Talk:Battle of Bint Jbeil
 | Military history Start‑class  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taken?
I have heard that the city has been taken, does this mean the battle has ended? ~Rangeley (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- see now. [1]--TheFEARgod 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:MilHist Assessment
This is a very nice start, with a good degree of detail. I applaud your ability to remain objective and neutral in writing this; it is a very hard thing to do, considering the subject matter. The infobox needs a little work- the casualties do not seem very well organized, and there is a hanging phrase of "Israel claims..." But I am quite aware this is a work in progress, as it is a current event. For an event so well reported and published, I think a lot more could probably be said, which is why I'm giving it only a "Start" rating. Thank you again, though, for your hard work, and for writing this in such a neutral way. LordAmeth 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawal
I added detail of a media report saying Hezbollah still hold Bint Jbeil in 'aftermath' section.82.29.227.171 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Result
I've put the result of the battle as "town held by Hezbollah", which I believe is what the sources say. The word "stalemate" is unacceptably vague and not even appropriate given that Israel has withdrawn. This is not to suggest that Israel has "lost" according to its goals: the casualties are of course listed separately. —Ashley Y 05:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Casualities
Why is the article only mentioning the IDF estimation of casualities, Hezbollah announced that 13 IDF soldiers were killed in the battle. According to israeli sources, most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements.The Israeli sources are estimating Hezbolla's losses ranges from 15-200 !! I believe this implies uncertainity, or even more, intentional exaggeration for morale boosting purposes, especially after IDF had to withdraw from the town (why would they do that if they killed 200 out of 200 Hezbolla fighters).
--12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Suspicous
According to what israeli sources "most of the israelis tend to believe Nassralla's statements"? This is absolutely ridiculous. Hezbollah never published their real losses, but in ames of propaganda. Israeli losses published with names of soldiers and their photos. Shmuliko 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
i meant that threats made by Hezbolla are taken seriously on the other side, this can be quoted from Israeli officials responses to Nasralla's statements. As to "Hezbollah never published their real losses" how can you be so sure, Hezbolla is announcing the names of its fallen on Manar TV, what am saying is that both sides are trying to under mine there losses & increase the other's so we shouldn't take israeli figures for granted especially when no independent press is able to enter the fighting area.
Hizzballa strategic victory?...
hizballa lost most of it's force in the area, and in the end of the battle itself, the town was compleatly under the control of the IDF. the IDF widrew its forces because it's job was done, not because hizballa still controlled the area. this is no "strategic victory", this is a tie.
- Yes, STRATEGIC because they still control the town--TheFEARgod 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is silly. Firstly, is there any reference that says the "the town was completely under the control of the IDF"? Secondly, "strategic victory" etc. is POV. I'm changing it back to the plain fact of Hezbollah hold. —Ashley Y 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A strategic victory is one that accomplishes your goals the: Hezbollah goal was aparently to retain control of the town, something they acomplished. Also the perceived victory gives the Hezbollah forces a Large morale boost. Tacticaly it was indesicisive as neither force clearly defeated the other, and no major media outlets have reported that the Hezbollah forces at the town were virtualy destroyed. --72.145.144.254 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally the latest casualty counts are provided by MSNBC in the latest source and it says 18 so stop reverting.--72.145.144.254 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't touched the casualty counts. Israel can also claim this as a "strategic victory", it's entirely POV. The plain fact of the result is that Hezbollah held the town, everything else is interpretation. —Ashley Y 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
“Strategic victory” refers to the accomplishment of one’s goals. at the start of the campaign the Israeli goal was the destruction of the Hezbollah forces in the area and possibly the capture of the town, Nether of these were accomplished by the point of Israelis withdrawal, While Hezbollah as stated above accomplished their goals: the retention of the town and the preservation of their forces. (Although taking more casualties than Israel in the process). Finally the terms Tactical Victory& Strategic Victory are the correct and formal terms used by military annalists.--72.145.154.203 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Strategic victory is one that turns the war scenario. It is not the case. IDF cleaned the territory and kept the positions on controlling heights. That is exactly what they do in every village they enter. Today there no Hezbollah forces in the town and it is not their victory, however IDF has casualities, which is main Hezbollah aim. I'll remove the strategic vctory. Shmuliko 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
NO single news post says that the teritory was cleaned they only mention a Hezbollah ambush and a IDF retreat, also the town is reported by all major news services to be under the control of Hezbollah, so none of the above you mentioned are true.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/middleeast/27fighting.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
- http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/
Btw: strategic does not mean turning-point, it just represents the acomplisment or faliure of goals--72.145.143.215 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah is a guerilla and that the town are still held by hezbollah are more than victory
Casualities
Unlike the Hezballa, IDF reports are official. When IDF says the were 8 israeli casualties and 22 wounded, it means that.
By the way, there were 2 israeli casualties around Bint Jbeil during the night before the battle of Bint Jbeil - this is official.
89.0.211.46 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed you’re correct, but the casualty figure you gave is marginally outdated check the MSNBC for a more recent figure.--72.145.154.203 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
C'mon... I don't need MSNBC to know how many israeli soldiers got killed there... Find some more sources (NOT Hezbollah sources) talking abount 18 dead israeli soldiers in Bint Jbeil... 89.0.211.46 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
These aren't Hezbollah sources! they are MSNBC sources and paragraph 22 shows an official Israel body count. additionally by wikipedia rules and procedures this (MSNBC) Is a reliable source and more recent than the one you provided, so it supercedes it. --72.145.154.203 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, MSNBC mistaken... 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)(that is a very POV view, but nontheless it won't afect the use of updated casualty figures.)--72.145.154.203 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is POV, but "Hezbollah strategic victory" is also POV. Well, if MSNBC did not mistaken, there shuould be some more sources about 18 casualties... What about IDF official site? Any other site talking about 18 casualties? 89.0.211.46 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, MSNBC mistaken... 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)(that is a very POV view, but nontheless it won't afect the use of updated casualty figures.)--72.145.154.203 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Also you do know only a admin can protect pages. And putting up that Sprotect sign may count as vandalisim.--72.145.154.203 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- didn't know 89.0.211.46 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thats ok we all make a mistake or two.--72.145.154.203 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
MSNBC is one of the largest and most respected news services but if you need more proof for the last three on the list see Paragraph.22
8 vs. 18 casualties
All sources agree about total 36 casualties:
8 in day-1 near Zar'it
4 sailors on INS Hanit
1 pilot in helicopters crash
2 (MAGLAN unit) in Maroun-a-Ras
another 5 (EGOZ unit) in Maroun-a-Ras
2 pilots when MRLS rocket hit a helicopter
2 during the night before the battle of Bint-Jbeil in the area
8 in the battle of Bint-Jbeil
1 in the same day but in Maroun-a-Ras
3 yesterday in Ayat-a-Shaab
Total: 36 casualties - this is official and up to date! I can show you reliable sources about every one of this situations, as well as I can show an up-to-date source about total 36 casualties.
89.0.189.135 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This topic is about Bint-Jbeil, so it should be 8. Shmuliko 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I will quote a post from a veteran user El C (Hi. Nine was just for one day: "It's not clear yet how many people died during three weeks of fighting in what Israel dubbed Hezbollah's "terror capital." Israel says 18 of its soldiers were killed here".) that post pretty much just says it all.--72.145.155.51 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is BULLSHIT... I'm gonna put here an IDF source... 89.0.243.231 07:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
IDF official website: IDF Pulls Out of Bint Jbeil (Sunday 30/07/2006)
" IDF forces withdrew from the village of Bint Jbeil today, having completed operations there. It was in Bint Jbeil that heavy fighting erupted last week between IDF forces and Hezbollah terrorists, resulting in IDF casualties of eight soldiers dead and 22 wounded, some seriously. "
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55319.EN
You can see here that there were no updates about anymore IDF casualties during the battle of Bint Jbeil:
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=54279.EN
89.0.243.231 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
the above links you gave are out dated aditionaly they seem to be broken and the news posts I gave are much newer.
The links are not broken, the IDF servers are oveloaded. 89.0.243.231 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Your sources are eighther mistake or fake. Wait when IDF sources come up. 89.0.243.231 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
They are not fake you fool, they are from the NY times [[[MSNBC]] CNN some of the most prestigious News services around. no, CNN and NY times are owned by jewish and its neutrality cannot be fully trusted
[ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Temporary_screenshot.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Temporary_screenshot.JPG] File:Temporary screenshot.JPG
- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/middleeast/27fighting.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
- http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
- http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_29543.shtml
- http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=152385
- http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060729d_wire.aspx
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/
Israel says 8 of its soldiers were killed here. That is what we see on IDF official site!
Probably here was a journalist who was not very focused, and some news agencies published this mistake!
Apparently not it seems to be written by multiple authors, therefore as per-wiki policy we will use the more recent (and numerous) msn/cnn articles. And will so unless the news services issue a retraction.--Freepsbane 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here (http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/02aug2006/shem.html) we can see (in russian) a list of israeli casualties, including IDF casualties, which is up to 2/08/2006. The total number of soldiers is 36 (up to 2/08/2006). I can show you an official source telling about every one of this soldiers (when and where he did killed). According to these sources, there were 28 casulties + X Bint-Jbeil casualties. While the total number is 36 (up to 2/08/2006), it is clear that 8 soldiers killed in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sadly I cant read Russian however the above mentioned msn, cnn, New York times. hold priority over the smaller websites out there.--Freepsbane 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do they have priority over IDF official website, which tells both in english and in hebrew that there were 8 soldiers that killed in Bint Jbeil that day, not 18?? Ask any of the israeli Wiki-moderators, ask any israli you find, and he will tell you the exact number od IDF casualties in Bint Jbeil. Flayer 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
the idf web-page you gave us is older than the 2nd msn article and the ny times also it seems you have made more than 3 reverts today a clear violation of wikipolicy.--72.145.156.5 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060801.MIDEASTBINT01/TPStory/- curently the most recent
- Thats why I give you this ([2]) and this ([3]). So you can see that no such update about 18 casualties was given. Flayer 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- We can agree that 18 soldiers got killed in the area, but the battle of Maroun Ar-Ras was in Maroun Ar-Ras itself. Also, IDF troops withdrew from Maroun Ar-Ras, but not from the area, not from Bint Jbeil, for example. Flayer 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the problem is in the definitions: 18 Israeli soldiers died in the Bint Jbeil area: 2+5 in Maroun A Ras the day before, 1 in the same day in Maroun A-Ras, 2 in the night before, in the area. For some Israeli sources, probably the ones relied on by news sources, all these casualties are in Bint Jbeil (note that the sources talk about "five days of fighting". The casualty question can be sorted out if you decided whether the Battle is the entire five days or just the one day of fighting in the town itself. M. Butterfly 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Victory?
I don't understand why the focus of a single battle event. This cannot be considered as a battle which is over. The Battle for Bint Jbail is not over. Israel is using a tactic against a guerrila advantage. Israel prefers to conduct search and destroy operations in the villages then withdraw. Why remain inside and be a target against an enemy who knows all the passageways, tunnels and bunkers. All you is inviting yourself to be a target of an anti-tank missile by remaining in one position too long. What Israel is doing is, fighting, killing and wounding some Hezbollah's then withdrawing. If they attempt to reinforce their dwindling numbers inside Bint Jbeil, they get attacked. If they try to withdraw they run the risk of attacks. If they stay put, they are a target for the next search and destroy incursion. So I don't think you cannot categorize this as a victory for Hezbollah, unless of course there is a cease-fire and they still hold the town and are not forced to withdraw or disarm. Until then, I categorize this battle as ongoing. Richardmiami 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As we can see from this news dispatch: "IDF forces operating in the south Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil spotted five Hizbullah cells on their way to launch anti-tank missiles; the soldiers opened fire and struck the gunmen." (source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286360,00.html)
The IDF is still coming in and out of the village. The Battle is still ongoing. I believe that the final decision of victory will be, who is in control after a cease-fire is declared and what consequences it brings (e.g. Hezbolllah withdrawal from village replaced by International monitors, or Hezbollah control despite cease-fire). Richardmiami 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
then create a new tactical battle article we could use the 2nd battle of Bint Jbeil, as a new article. it can be handeled like the fallujah battles were,--72.145.156.233 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbirated
The dispute has been steeled in favor of 18 casualties by the ruling of the administrator RyanGerbil10 [[4]] if people continue to presist in removing the arbitrated version then I will allert the administrators, and have them enforce the rulling.[[5]]--72.145.156.233 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Funny.. What did administrator RyanGerbil10 say to the parents of 10 soldiers that did not killed in the battle of Bint Jbeil?
- No, what I did in the end is report both numbers in the infobox, as appears now, although I perosnally think more sources back up 18 rather than 8 casualties. If no consensus can be reached, as is obvious here, both numbers will be reported until conclusive evidence is presented that the number of casualties is definitely one or the other. This is the decision I will enforce. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- May I call the person that tried to put presure on me by writing this a liar? Flayer 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, what I did in the end is report both numbers in the infobox, as appears now, although I perosnally think more sources back up 18 rather than 8 casualties. If no consensus can be reached, as is obvious here, both numbers will be reported until conclusive evidence is presented that the number of casualties is definitely one or the other. This is the decision I will enforce. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Funny.. What did administrator RyanGerbil10 say to the parents of 10 soldiers that did not killed in the battle of Bint Jbeil?
you may if you do so wish to.--Freepsbane 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times"
"The Globe and Mail" and "Gulf Times" claims on the casualty list will be mentioned only after the official source, which is IDF website. Like IDF claims about the number of Hezballa casulties are mentioned second. Flayer 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The globe clearly says 18, does this mean that 18 is the official Israeli position? --Freepsbane 19:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. official Israeli position is 8 killed, 22 wounded. [6] Flayer 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Never the less Globe says 18.--Freepsbane 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's why Globe is also mentioned. Flayer 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
so do the MSN, New York Times, Guardian,and CNN you have removed.--Freepsbane 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, only few of them are dated later than IDF source, but they will be mentioned only after an official source, which is IDF. Flayer 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Israeli media
By the way, I'm gonna add all the israeli media reports about 8 (not 18) IDF casualties.... Both israeli and international reports will appear. Flayer 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)