US State department information, or a 1996 propaganda leaflet by the Israeli foreign ministry (for example, [http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=15 here]). As the Foreign Ministry leaflet pre-dates the State dept. info by 3 years, it's moderately likely the Israeli foreign ministry's information is the source for the (unsourced) information from the US State dept. ::: it's all just State dept / isreali propaganda? I doubt that (and many others do too) ... YMMV on it though ... ::But the Israeli information only uses 3 names: 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance'. And it doesn't say that Hezbollah has "been called" these names like the state dept does, rather that they have created cover organizations using these names so as to misdirect credit and blame for their actions. User:DanKeshet ::: Are you seriously proposing a Conspiracy theory? ::::*Laugh*! I'll come back to this later, but I don't know what the "conspiracy" I'd be proposing was! A conspiracy to assert that Hezbollah has been known by other names?! User:DanKeshet ::PS. FWIW, the Hezbollah website refers to their military units as "The Islamic Resistance". ::: I just included that in the intro ... User:Reddi 15:43, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) RickK - what are you doing? Please explain. -User:Stevertigo 02:54, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC) This page is already grossly pro-Hezbollah. "The poor terrorists are only killing innocent people in self-defense. The Hezbollah drove the evil Israelis out of Lebanon." I can't sit by and let more lies be added to the page. I didn't interfere with the addition of the "NPOV dispute" line, that's VERY true. Ironically, the person who included it did so because he or she thinks it's too anti-Hezbollah, which is hardly true. User:RickK 03:01, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) Whenever you do a revert -- explain. To not explain is to paint the other party as a vandal which is clearly not the case here. -User:Stevertigo 03:06, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC) The article is full of nonsense in both directions and Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist. If you look back through the logs, you will see that current dispute is over one word. I objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint. I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement, but that is not good enough for the people here who think that articles should tell people what to think about events and not merely inform them of the facts. I would not object to many of Hezbollah's actions such as kidnapping civilians and shelling Israeli towns being called "terrorist" because they satisfy the accepted definition of that word, but to use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable. It's a clear case of POV that should not be here. The United States was attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing. That is a fact. --User:Zero0000 06:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) : full of nonsense in both directions? YMMV that ... : Wikipedia would be better if it didn't exist? again YMMV on that ... : dispute is over one word? I believe that there is more at dispute than that ... the relabeling of a organization that is supports terrorism (atleast in part) [which even the UN acknowledges] ... : Objected to the attacks on the US marine barracks, embassy and annexe as being called "terrorist" because that is just a particular viewpoint? a viewpoint that correlates to FACTs ... : I substituted "violent" instead of "terrorist" as a neutral replacement? may be neutral ... but less accurate .... you leave out the reason why they attack ... which was a political move [to get the US peacekeepers out] : [snip 'tell ppl how to think'] : [snip 'other Hezbollah's actions "terrorist"] : use the same word for attacks against the military and government installations of a foreign power engaged in military action is highly questionable? When it's part of a peacekeeping operation, YMMV on that ... especially when they are try to restablish order [not initating it in the 1st place] : It's a clear case of POV that should not be here? YMMV on that ... : The United States peacekeepers [you keep leaving that bit out] were attacking multiple targets from the sea and from the air both before and after the time of the marine barracks bombing? yep ... BUT under the mandate to reestablish order ... and take out the Hezbollah terrorists. That is a fact. User:Reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ''state terrorism by Israel'' -- Wji, how is that more NPOV than what was there before? It is just a different POV. This is the problem with the word "terrorism"; it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion. We've seen it a hundred times. Someone describes something as "terrorism", then someone claims it wasn't, then someone makes it "which X regards as terrorism", then someone else adds "but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism", and so on. The resulting article is always awful and I don't think I've seen a single exception. It is a type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events. If the bare facts were presented without such loaded words in the first place, such nonsense could be (partly ;-( ) prevented. If it was up to me, I'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism. -- User:Zero0000 08:11, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) : ''state terrorism by Israel''? nothin wrong with stating that some view it as this IMO, YMMV ... : different POV? nothing wrong with a view, as long as the editor isn't introducing it himself [as far as I can tell, from other articles] and it reflects REAL views in the world. : This is the problem with the word "terrorism"? terrorisms is real and factual ... sorry you don't see this ... I see how others can view certian actions as terorrism, while others don't ... and if you state who is viewing what as what, it's not that big of deal [the reader can tell which is telling the truth from the respective source] ... : it is almost impossible to use it in a NPOV fashion? YMMV on that ... : [snip 'hundred times' "which X regards as terrorism but Y doesn't regard it as terrorism"] : Resulting article is always awful? YMMV on that ... to me, it make the article more informative .... : A type of insult to the readers to deny their ability to choose their own moral reactions to particular facts or events? umm no, IMO ... it's an insult to not provide the reader the appropriate facts [as you seem to want to leave out the facts of what it is and what exists] : bare facts were presented without loaded words? loaded IYO ... others don't see it as loaded ... just a staement of facts of what is ... : If it was up to you, you'd ban the word "terrorism" from every article except Terrorism? ... mabey the is part of the problem .... you have a problem with the fact that terrorism exists and terrorists are real ... User:Reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) On further reflection, and the latest semi-literate addition, I've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on. There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one. So I hope you all enjoy yourselves here; I'll be working on other articles. --User:Zero0000 10:49, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) : you've decided that this article is a permanent basket case and not worth spending time on? great, hope you do some good work with other articles .... here's the fish ..... : There are some circumstances in which the Wikipedia model is a failure and this is one? IYNSHO ... User:Reddi 10:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ::Reddi, the point that I think Zero is trying to make (and which I, and others probably, agree with) is that the way many people seem to deal with perceived POV problems is injecting an alternate POV into the article. The writing then turns into a hodgepodge of "X says A. Y, however, believes B. Some have alleged that C." Which is not only ugly and horrible reading, but it doesn't really serve to inform the reader. It would be -much- better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL. There is no need to go back and forth over who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't - let's just clearly explain who they are and what they have done, and let people decide these things for themselves. Many Wikipedia articles suffer from this same see-saw style of "N" POV editing, which results in really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them. ::While I disagree that we should just run away from this article, I do agree that this article has serious problems, because it doesn't try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply to paste together two wildly divergent viewpoints into one article. Result, incoherence. User:Graft 11:28, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ::: Ugly and horrible reading? mabey ... mabey not ... ::: It does really serve to inform the reader of what position organizations of society worldwide think ... ::: Better if the article provided clean information in a manner that tried to AVOID injecting point of view at ALL? So leave out Hezbollah's POV? Mabey leave out the United Nations's POV? ::: There is a need to state who calls Hizbullah a terrorist organization and who doesn't .... IMO (others may disagree or agree) .... ::: Let's clearly explain who they are and what they have done BUT let's also clearly explain what other organizations have stated on this group (not just what they state that they do and what they have done) .... ::: I do agree that we let people decide these things for themselves, but with all the facts .... ::: Really choppy, fragmented articles that look like a band of feuding monkeys wrote them? hmmm ... 1000 monkeys @ a typewriter =-) .... ::: Incoherence? YMMV on that .... ::: IMO, it does try to be neutral, it is an attempt simply state the two divergent viewpoints into one article. Not allowing the Hezbollah view's alone ... nor the UN's view (among others) alone ... User:Reddi 14:50, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT) ::Having been around for a while, and having given this topic some good Christian thought-- I would define who is NPOV on this topic with a question: ::::"Do you think its acceptible for beautiful young Palestinian men and women to make sweet love with beautiful young Israeli men and women? Yes or No? ::If you say "no" then you are not neutral on the ethnic issues underlying this whole subject matter (and this article), and you cannot claim to be neutral in editing this article -- all edits by such person are suspect, and subject to scrutiny. Only NPOV -- or "WPOV"-- a "world point of view" deserves the last word here. ::The word of God is Love, ::~S~ ::: ---- Please notice that this article is constantly modified by a bunch of Zionists in concert and if anyone tries to remove their lies and decptions from the article, they keep reverting it back and since some of them have admin status, they eventually lock their version of the article until things \"cool down\", then they unlock their version of the article. Wonder why the rest of humanity has always hated this vermin. This is abuse of the Wikipedia and the freedom that we should all enjoy in the Internet. Unfortunately they do this same disgusting practice on many articles in Wikipedia which were initially contributed by people in good faith. (anon) ---- '' American forces were at the time engaged in fighting against Hezbollah, both viewing the others party as the aggressor.'' And this is how an Islamic apologist insists we describe the Embassy truck-bombing. It's the intellectual dishonesty that makes Islamists so repellent to the majority of Americans. User:Wetman 20:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC) :I was just coming here to discuss this. I thought I was reasonably well-versed in what's going on in the world, and I don't think I've ever heard of the US fighting Hezbollah. Could someone cite an instance? User:RickK 08:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I don't have my books here so I'm writing from memory. I think the US forces were not specifically engaging the Hezbollah at that time, but they were certainly conducting military operations (including shelling from ships and air raids) against Lebanese Muslim (as opposed to Christian) forces. So the wording is not quite correct, but not far off either. I'll look up the details. --User:Zero0000 11:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) According to English journalist Robert Fisk's "Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War" the US military was attacking various Lebanese Muslim militias and therefore, to paraphrase Fisk, involving themselves in the war. In reference to the terrorist/guerrilla/violent attack argument about the suicide bombings of the Marines base and US Embassy: In my opinion, since the US military had involved themselves in the fighting an attack on a US military base should probably not be described as a terrorist attack. (Also the US do give $4bn a year to Israel) An attack on the embassy may be described as a terrorist attack however, since embassies are generally considered civilian targets and there are whole conventions--the Vienna Convention and the Convention of the Protection of Internationally Protected Persons (inc. diplomats) designed to prevent such attacks. I guess this may be a bit unfair if a state decides to take advantage of these conventions and turns their embassy into an effective military base. --User:Kingal86 2004-06-11 16:16 UTC The US force was part of a multi-national force in Lebanon overseeing the escape of the PLO out of Beirut. As such it's not exactly an army conquering a state. In fact it was there by request of the Lebanese government along with the French, Italians, etc. An attack on a peace keeping force is terrorism. Further your claim of the US embassy being a base is absurd and baseless. Yes, there were military bases for the US army in Beirut, the embassy was not one of them. It is a clear civilian target. Also, you dare claim Hezbollah didn't attack civilians? I don't remember the head of the American University or Associated Press reporters that were murdered and abducted being military targets. And don't worry, I'm compiling a list of civilian targets attacked. [[User: Doug Danner|Doug] 2004-6-12 ---- As a Canadian, I want to point out that "we" resisted listing the social wing despite the pressure from the Zionsts, our enemies in Washington, and our own little band of scum, the Alliance.[http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/11/hezbollah021211] What tripped things over was a false quote in the Moonies' "newspaper".[http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=644] User:142.177.171.49 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==copy and paste== removed ''copy and paste'' into article from external source ... put the link in the in the list ... :See [http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Hezbollah.html Ozleft articel] :Hezbollah is not on the European Union list of terrorist organisations The Europeans hold the view that, among others, Hezbollah is a party to an official agreement with Israel not to fire on each other's civilians. Israel does not sign agreements with terrorists. :The Israeli court in Upper Nazareth is currently evaluating a legal submission that Hezbollah is a guerrilla organisation and not a terrorist one. The court has decided to accept the affidavit and to rule on its validity. To quote the relevant Haaretz article: "The affidavit, prepared by Prof Moshe Maoz, the head of the University of Tel Aviv's school of government and an expert on Syrian affairs, stated, 'Hezbollah is a typical guerrilla organisation, whose operative goal is to fight the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Its activities made a significant contribution to the change in public opinion and led to a turnaround in the attitude of decision makers,' Maoz said." :The Israeli court in Upper Nazareth is currently evaluating a legal submission that Hezbollah is a guerrilla organisation and not a terrorist one. The court has decided to accept the affidavit and to rule on its validity. To quote the relevant Haaretz article: "The affidavit, prepared by Prof Moshe Maoz, the head of the University of Tel Aviv's school of government and an expert on Syrian affairs, stated, 'Hezbollah is a typical guerrilla organisation, whose operative goal is to fight the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Its activities made a significant contribution to the change in public opinion and led to a turnaround in the attitude of decision makers,' Maoz said. (June 2002) Sincerely, User:Reddi "Qubth Ut Alla (The Fist of God), the monthly magazine of Hezbullah's paramilitary wing. Reportedly, this has more detailed than Israel's Bahamane (In the Camp) monthly magazine of the IDF." - Anyone got a clue what that sentence means? Something obviously got deleted... User:Mustafaa 06:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Fantasy== An IP has recently added a lot of stuff to this article, most of which appears to be delusions. This needs sorting out - but I'm not really sure what is delusion and what is real? User:Morwen - User_talk:Morwen 16:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) This article was full of nonsense. I removed some garbage, but it was reverted while I was editing it again to remove some more. This article has been neglected for a long time, during which it accummulated a lot of nonsense. I suggest discussing it instead of just posting it right back, there was really a lot of nonsense there. --User:Doron 08:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Ghaleb Awwali== Can you source the claim that Israel denied killing him? - User:Mustafaa 02:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Found one claim: [http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/07/19/story157767.asp]. Curious that no major news organization mentions it, but I'll accept it for now. - User:Mustafaa 02:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Can you provide a real source that Israel claimed that ''it did''? maybe BBC, CNN, etc? Also, I've provided 3 artciles from Lebanon's The Daily Star that covers multiple admissions by Nasrallah himself that Hezbollah assists Hamas militarily. Please check the article. User:Doug Danner September 4, 2004. On what basis do you remove a link to a ''Lebanese'' news article? I'm not quoting from an Israeli paper here, but directly from a Lebanese one, which can't be argued as being pro-Israeli. The fact that I use a Lebanese source can't be edited out, whether you like the implacations of Nasrallah's world on the propaganda you peddle or not. Plus, don't remove a sentance that says 'by Nasrallah's own admission', when the following sentance is an example to just that. This is a fact, documented in a Lebanese paper, and it'll stay for that reason User:Doug Danner Mon Sep 6 03:01:33 UTC 2004 "don't remove a sentance that says 'by Nasrallah's own admission', when the following sentance is an example to just that.": no, it wasn't. The sentence you now have following it, though, is. "On what basis do you remove a link to a ''Lebanese'' news article?" - because it's not a primary source, and I've replaced it with a direct quote. A reporter's interpretation of someone's speech is necessarily an inferior source to the speech itself; that should be obvious. - User:Mustafaa 12:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) That source lives and works in Lebanon and the op-ed is published in a main Lebanese paper. Considering Nasrallah's habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth (one thing aimed at foreign media, the other for internal consumption) your carefully editted snippet is out of context. That's also why the op-ed is quoted. Your tortuous attempts to discount Hezbollah's arming of Hamas is an amusing example of propaganda considering other things I've pointed out in that paragraph, such as the failed arms smuggling from Jordan to which Nasrallah admitted as well. I see you're having a hard time with UNSCR 1559 and such, but I suggest you wait until you have real material to post, rather than attempt to manipulate articles to your propaganda ends. - User:Doug Danner 25 October, 2004 == Attention == It is impossible to change this article. If you change it at the next minute someone re-enter the article that is here showed. ---- Nope - it's not impossible to edit the article, it's just impossible to get away with deleting most of it. The flip side of free editing is that, if your edits seriously damage the article, they will be reverted. - User:Mustafaa 12:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) == category:Islamic terrorist organizations == After several reverts and counter-reverts regarding whether the article should be linked to the Islamic terrorist organizations category, I suggest we discuss this instead of changing the article all the time. I'm restoring the link. Clearly, Hezbollah is generally considered a terrorist organization. Though personally I don't consider them as such, I think the category link would be helpful for most users. It is a mere link, and the article discusses this controversy thoroughly, so if you wish to enlighten us with new ideas on the subject, that section in the article would be the right place to put them. Almost any category would have someone disputing their applicability, the purpose of defining categories is to help users by (crudely) generalizing. - doron Generally considered? I dispute that strongly. This illustrates a fundamental weakness of categories: they are inappropriate in instances such as these, where the category is disputed. What is clear is that the current page offers no good reason to classify them as such. - User:Mustafaa 10:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'm not going to argue about whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, especially since I don't consider them as such myself, but I don't presume my personal opinions to be accepted by all. As the article states, Hezbollah is officially considered a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, it is often associated with 'terrorism' by Western media, and it seems to be inofficially considered terrorist in nature by others. The article makes it seem that Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a significant part of the world, certainly enough to include it in that category even if it is not generally accepted, so I think you should either return the category link, or change the article to make it clear that the United States, Canada, the media, etc., are wrong in this designation and that in fact, Hezbollah is nothing of the sort. Does the dispute over the recognition of Israel justify removing it from Category: Middle Eastern countries? --User:Doron 11:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) In other words, it is considered terrorist by the Anglophone world. As far as I know, it is not considered terrorist anywhere much else, and in much of the world such a suggestion would be found actively offensive. However, I can see your argument; were there some way of making its controversial nature clear, such as adding both that category and "Category : Non-terrorist militias" or something, I would support adding it. But surely in cases like this, when its membership is highly disputed and the very question is politicized and is discussed at length by the article itself, it's inappropriate to jump the gun. That's what we have List of terrorist groups for, after all... - User:Mustafaa 11:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Well, whatever, it's really not such a big deal. Expect this issue to surface once in a while in the future, though. By the way, as you seem to be a veteran around here, what do you reckon should be done for this article to stop being in "need of cleanup"? I've cleaned some rubish myself some time ago, now it doesn't look too much out-of-shape. And can an article cease to be disputed (or is this quality inherent)?--User:Doron 17:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Just to add something re Hezbollah being a terrorist group. It's also considered such by the EU. Just FYI. --User:Penta 04:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) :: It is officially recognized as a TO in many countries, but we don't include it in that category. Why don't we reflect the facts (it is in the list), simply because some don't like them? The fact they run hospitals is irrelevant: Hitler and Pol Pot also ran hospitals. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 08:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) == User attack on me == Hey User:Jayjg, can you stop following me and reverting everything i write? Even though, everything i put is NPOV, or facts, you just revert them, either without explination or saying pov and npov and etc.... Just leave me alone! I added some info and facts in operation Litani, then you came and revert them... even that they are facts, and reality that everyone has in their archive... Then when you finished "attacking my articles" in operation litani, you followed me here, in article about Hezbollah... Just a small sentence saying that "Hezbollah is a politic and military group aimed to fight israel in lebanon", and you revert it.. where is wrong in it? nothing... Is it pov? NO.. Everyone say Hezbollah has as objectives to fight israel in Lebanon.. See Israeli archives and us ones.. they also say the same... I am thinking that you are just reverting what i write, because it is me that i wrote them... Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks ... User:Addoula 00:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Removed quote== I removed the below quote from the introduction. While it is well sourced it is from an inherently biased source and one who is a not a specialist in the region. It could go in the paragraph on western views of Hezbolah, but the quote does not even accurately reflect American policy in the region. The New Yorker used the quote in 2002 to state that "Hezbollah ... may soon find themselves targeted in the Bush Administration's war on terror," something which has largely not come to pass. The best place for the quote might be in Wikiquote. - User:SimonP 05:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) :''U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Hezbollah the "A-team" of terrorism and Al Qaeda the "B-team." [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021014fa_fact4]'' ==Multinational force?== There seems to be a quarrel whether the Hezbollah only attacked US forces (US Marines) in Lebanon, or US and other international (French, Italian, ...) forces. User:David.Monniaux 09:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==The Article== This structure of this article is very difficult to follow. It also says very little about Hezbollah. It does say much about other issues, this is presumably included under other entries? Could this article please be restructured? :Possibly, but please don't delete relevant information. Also, "militant" is the accepted NPOV word here; both "guerilla" and "terrorist" imply a POV. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 19:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Surely the point must be to provide information in a non-biased way? Or is the main aim to discredit this organization? :The former, which is why you shouldn't be trying to bias the article by using POV words and deleting negative links. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) This article IS biased. Removing some of these links would make it less so, please explain why MEIB would be a credible source? I believe it would be prudent to edit this article as it is full of allegations, most of these from 'America' or 'Israel'. The fact remains, for the casual reader this article does not provide much information on Hezbollah: Their ideology, history, involvement in Lebanese political system, involvement in the social sphere, there is little background on their influences, etc As for the picture, it is odd to use the word militant on a guerilla soldier. :If your issue was only the links, then you should have at least left an edit comment while removing them. However, you made other deletions as well, and made POV changes besides, which is why I reverted. I've removed the links since they are not particularly encyclopedic; however, what is odd is to use the word "guerilla" or "militant" to describe what just about everyone on the Western world (including the U.S., Canada, E.U., etc.) describes as a "terrorist". Should we change the description to "terrorist" to reflect that opinion? And by the way, "guerillas" are people who are fighting either a government or foreign troops in their own country; exactly which "geurilla" war are the Hezbollah militants involved in, a fight against the government of Lebanon? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Just referring to your last point - those regarding Hezbollah as a guerilla (including myself), claim so because Hezbollah has mostly fought against the IDF during its occupation of the Security Zone in southern Lebanon. Although there have been Hezbollah attacks targeting Israeli communities in northern Israel, they were an exception, most of their attacks were against Israeli military outposts in Lebanon. There were probably attacks targeting civilians in every war in history, but surely you can't call everyone a terrorist, so I think that in general, calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is wrong. This is in stark contrast to the tactics of Hamas and the likes, who attack civilians almost exclusively. Since the IDF's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's pretext for continuing the war is the Shabaa Farms issue, which is perhaps a slim excuse, but on the other hand there have been very few attacks against Israel, nearly all against military targets. I think "guerilla" describes Hezbollah perfectly during the Israeli occupation. Since the withdrawal, Hezbollah is just a militant group trying to keep its power after losing its purpose. The fact that it is labeled as "terrorist" by politicians does not make it so. Given the facts listed in the article, it is not clear at all that Hezbollah ought to be labeled "terrorist".--User:Doron 21:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Your points are well taken. As I have been saying from the start, I think, given the current state of affairs, that the term "militant" is a reasonable compromise between "guerilla" (a function it certainly does not perform any more, if it ever did), and "terrorist" (a function it has definitely performed in the past, and the designation of most western nations). By the way, lobbing mortars and missiles at Israeli civilian towns isn't a military action, and that's still going on. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::I agree that "militant" is the way to go, I just thought for a moment that you were contemplating to change it to "terrorist". As for Hezbollah's actions since the withdrawal, I can't remember any attack against Israeli civilians (though I may be wrong). Assuming this [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Incidents%20along%20Israel-Lebanon%20border%20since%20May%202000 list] is exhaustive, there is only one attack (the infiltration near Shlomi) that I'd consider "terrorist", and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for that attack, so even ''since'' the withdrawal, Hizbollah generally seems to stick to military targets. On the other hand, there are some claims of Hezbollah support and involvement in Palestinian terrorist activity.--User:Doron 18:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) == main hezbollah wiki article == 1.) I think it's time to add a tagline of 'information may be from a biased source', or whatever it is that's added to the article when anonymous biased sources try to rewrite the article from their point of view. Hezbollah is becoming increasingly mentioned in the media after UN resolution 1559 and the 'side order' to disarm militias in Lebanon will ensure it stays there. Basically, I hope that the article can be stabilised and these anonymous biased edits/re-edits highlighted, so it can be possible to utilise wiki for a link to unbiased background info to Hezbollah. 2.) How about adding a paragraph for Hezbollah culture and mysticism ? There are a lot of mystic references by Khomeini, and probably others, and there are a lot of media resources of Hezbollah music or artful video clips, for example : http://www.baabeilm.org/presentations/wahdat.htm (which is an english remix) . Hezbollah draws from the twofold source of islam and resistance to foreign aggression, and exports well, so i think it's pecularity in cultural matters is worthwhile noticing.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Hezbollah:
Hezbollah
Hezbollah
Hezbollah_(disambiguation)
Hezbollah_(Lebanon)
Hezbollah_(Turkey)
Hezbollah_Movement_in_Iraq
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
