![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Some sources show the IDF's budget as 9 billion dollars while other show it as 18 billion dollars. Is it due to the difference between the Israeli GDP measured in Nominal and PPP ? -- Krotx ( talk) 07:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well the wiki page says its 18 billion. -- Krotx ( talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it only available for Jews? Or can anyone volunteer? OneGyT/ T| C 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Foreign citizens are allowed to join the IDF but they must be Israeli citizens when they actually join. To become an Israeli citizen is by being born in Israel, having an Israeli parent, marrying an Israeli or by "Aliya" which is the law of return for people who can prove they are Jewish and therefore "returning" home to Israel. For example, a young man in the US or Europe decides he wants to be in the IDF, so he goes to Israel and volunteers at a "Lishkat Giyoos" or recruiting office (which is a misnomer as its really a conscription office) but they will inform him he needs Israeli Citizenship to serve. So his choices are to get married, prove he was born in Israel, prove his parents are Israeli or finally prove that he is Jewish and this is not decided by the IDF, this is decided by the Interior Ministry. Only once he has Israeli Citizenship and a "Tuedat Zeut" or ID card with his ID number on (Issued by the Interior Ministry) can he join or be conscripted into the IDF. So once he is in he is not actually "foreign" any more. I served 94-97 and I am from the UK but am obviously duel national now. So when the media interview IDF soldiers with American, South African and British accents they are actually Israelis, its just the news crew are too lazy to learn Hebrew or hire an interpreter. DETCORD 07 Aug 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.104.225.253 ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if 89.104.225.253's answer was sufficiently clear however Jews or possibly all those proving a right of return can serve in the IDF even without Israeli citizenship. Menachemsdavis ( talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cloachland amended this title to counterinsurgency tactics, and I amended it back. Although "terrorist" may be a loaded word, the section title "counterterrorism" is more in line with the stated mission and goals of the IDF and is also a more accurate description of that article section. Cf. counterinsurgency and see how it is nothing like what is described in the article. I reverted it, and think trying to avoid the use of the word terrorism is either excessive political correctness or actually skews into a non-neutral pov.-- Wikiwriter706 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirm / Deny. Damn that'd be hot.
And Just out of curiosity. Who exactly considers the Israeli Army to have the most effective methods of crowd control and use of non-lethal force?
Conventional military wisdom is that armies should minimize their involvement in crowd control and non-lethal force, and that military forces in general handle this very badly. It doesn't seem obvious to me that the Israeli army handles hostile crowds better than most civilian police forces, so I'm curious where that statement comes from.
[It seems logical that this is based on their development of sonic weapons]
==
As to Israel's being the only country that uses assassinations as a defensive measure: how would one categorize George W. Bush's request to bring Mr. Bin-Laden, dead or alive? Mullah Omar? -- Uriyan
Semantics. The official policy still is that targeted assassinations by the US are not-sanctioned by the US government. However, that doesn't mean that the US military has to avoid bombing places where OBL might be for *eh-hem* other legitimate reasons. Oh darn is if they happen to kill OBL in a raid or he happens to not surrender to ground troops. That's what was meant. The statement in this article about the "officialness" of the US policy needs to be changed. -- maveric149
U.S. Tomahawks striking god-knows-where in Sudan and Rangers touring Mullah Ommar's house are in fact not ambitious at all: these are all official assassination attempts. Also, the US $25 million reward makes the search after OBL & Co. an officially-sanctioned bounty hunt. Israel does not play in these games: it does not do carpet bombings and it does not lease its affairs to subcontractors. But I still have difficulty figuring out why everyone is silent with the US but so angry with Israel. Must be something in the Israeli genes. -- Uriyan
Funny, I never knew Afghanistan was a part of the U.S. - or how one would explain the bounty regarding Bin-Ladin a police action? Also, a point to ponder about - which is more moral: placing explosive in a guy's cell phone, or carpet-bombing the whole city in which he's in? -- Uriyan
You see, Israel is not pretending this to be a police action. This is a war, and in a war you sometimes do things you're not normally be doing in peacetime. Extradition treaties (read: Oslo) would be nice, if the Palestinians had bothered to fulfill them. As to the U.S. method, it's much worse than the Israeli one, as it involves killing huge amounts of people, most of whom are innocent. The reason why the U.S. can proceed, and Israel can't? The U.S. is the U.S., and Israel is Israel. Talk about hypocrisy. -- Uriyan
Exactly my point. Both Israel and the U.S. are now participating in a new kind of warfare. This warfare is different from most major conflicts of the past, as it involves fighting a vastly inferior opponent, who however has the advantages of stealth, mobility and the more powerful side's ignorance. Both Israel and the U.S. are committed to their warfare, which translates into their readiness to commit actions which go against regular peace-time morals (as well as international conventions), for example assassinating enemy leaders through various means. This is tragic, but that's the nature of war. But now the big question: if you take some more-or-less impartial observers (e.g. Europeans): why do they begin to care so much when Israel is fighting its war - but forget all their conventions when the U.S. does the same thing? Is that hypocrisy, or what? And yes, the fact that not a single word or deed by Palestinian Authority was there to oppose the hostilities then in October 2000, makes them responsible for the current Intifada. -- Uriyan
Well, I'm not arguing in direct relevance to this article, but I do consider writing an article concerning this question, and this discussion which you did give me a lot of stuff to think about. But, if I had wasted your time, then I apologize :-). Uriyan
I agree to the situation's being screwed up, but I don't really see a difference between Israel and the U.S.: both countries were not exactly the favorites of the Muslim world, both were attacked and now both try to exterminate the terrorists - without a complete success so far, with thousands of innocent people getting hurt on both sides. -- Uriyan
Well, I was writing in a hurry and I rather meant eradicating terrorism as a phenomenon threatening U.S. and Israel. But, to me, the very concept of terrorism is so morally repulsive (no matter who carries it out), that I do not see a moral problem in killing an active terrorist. I think that war is war, and until it ends, I will not feel compassion for the soldiers of the other side. This does not hold true for non-combatant civilians - but terrorists do not belong to them. Perhaps many of those who read this would disagree with me - but there are no daily attempts on the lives of most of them. -- Uriyan
Hmm, just as an aside, as far as I was aware the US executive order that bans assassinations is rescinded in wartime. As the US is now engaged in a war, the ban on targeted assassinations no longer applies. As such, we have seen true targeted assassinations such as the CIA hit on Al-Qaeda members in Yemen, using a Hellfire-equipped Predator UAV. Impi
I have read this before in people`s forum signature: "You don`t win a war by dieing for your country, You win the war by making the other poor bastard die for he`s." I think that is one of the deepest and most correct things I have read that people said about war. Another thing would be: "When the reach wage war it`s the poor who die." Taken from the lyric of Hands Held High by Linkin Park.
The information above is false; indeed, a couple of months ago there was a bill that proposed the introduction of such privileges, but it was turned down. Currently, there are no civilian benefits associated with serving in the army. -- Uri
Q had written the following, which I turned into a clause. -- Ed Poor
As for an answer, The IDA were trained by the British and by them selfs. The three main groups that had formed it were: Palmach,Lehi and Etzel. And again,No not all training came from the British,This three groups were not trained to be an army but they had already fought well as guerrilla groups. Later on the British trained some of them like real soldiers and these trained the others. If you think this is wrong some how,You better have a very good proof as I am very sure of what I wrote here - ziv.
Apart from Uri's statement above saying info is wrong (I have no view on this), I do feel that "Men serve three years in the IDF, as do the women on combat positions, but women on non-combat positions serve two." is at least a mis-type with combat and non-combat probably swapped round. -- SGBailey 07:27 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)
The PA has arrested such individuals, according to the news I read. Not always, and not always when Israel wants, and sometimes they let them go (and sometimes the prisons get bombed) - but never is way too strong a word. Martin
I agree,Martin.Say would you happen to be from Israel? (Personal question nor related to this article what`s'o'ever.) - ziv.
I tried to improve the English and the NPOV a bit but there is much yet to do. Don't use words like "recently" and "lately", they get out of date too quickly. I removed the sentence "The International Solidarity Movement, which has blamed the IDF for downright murder, has lately been found to house escaping Palestinian terrorists, under the cover of "peace activists"." because it is a pure lie. It was found that some Palestinian on a wanted list had attended an ISM meeting; that's not even close to the same thing. Btw, "alleged" nuclear capability? Come off it. -- zero --- 80.179.85.7, I'm sorry to report that most of your additions are duplicate work of articles that already exist. While additions are never a bad thing, rehashing the complete history of Israel on this page may not be feasible as the article loses focus on the IDF which is what the article should be about. Maybe you should consider working on articles about Israeli history instead? Please also read Wikipedia:NPOV. BL 03:27, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm recently started working about IDF history. So far, I added the history from 1948 until 1981. The next big entry would be 1982 Lebanon war.
Also, I have entred a subsection about IDF technology and weapons with general introduction and a list of weapons (the "tech tree").
I think the Sheva' Brigade is more often called the 7th Brigade nowadays, the other brigades seem to have retained their "nicknames" though. BL 23:32, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It may be useful to add a section on unit sizes in the IDF. After a while, the whole platoon, company, squad/section, etc thing gets difficult for newbies, especially in how many of x are in y and so forth and so on. More especially, every nation has its own idea of how it works, so looking at how the IDF organizes may be a good idea. - Penta 06:54, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Information on basic unit size and the basic structure of the army is enough to estimate it`s size. Israel does not have a,Well I`ll stop here I can`t say what I wanted. Lat`s just say that Israel is not the U.S and cannot let it`s enemys see it`s cards. - ziv.
The refusal to serve section of this page duplicates in part the referenced refusal to serve page. Should we combine the two pages or replace the refusal to serve section here with a stub that points to the other page? OneVoice 15:00, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As was pointed out to me by Flyingbird on the Dutch Wikipedia, the name Israel Defense forces is incorrect. It should be, and the Irseli Army indeed calls itself, Israel Defense Forces (please take a look at the official IDF site). I will try to change the name. User:Gidonb 13:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What you mean is that "Defence" is wrong and "Defense" is right. Of course the official name is the Hebrew one, but you do seem to be correct about the IDF-preferred English spelling. Go ahead and change it. -- Zero 00:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Defence and Defense, both forms are correct and widely used by almost everybody. MathKnight 21:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have already made a comment about the name,I direct translation from Hebrew to English. - ziv.
I have moved these sections here because they are loaded with POV and non-encylopedia information. -- Viajero 11:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to say that although not everything Anti-Israel is necessarily Anti-Semetic, the previous comment is without question dispicable in nature. To say that "we stopped caring about the holocaust a long time ago" is absolutely revolting and you should be ashamed of yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.82.19 ( talk) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Effectiveness of IDF tactics in reducing suicide bombings
The method, combined with a network of checkpoints and the re-occupation of all Palestinian areas in the West Bank, has resulted in a dramatic and sustained decrease in suicide bombing attacks. Suicide bombing attacks reached a peak of 17 in March 2002. The first six months of 2002 witnessed 60 suicide bombing attacks while the IDF prevented 32. In the last six months of 2003, there are been a total of 9 suicide bombing attacks versus 79 attacks prevented by IDF. [2]
The Israeli Gaza Strip barrier has proven effective in prevent suicide bombers from leaving Gaza. No suicide bomber has left Gaza since 1996.
The Code of Conduct
In 1992, the IDF has writen down a Code of Conduct that is a combination of international law, Israeli law, and the IDF's own traditional ethical code - Ruach Tzahal רוח צה"ל ("[ http://www.idf.il/english/doctrine/doctrine.stm the spirit of the IDF]"). The IDF Code of Conduct emphasis values such as comradship, courage, proffesionalism, devotion and purity of arms. This ethical code derive its values from the Jewish hertiage, the democratic norms and the traditonal value of the IDF.
Recently, a team of proffesors, commanders and former judges, led by Tel Aviv University head of Ethics cathedra, proffessor Assa Kasher, wrote down a code of conduct which emphasis the right behaivor in low intensity warfare against terrorists, where soldier must operate within civilian population. Reserve units and regular units alike are taught the following eleven rules of conduct, which are an addition to the more general IDF Spirit:
- Military action can only be taken against military targets.
- The use of force must be proportional.
- Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.
- Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.
- Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.
- Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.
- Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to oneself and one's enemy.
- Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.
- Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.
- Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.
- Soldiers must report all violations of this code.
Source: [3]
MathKnight 12:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The IDF has never lived up to this ideal. Bearing in mind the countless IDF war crimes it looks merely as a cynical mockery of its victims! -- 145.253.238.10 15:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) What is your definition of "war crimes"? This is just more Nazi-like rhetoric by the enemies of Israel.
My definition? For example : http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950828/israel.html or http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html or http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/17/photo-of-the-day-israeli-kids-sends-gifts-of-love-to-arab-kids/ To denounce any criticism of Israel as "Nazi-like rethoric" (sic!) is ridiculous. -- 145.253.238.10 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Israeli Arabs, with few exceptions, are not obliged to serve, though they may volunteer.
What are these "few exceptions"? -- zeno 13:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Druze serve, as do many Bedouin groups. Danny 13:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do they serve, or do the have to serve? We have a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether Israeli Arabs have to serve or not. What is the general rule here? I know some Arabs with Israeli citizenships, and they did not serve in the Army. -- zeno 19:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information - one more question: Do Druze and Bedouins count as Arabs in this sense? Or is military service mandatory for them? -- zeno 08:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
With regard to conscription of Palestinian Israelis, the following is an extract from "A History of Modern Palestine - One Land, Two Peoples" by Ilan Pappe (Cambridge University Press 2004). "In the early 1950s, the government was divided on the question of Palestinian conscription to the IDF. The secret service predicted that the Palestinian minority in Israel would reject conscription, and suggested that all that was needed was to call up the intake for one year. When they refused, the government would be able to declare that the Palestinian community as a whole refused to serve in the army. When the experiment took place in 1954, to the surprise and bewilderment of the secret service, every conscript responded to the call-up. In addition, the Communist Party supported the potential recruits and the call-up day was turned into a festive event. No one was actually conscripted; the policy makers simply ignored these people's readiness to serve. What is more, the government's interpretation of the events gave it another tool in its discriminatory policy against the Palestinian minority, which still is being applied today: only people who have served in the army are eligible for state benefits such as loans, mortgages, and reduced university fees. There is also a close link between industry and security in the Jewish state, which means that significant sections (almost 70 per cent) of industry are closed to Palestinian citizens because they have not served in the army." Is there any reason why the substance of the above should not be included in the article, especially given the significance of IDF service as a qualification for civic entitlements? Incidentally, please could we desist from referring to Palestinian Israelis as Arab Israelis. One would not refer to Northern Irish nationalists as European Britons. There are many non Palestinian Arab Israelis, but they are all Jewish, and are confusingly referred to as just Israeli, or more clearly as Mizrahi or Sephardi. That this misleading nomenclature is widely used elsewhere should not prevent us from using clear, unambiguous terms here. Milezmilez 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
When did women begin to be drafted into the Israeli military? Thanks, Mark Richards 17:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Since Day 1, i.e. since the foundation of the IDF in May 14, 1948. In the 1948 War of Independence the IDF even had one female combat pilot. Untill this day, women are drafted to the army. However, most of them serve in uncombat position and have only to do 2 years of regular service (instead of 3 for men). MathKnight 20:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Pre-edit the article stated that "Israel is the only country which currently has female conscription..." This is absolutely false. In Peru "All men aged 18 to 50 and women aged 18 to 45 are liable for military service. Military service lasts for 2 years." [4] China by law has conscription for both males and females. Libya has required female conscription by law since 1984. There are many other examples, but I think the point is made. I am removing this false statement from the article. --A
I returned the omitted sentence "Most Israeli men, however, do not serve in reserve service, for various reasons". This is to contrast the sentence before it, which may create a false impression about Israeli society. Furthermore, it is a well-known issue, and I can refer the Hebrew-speakers among you to [5] [6].-- Doron 21:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I made an (incorrect) edit to the sentence about most Israelis not serving in the reserves. Now I'm curious why this is the case. Is it because a high percentage are above the maximum age? are there a lot of exemptions? some combination of the two?
Also, that seems to contradict the earlier part of the paragraph, which discusses the social aspect of reserve service. Maybe we could reconcile the two parts of that paragraph? Chuck 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Although still available to be called up in times of crisis, up to 70% of Israeli men, and a higher percentage of women, do not actually perform reserve service in any given year. Units do not always call up all of their reservists every year, and a variety of exemptions are available if called for regular reserve service. Virtually no exemptions exist for reservists called up in a time of crisis.
Image:Israeli solider2.jpg, Image:Israeli soldier.jpg - I removed these as uninformative and unnecessary - an image that actually shows the uniform and less pout would be much better. These add nothing to the article -- sannse (talk) 18:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I rename this page to "Israel Defense Forces" (notice the 's' in 'defense')? It is in line with the official IDF website. There are also 5 times more pages on Google that use this spelling. Kent Wang 02:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
HILARIOUS! The correct English spelling is "annoying" ! Ignoramus. -- 213.121.207.34 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alice miller links to a totally irrelevant article. someone should fix it
It's very important to include something like this:
Since the occupation of the Occupied Territories in 1967, the IDF has been involved in terrorising the palestinian population. This includes assasinations of palestinian leaders, destroying houses, attacking and killing civilians (including children) and other war crimes. The IDF is also responsible for protecting Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
Dani levin.
This is a propoganda paragraph, full of incitement and out-of-context. Wiki is not the place for hate-speak such as what you wrote. Stop insert this paragraph, because it will be removed again. MathKnight 17:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's not propaganda. I think Dani is right. It should be on the page. Harry.
The IDF (not the settlers) has occupied the Golan, Sinai, West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and the IDF is protecting settlements and demolished (destroys) houses. What is not true? Of course settlements and protecting them is a crime (to my opinion), but even if you don't think so - it's a fact that the IDF is protecting settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (and also the Golan). Dani levin 09:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This in article about the IDF, not about the disputed territories.
MathKnight 10:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
IDF may not "demolish houses for fun", but they do demolish houses for more reasons than "as mean for fighting terrorism". Many times they demolish houses as a form of revenge or ethnical cleansing. // Liftarn
It looks like we've drifted from facts to personal opinion here. IDF may demolish houses as a form of revenge or collective punishment. If it's effective or not is another issue. IDF also demolish houses to force people to move. If it's ethnic cleansing or not is another issue. // Liftarn
Apparently the house demolition policy has never been applied when Jewish Israelis kill Arabs, such as the case of Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 shooting attack in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, West Bank. If it had been an Arab who killed and wounded the same number of Jews, would he have been considered a terrorist, and would his family home have been bulldozed? Edison 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Baruch Goldstein was not put on trial, he was killed in the mosque by Palastinians that he was trying to kill. In your house demolition context though his house was not being used as a base for criminal activity and therefore would probably not been demolished even if the IDF took the unusual step of destroying an Israeli house. Ami Popper on the other hand murdered seven Palstinian workers in 1990 and was convicted in court and sentenced to life imprisonment. I assume you have confused the names. Incidently, all house demolitions must be authorised by a senior commander and are vertainly not picked out and decided upon by the bulldozer driver himself. DETCORD
The following two quotes are from the Wikipedia page on Menachem Begin:
Menachem Begin, the day after the UN vote on the 1947 UN Partition Plan: "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever."
Soon after Menachem Begin and the Likud party won the Israeli election in 1977, the government's foreign policy was stated as follows: "The Jewish people have unchallengeable, eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel [including the West Bank and Gaza Strip], the inheritance of their forefathers (and he pledged to build rural and urban exclusive Jewish colonies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." (Iron Wall, p. 354-355)
In light of these comments, how is it possible to conclude that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian populations from the occupied territories isn't official state policy? UnderdogBA 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I left the text about accusations of human rights groups but moving the following phrase to talk: Palestinians and their supporters often refer to the IDF as the "Israeli Occupation Force" (IOF). This label expresses their belief that the primary role of the IDF is maintaining an "Occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rather than "Defense" of Israeli citizens. Some even refuse to use the official title at all, claiming it is a propaganda term. -- Every army has opponents and eenemies, but what makes this encyclopedic? Do we list denigrating expressions in other similar articles? Do we mention how did the Palestinians named Jordanian and Egyptian armies that occupied WB & GS for 19 years? ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This is bad grammar, on top of being POV. The bulldozers primarily damage property. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe a very small number of Palestinians are alleged to have been killed by bulldozers, though I don't have any links supplying statistics. In any event, at most only a tiny percentage of the Palestinians killed in the conflict have been killed by bulldozers; the significance of bulldozers is in their destruction of property. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Harming life" is an emotive and vague term. The bulldozers are intended to damage property, and that is what they generally do. As well, removal of your lengthy addition to the caption was not "vandalism", but actually rectification of "POV pushing" and "turning a caption into an essay". As for "Pro-Palestinian", it's fairly neutral and accurate, and certainly far moreso than the alternative you inserted. Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did come up with a way that was an alternative that was more neutral; I censored no facts, just removed POV-pushing. Get consensus for your controversial changes before trying to force them on the article; this is how Wikipedia works. Regarding the specific changes:
There are many Israelis that are "anti-occupation", yet certainly not anti-Israel. On the other hand, I'd be very surprised if any of them uses "IOF". And being pro-Palestinian does not imply that you are anti-Israel. "Pro-Palestinian" in this context would probably be quite accurate and NPOV.-- Doron 17:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Out of interest, why is the translation of General for Rav Aluf considered more appropriate? I mean 'Colonel General' is the highest rank in a lot of eastern European armies, but it isn't generally translated as 'General'. Just curious. -- 203.17.44.84 03:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Not very important but the name "Katzin Miktzoa Academy" should be used with "Miktzo'ai" (מקצועי) and not Miktzoa (adj. instead of noun), I saw it refered to as "Miktzoa" in some old IDF page, but it is written as "Miktzoai" in a newer one and that's the way I always hear when people are talking about it (I'm an "Atudai"). anyway, "Miktzo'ai" doesn't look like a good transcript for me.. maybe there is a better way to write it? also I changed "Academy" to "Academay" as it should be but that looks a bit weird too? Yonir 03:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Tiron is not a rank, all recruits have a rank of private. -- DimaY2K 20:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Private First Class (turai rishon) is no longer used in the IDF. I suppose it ought to be removed from the table.-- Doron 13:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I intend to remove this rank, if there is no objection.-- Doron 17:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
24.218.166.33 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Typing "IOF" into the search box should not redirect to the IDF page. There should be a seperate page about the differences. If you disagree, why?
IDF has the follwing directorates(lame translations are mine):
Although some are mentioned at the Generel Staff list(Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot — Head of Operations Directorate; Maj. Gen. Itzhak Harel — Head of Plans and Policy Directorate), nothing is written about the Directorates of Planning, and Operations in the article.
The military structure section needs to be somehow rearranged(perhaps by directorates instead of by fields?), and directorates of planning and operations added.
I know I'm not capable of making edits of such magnitude, but I'll appreciate it if somone incorporated these issues into the article(esspecially the existance of the Operations Directorate and the Planning Directorate)
conio.h •
talk
02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The word "Zroah" in Hebrew ("זרוע"), though meaning "arm" in plain translation, actually translates to "service". In the US or British army, we might say "tri-service operations", meaning operations involving all three services- army, navy, and airforce. In Hebrew- this would become "tlat-zro'i". So "service" is the correct rendition of "זרוע" when discussing military issues.
The IDF General Staff branches have changed and must be updated: There is no longer a "Technology and Logistics Branch"- but rather a "Logistics and Medical Branch". In Hebrew this is called "אלר"ם"- or "אגף הלוגיסטיקה, הרפואה, והמרכזים"... As far as I know, these structural changes have not yet been updated on the official IDF site (www.idf.il).
-- Iyavor 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to move section #4 ( Israeli military technology) to a child article (e.g., Israeli military industries or Israeli military technology). Most of this section doesn't relate directly to the IDF, which does not invent technology - just purchases and uses it. For example, I really don't see why the main article about IDF should list all the different small-arms ever invented in Israel. Any objections? altmany 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Are those models accurate? Do medics have machine guns mounted on ambulances? Is this type of thing universial?
As a person who served as a medic i can help explain: Some medics serve as an integral part of the the fighting unit. there is at least one medic in every platoon. as such they are equipped with machine guns and are combat soldiers just like their comrades. Other medics serve on more distant lines such as on the battalion level under the command of a doctor. they too are armed and technically considered combat soldiers as they are normally merely in the more distant part of the combat zone. the farther you go back to the brigade and the divional level the more "medical" the medics are and the less "combatant".
Why is there no insignia section? I think it's a definite must to explain berets, pins, aiguilettes, etc. I'll make a child article if I can, and link to it from here, but I don't have knowledge on all IDF insignia, especially the pins, which not even the IDF website has AFAIK. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 11:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Under "minorities in the IDF" the name Circassians used to link to Adyghe but I've changed it to the more logical link (from where you can get to the other one, it just seems less confusing this way). Iancaddy 01:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any good sources about the IDF and their use of US military equipment. I'm doing a research paper on US foreign aid to Israel and military aid is my focus. Thanks Tempest12 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
does anyone know something about the fact, that foreign citizens are allowed to join the IDF? I heard some things about that but without any sources. And the I-Net is kinda deep, what makes the search taking time. So, if anyone got any information about that point: It'd be good to add it, because it's always good to know (in the article about the US Armed Forces it's said).
Thanks, Mr.99 - 04.Feb.'07
Foreign citizens are allowed to join the IDF but they must be Israeli citizens when they actually join. To become an Israeli citizen is by being born in Israel, having an Israeli parent, marrying an Israeli or by "Aliya" which is the law of return for people who can prove they are Jewish and therefore "returning" home to Israel. For example, a young man in the US or Europe decides he wants to be in the IDF, so he goes to Israel and volunteers at a "Lishkat Giyoos" or recruiting office (which is a misnomer as its really a conscription office) but they will inform him he needs Israeli Citizenship to serve. So his choices are to get married, prove he was born in Israel, prove his parents are Israeli or finally prove that he is Jewish and this is not decided by the IDF, this is decided by the Interior Ministry. Only once he has Israeli Citizenship and a "Tuedat Zeut" or ID card with his ID number on (Issued by the Interior Ministry) can he join or be conscripted into the IDF. So once he is in he is not actually "foreign" any more. I served 94-97 and I am from the UK but am obviously duel national now. So when the media interview IDF soldiers with American, South African and British accents they are actually Israelis, its just the news crew are too lazy to learn Hebrew or hire an interpreter. DETCORD 07 Aug 07
Interesting to know how many people are fit for military service and how many are reaching military age anually (not really), how how big is the current israeli army? -- 62.251.90.73 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The data in infobox only lists how many people could be in the army max if the governement would recruit every healthy young male there is. Not how many there are in the army right now, and that is what I asked for. -- 62.251.90.73 11:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That would ignore the professional part of the army. -- 62.251.90.73 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you trolling me, I'm just curious to know what the size of the Israeli military is, and some juggling with as a start only the number of young males every year is not gonna cut it. Isn't there a reliable source? -- 62.251.90.73 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good reason not to give information someone asks for. -- 62.251.90.73 12:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So is there anyone that knows aprox how many people work in the Israeli army? -- 62.251.90.73 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to summarise Israel's military capability (number of aircraft, warships, tanks etc) and put this into context in relation to other militaries in the region, taking into account that Israel's equipment is likely of a higher quality. Cloachland 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I agree. Also, doesn't the US have a recently-built anti-ballistic missile system? President Bush referred to it when discussing the failed DPRK Taepo-Dong 2 launch, saying we had a system that may have been able to shoot it down if it approached US territory. I believe we have bases in Alaska...I'm not sure where else. -- the_paccagnellan 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since I posted, but I believe I asked the question because the article stated that Israel had the world's only anti-ballistic system in place, and I was wondering if that is still accurate after the installation of the US system. The US system, even if not "perfect," does seem to be operational. -- the_paccagnellan 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Under the 'Values of the IDF', following the line on 'Purity of Arms' someone has linked to the Qana Shelling. Perhaps this should be moved to counterterrorism tactics, or under another section of controvery regarding the IDF? It seems out of place to me, in what should be a simple statement of the IDF's own values.
IDF will further be known as the IOF, IllegalstateofIsreal Offense Forces.
It is sad when people hate Israel more than they love their own children. As
Thomas Friedman has said, "people have to stop getting their 'buzz' on destroying Israel and look to the future."
What do you want to say with this sentence??
I wonder if some Nazi scholar made the same statement in 1939, during the invasion of Poland?
"People have to stop getting their buzz on destroying Germany and look to the future."
Unfortunately we are forced to look at the present as well as the future. Especially when witnessing the destruction of a country and watching daily images of women and children being massacred by the Israeli "Defence" Force.
So much for their values... They have never had any except those of theft, murder and oppression.
-- Burgas00 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC) This is all lies by anti-Israel crowd. There were no " massacres". Anyone who compares the German invasion of Poland with Israel's half -heartened "war" with the Hezbollah terrorists, knows absolutely zero about military history. Six million Poles including 3 million Christians were murdered by the Germans in WWII. That was almost 20% of the population. Anyone who makes such a comparison should be banned from Wikipedia.
When will you get off that anti-Israel crowd bandwagon? Don't you realize that the world is sick and tired of your dribble? If the IDF is such a "capable" army then why do they make "mistakes" like the one in Qana where more than 50 innocent civilians were murdered? And don't give me the human shield argument. That one's as BS as any of the IDF's arguments.
Is there any historical conflict where an army had caused LESS civilian casualties then Israel has caused? To make your lives easier on the search, the Palestinians report approximately 3000 Palestinian civilian casualties since the occupation started in 1967. For contrast, Iraq has already passed 1,000,000 casualties in two years.
There was an unsourced claim that Israel had nuclear weapons, which an anonymous editor 130.64.130.33 removed, on grounds that "(Israel has never confirmed or denied nuclear capabilities -- therefore to assert that is has such capabilities is invalid.)" I agree that such a statement needs a verifiable source, such as neutral publications with estimates of their weapons systems, or newspaper articles. And even then, it should be qualified, such as "Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, told the Sunday Times they have at least 100 nuclear weapons" with a cite from the article Israel and weapons of mass destruction to back it up. Other estimates there range from 75 to 130 nuclear weapons in Israel's hands. That article says "Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons and intermediate-range ballistic missiles to deliver them." Google gives over 13 million hits for "Israel nuclear weapons." To forbid that info in this article is extreme censorship and extremely POV. Edison
BillCJ has seen fit to call the kidnapping of Vanunu "apprehension", claiming kidnapping is a too harsh word. I'd like to say it's not, and have edited it to "hijacked", with a link to the picture of it written on Vanunu's hand. I hope it will not be edited back to something that could be mistaken for legal conduct. - S Siverud (no, I don't feel like registering) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.46.230 ( talk) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, screw it then. I guess it would be too much to ask to call a kidnapping what it is when a government is responsible. I suggest you change the other articles mentioning Mordechai Vanunu to reflect this - Not only does it call it a kidnapping and a "hijacking", it even calls it an abduction. Let's go on and call the insurgents in Iraq capturing American soldiers something similar - they are "apprehending" "members of the occupying forces" and sometimes "neutralizing" them. Or would that be biased? Not the least bit more than what you are doing to this article. There's no point in me caring about it, so I'll just ignore all the errors on this site. It's really no point. Good luck, and happy editing! 217.208.46.230 ( talk) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the article the Galil is the standard service rifle for the IDF but I saw a picture on the internet of Female IDF soldiers carrying what looked to be M-16A2 rifles. The M-16 is not listed anywhere on this site so I was wondering if that's for females only?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.61.127.241 ( talk)
There is no "Official" IDF rifle, but the IDF issues weapons that it has in stock M16A2, M4, Galil, Uzi and now the Tavor on the basis of the units combat role. For example, rear eschelon troops need a rifle for self defence so this will most liklely be an m16 or Galil. They will also usually be grouped by Batallion for ease of distribution and commonality of function. M4 are usually for combat troops only, but they also have an annoying habit of being issued to Rear Eschelon officers just because they are officers and without regard to any combat need. Im sure the new Tavor rifle will be the "must have" status symbol for the office warrior in the Kirya or IDF HQ in Tel Aviv. DETCORD 07 Aug 07
Is military service compulsory for those who make aliyah later in life, or only those born in Israel? LordAmeth 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only are olim (immigrants) over the age of 39 not obligated to do military service, they are actually discouraged. There are some volunteer programs, however, that allow older men and women to serve the IDF in the relative safety of several bases throughout the country. [Daniel - March 2007]
I read somewhere that people with strong ideas were travelling to Israel to join the IDF even though they didnt have Israeli citizenship. In the UK the media was suggesting that British citizens declare their conscription into the IDF because of the on going situation there. Is it correct that if any non Israeli wants to join the IDF then they will be admitted ? ( if they meet entry requirements).-- Redblossom 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
See my above clarification on this issue. DETCORD
Has anyone noticed that the OGG file is incorrect? It says tzva hagana le Israel, when it's supposed to be hahagana. Please fix this. I have somewhat of a Russian accent. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
On the whole, this article is dangerously undersourced. Edit conflicts abound and nothing can be done about it because nobody is ponying up any real information, just accusations of POV editing and censorship. I implore the major editors around here to scrounge up some real information, because nobody in their right mind would take this article seriously as is. If you think it is worth it, why not bring it up to featured status? JHMM13 05:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Citations from the IDF's official website shouldn't be included in this article simply because it sets a precedent for future inclusions of information released in press conferences and or press releases by the IDF. In other words, if you're going to cite the IDF then you need to balance it with another source from a neutral, but well respected (read: no fox, no blogs, no personal websites or pro-Israel websites) source. If you want to be neutral there is a way to achieving that end without resorting to cut and paste AND turning Wikipedia into a mouthpiece for the IDF and the Israeli government. -Josh-
For any people coming to this article in the future, or if anyone already here gets heated about something, do not fling around accusations of conspiracies, because 99% of the time they are patent nonsense and do nothing to help the situation. Regardless of anyone's personal background with the IDF, personal attacks and illogical positions (i.e. ultra-nationalism, ultra-partisanship) do nothing to help anyone. I don't care if the IDF saved/killed your baby, please check personal feelings at the door. JHMM13 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You said, "There are just as many people on Wikipedia trying to turn other articles into a "mouthpiece" for any other cause that exists".
And your point is? If others on Wiki are trying to turn their articles into a mouthpiece, then it's ok to do the same here, because "they're doing it, why can't we"? Am I having a discussion with a 7 year old or a mature adult? I need to know before I waste my time on this nonsense.
Also, what you said doesn't answer the main question. If that's your justification for turning this article into a hack of an article, then by all means do as you please, I will not take part in such a sham.
"A long-standing policy dating to Israel's early years extends an exemption to all other Israeli minorities (notably Israeli Arabs but also Black Hebrews and others)" This does not make any sense to me. For one, I know that many Black Hebrews do in fact serve. More importantly, however - they are not, for the most part, Israeli citizens, and would not be required to serve anyway. If I am right, this should be removed. -- Israelish, April 27, 2007 22:26 (UTC)
The first sentence goes like this: Israel has female conscription, but about a third of female conscripts (more than double the figure for men) are exempted, mainly for religious and nuptial reasons.
I have read a couple weeks ago in a Yediot article (huge one, it spanned 2 pages) that 37% of IDF women are exempted. Can anyone find this article, change the Wiki article accordingly, and add a source? I think the figure for men was also quite different. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Israel is the only country in the world with an operational anti-ballistic missile defense system ("Hetz", Arrow, developed with funding and technology from the United States), though an operational system is in place protecting the Moscow area."
The above sentance seems to be garbled, it makes no sense. Can somebody fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.16.41.245 ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
1. Does IDF have 3 Field grade officers, or 3 field grade officer ranks? 2. Listing of the Hebrew names and Hebrew abbrs of the ranks is unhelpful, unless they are correlated to equivilents in the militaries of the English Speaking world, ie. Lt. Gen. At the top of the article serveral Lt Gens are referred to...are they Rav Aluf, Aluf, or Tat aluf?
Main articles: Israel Defense Forces ranks and Israel Defense Forces insignia The Israel Defense Forces has four enlisted ranks, as well as:
3 Supreme or General Officers: Rav Aluf (Ra'al), Aluf, Tat aluf (Ta'al) 3 Field or Senior Officers: Aluf mishne (Alam), Sgan aluf (Sa'al), Rav seren (Rasan) 3 Company Grade or Junior Officers: Seren, Segen and Segen mishne (Sagam) 2 academic officers: Katsin akademai bakhir (Ka'ab), Katsin miktsoi akademai (Kama) 5 non-commissioned officer ranks: Rav nagad (Ranag), Rav samal bakhír (Rasab), Rav samal mitkadem (Rasam), Rav samal rishon (Rasar), Rav samal (Rasal) Non-officer enlisted ranks include: Samal rishon (Samar), Samal, Rav turai (Rabat), Turai
Unlike most world armies, these ranks are common for all corps in the IDF, including the air force and navy.
Enlisted personnel sew their ranks to their sleeves, while officers and NCOs wear them on their shoulders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.16.41.245 ( talk) 20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks to the CIA factbook, I found that it's 17-49 for aviability, not 15-49. However, I can't change it. Anyone want to do such for me?
Here's the link to such;
lolcats 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole Specific weapon systems section is a mess. Locally developed systems, purchased weapons, active weapons, obsolete weapons, never produced prototypes... Total mess. I suggest removing the whole section and putting there a link to Military equipment of Israel article. Flayer 09:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Could somone please help me fix the colors of the table ? Acidburn24m 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The section, first sentence currently reads '... of presumed Palestinian leaders'. Wouldn't 'presumed terrorists' be more accurate? I think this is NPOV given 'presumed', and they're being killed for that presumption, not because they're Palestinian leaders. (No one is trying to kill Abbas.) In addition, next part of that sentence, 'claiming that it aims at preventing future acts of violence by killing a person related to anticipated future violence', is awkward and confusing while seeming to imply that the targeted killings are of people already linked to violence. I suggest, '... claiming that it is preventing further violence by these individuals'. GUSwim 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I edited this section on Dec. 25 2007 since it was totally POV. And since it was undone once more, I edited again, this time without actually adding any new information but at least trying to make it seem slightly less ridiculous. Maybe this time the pro-palestinian who is in charge of this artice will stop making this article his own playground. Finally, I think that it takes some nerve deleting additions under the pretext of no data to back them up while not providing any to the original and obviously POV edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.87.241 ( talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of all the important Armies. i.e. Australian Army, German Army, Italian Army. A full listing of finished graphics can be found at commons:Category:Military OrBat Graphics. I would also like (very much ) to create a graphic of the Israeli Ground Forces but the information at this point is not sufficient and to tell the truth, what information is currently given on wikipedia is more confusing than helpful... If anyone wants to help- the information I need would be to know which Brigades are belonging to which divisions or Commands and what battalions make up the Brigades. As soon as I have this information I will speedily create the graphic :-)-- noclador 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the aim was to create a graphical representation, not a textual one. A textual representation would really be easier, but I have already created a chart in PowerPoint. I will include it shortly in this talk page. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 01:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC) I have included a screenshot, to the right. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 02:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Look on globalsecurity.org and you will see Israel has only around 1600 artilery peices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.221.225 ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't view this article as a neutral one, where it refers to Palestinian militants (which Palestinians refer to as freedom fighters) as terrorists, while it refers to the actions of the israeli army as defensive. A more objective article would describe the israeli army as an occupying army of the Palestinian lands, and the Palestinian militants as resisting forces or simply as militants. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAminHabash ( talk • contribs)
it is impossible to have a neutral wiki topic for anything israely or jewish i have noticed. antisemites/people who dislike israel change known facts on countless topics on wiki, i for one have stoped using wiki for anything that has to do with israel. everyother day something else apears that is clearly untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.214.57 ( talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is possible to have a neutral article on any topic if it is written by a person who doesn't feel concerned, i.e.,for this particular topic, neither a Jew nor a Muslim(or a personnal who has ideological sympathy for their cause)... maybe an Hindu or a budhist... Mitch1981 ( talk) 11:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
may someone please fix this article its a very anti-israel article and is bias in every shape and form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 ( talk) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
can someone fix that controversies article its extremely anti-israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 ( talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there EXISTS a controversy section is anti-Israeli. It is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand. The page on the US army has no mention of the Guantanamo incident, and the page on the Syrian army has no mention of the surprise attack on Israel in 1973 which was a violation of any conceivable rule of engagement. The wiki pages are there for information about the armies. Any controversial activities or human rights incidents should have their own place - otherwise we need to accommodate all historical incidents of human rights abuse that involved any soldier in history, which is of course ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.15.99 ( talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
surely just because it doesnt exist on other military articles doesnt mean it shouldnt exist on this one. in order for it to be a balanced and truthful article it needs to mention the controversies if there are controversies. idf or united states army, hezbollah or the peoples army of vanuatu. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.105.213.11 (
talk)
14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If the allegations of crimes are against individuals, they belong in stories about those individuals - just like the Guantanamo incident is not a part of the US army page. If the allegations are against the policies instructed to the IDF from above, they should have their own pages under controversies of the nation's conflicts page - just like the genocide committed by the German Army in WW2 is not a part of the German army page, and just like the rape of Nanking is not a part of the Japanese Army page.
A military only conducts policy, it doesn't create it, so it is not the address of controversy. The correct meaning of controversy in this context is, for example, if some people claim the IDF should combine the Navy and the Air Force into one body, etc.
I removed the following sentence and its citation from the article;
<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israels-warning-rocket-fire-from-gaza-will-result-in-a-palestinian-holocaust-790004.html</ref>
This statement is an example of (without presuming to know the intent of the editor who posted it) a deliberate mistranslation in support of a political ideology which has been circulated by several papers, including the British Tabloid which is used as a reference, in recent weeks. It refers to a statement by Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defense minister, in which (properly translated from the Hebrew) he said “The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger disaster because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” The Hebrew word for "disaster" is Shoah. Though this is also the word Jews and Israelis use to describe the Holocaust, that is not its exclusive meaning. While Vilnai himself has acknowledged that it was unwise to use this word owing to the inevitability that foreign media sources would jump on the opportunity to mistranslate his statements, it is clear that his intended meaning was "disaster," not "holocaust."
Rudy Breteler ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) i think your excuse to remove this line is BS. shoah as far wikipedia is concerned is translated as holocaust if you search it, but whatever i knew that line wouldn't last anyways but come on just be straight that material critical of the idf isn't welcome here because of YOUR political ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.78.250 ( talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"As of 2002, 33% of lower rank officers are women, 21% of Captains and Majors, and 3% of the most senior ranks."
These terms are quite confusing. In the army, there are "junior officers" (lieutenants and captains), "senior officers" (majors, lieutenant-colonels and colonels) and general officers (generals). I think that the figures should stick by these dinstinctions Mitch1981 ( talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the number of journalists that have died in the occupied territories, it is sort of silly not to atleast mention it in the controversy section i think... They have also been accused of bulldozing Palestinian houses, sniping,shelling,etc innocents civilians... Theres a BBC documentary called The Killing Zone that shows some of the alleged things that are happening over there. I just think its too short and it shouldnt be ignored completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that PalestineRemembered is intent on adding a detailed account of Breaking The Silence's coverage on the IDF to the article. I think this violates WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE for the following reasons:
Editors, please provide input on this issue. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Is there an article of criticism of the IDF of some sort? I know there's Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, but that's not the same. Israeli peace camp is also different. Maybe there should be an article summing the various groups Machsom watch, B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, etc. -- Nudve ( talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I just removed vandalism from the page. I think that it is time for a silver padlock to be placed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailwin ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are portions of this article that are absurdly propagandist eg "In September, 1982, it is alleged by some Arab and other left-wing groups that IDF forces permitted Lebanese Phalangist troops to enter the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps." This event - directly equivalent to a pogrom - was taken very seriously indeed, and the Knesset committee either blamed Sharon personally for it, or was otherwise highly critical. PR talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know how to fix this, but the words in the Hebrew name are backwards.-- Iclavdivs ( talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Enough said. How many soldiers deserted and later joined IDF? What was their contribution? What was contibution of trainings carried by instructors from Anders Army (I think they were for Irgun fighters) when it was in Palestine? Should any of this be mentioned in article? Szopen ( talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In what manner do minorities serve - there is a section dedicated to it, but it leaves some questions unanswered. What about 'special' units, designed for foreign volunteers, and minorities. I'm particularly thinking of language. Arabic and English are official languages of Israel, but what about in the military. Is it just assumed that few Arab Israeli's who decide to join will speak Hebrew? What about conscripted Druze etc., and recent Jewish immigrants, who can't speek Hebrew? - Matthew238 ( talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article reads like Nazi propaganda. It is very one sided and very far from factual. Anytime anyone posts any reasonable information they are labelled as anti-Semitic by the pro-Zionist, pro-illegal occupation, trolls who congregate on Wikipedia. You are not fooling anyone. You all know who you are. Gone is the time wikipedia would be considered a reliable source for any political research information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.52.44 ( talk) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done anon! What I do not understand however, is that you do not join in! Anonymous IP's suggesting changes make no real change: join in, search for people who share you opinion and contact some admins, don't jusr go here screaming complaints, take action if you dare! Happy editing. J.B. ( talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the statistics should adhere to the original source, despite crash cases and cases where equipment was known to be taken out of use. The source publisher releases this kind of information every so often, so we shouldn't have major discrepancies, while reducing the number of planes/helicopters/etc. after each crash is a form of original research because there's no way of knowing if we missed certain cases, if some cases were classified, etc. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This was mentioned by someone earlier, but it seems like the Alice Miller linked to on this page is not the same one in the article. I don't know for sure if it's wrong, but it doesn't provide any useful information even if it's right, so i'm removing the link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.94.143 ( talk) 22:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the martial art Krav Maga is the official self-defence system of the Forces. Maybe this needs to be incorporated or mentioned in the article somewhere??-- Sonjaaa 10:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
"received US$4.8 billion in military aid annually" but later on: "receives more than US$2 billion per year in military aid" btw: the first figure comes with a source (did not check).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.136.147 ( talk) 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the "Values of the Code of Conduct" section has been vandalized. Can someone fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcfarland ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It is misleading to label the antecedants of the IDF as 'terrorist,' because there is no adaquate, generally accepted definition of terrorism by which most of the forces that turned in to the IDF fit. For instance, most definitions of terrorism speak of *random* violence against civilian targets--wherein the bombing of the King David Hotel, the most notorious act of violence against the British, does not qualify, as the attackers forwarned the Hotel and its occupants that the building was being bombed, and warned them to evacuate.
The Hagannah fit very, very few modern definitions of terrorism.
Irgun fit more, but still only a few. (And, honestly, none of the ones I find compelling)
Lehi/Stern gang fit most (but not all) definitions of terrorism, but it would be unfair and misleading to characterise Lehi as indicative Tzahal's origin generally.
For instance, the definition of terrorism I most hold by is 'Violent attacks against nonmilitary objectives with the intent and aim of inflicting civilian casualties in order to promote a political objective, conducted by persons disguising their identity or unit for part or all of the operation'.
So, for instance, the 'people' (and I use the term loosely) in Iraq who are dressing up as Iraqi soldiers or police, going around killing people fit the definition. The Afghans, on the other hand, who join in militias and attack the US military are *guerillas*. Their actions are still morally reprehensible, in my opinion, but they are not neccessarily terrorists, per se.
Most definitions that put Lehi as a terrorist group, and most that but Irgun up there, also would put the Minutemen (of the 18th century, not the bozos in Texas) on there too.
The definition of terrorists nowadays refers to people who pose any danger on the interests and security of the united states of america and israel, and usually the person to be labelled with this characteristic is a muslim. For instance, all the Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan resistance movements are listed as terrorist groups. however, if you look at the Virginia incident where a Korean guy killed about 30 people, that incident was not considered as a terrorist attack by American officials, although it was obvious that all the victims were killed for no reason.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by GonenMB ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidburn24m ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Now lets put a section on killings of palestinian civilians by the IDF, lets make it fair. now i know theres innocent israeli civilians killed by Militants but u gotta see both sides are fighting dirty, and killing eachothers population. user:Homan05 —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
In a recent edit, the user Ceedjee has reverted an edit by Ynhockey - more precisely, removing the word 'Christian' for the term 'Christian Phalangist' in relation to the Sabra and Shatilla massacre , due to "undue weight". Because internal Labanese violence is almost always based on religious differences, why does it carry an "undue weight"? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} The IDF is not taking part in ethnic cleansing against the Gazan population as incorrectly noted early in the article. This should instead say, "The IDF is currently undergoing an operation in Gaza against Hamas in an effort to stop Hamas from firing rockets into civilian Israeli areas."
Can I get a proper explanation of specifically what was WP:POVFORK about the partially merged and redirected article there? That seems to be a creative interpretation of "POV fork," given that it was seemingly a neutral article about a POV term. I don't appreciate being rapidly reverted after asking "please discuss before unilateral redirect," it has a rather chilling effect on the discussion. < eleland/ talk edits> 10:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To me having the redirect is more POV, since it implies that this is a normal term for the IDF. Especially since it redirects to the controversy section. It basically serves as a POV Fork of the article. You type in the POV version and you get a little article on the IDF with a POV section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.34.115 ( talk) 07:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen this flag before, is there an official source that uses it? Yonatan talk 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new IDF structure chart in hopes of correcting certain errors and also adding the airforce and navy in the same chart (see image), however, I don't want to insert it into the article without discussion. I'll do it in a few days if there is no opposition. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently Reenem re-added the Border Police image with a different caption which is more acceptable than in the past. However, I believe it is still misleading and shouldn't be placed in the article (ignoring for a second that the source of the image is unknown). As I thought about this, it also occurred to me that the other Border Police image is also misleading. Although it clearly shows a police vehicle in the foreground, the soldier on the left (most clearly visible) is from Kfir, which is part of the IDF. I'm not sure whether Border Police images are appropriate for this article at all, but if they are, I think we should find an image showing just border police in a police action. The caption, of course, should make it clear that it's not the IDF and also link to the article Israel Border Police. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is that being deleted as "irrelevant"? The Israel Defense Forces are included on this table that giving a very even view of terrorist organizations in the world. There is more than enough people that would argue that the actions committed by the IDF in the past were terrorist actions. It is not like the it is in at the start of the page either, it is in the controversies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.23.19 ( talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember, it also titled "groups accused of terrorist actions", not "terrorist groups". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.23.19 ( talk) 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
From this article it seems that it is a Anti-terror force rather than an army. User:Yousaf465 ( talk)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Some sources show the IDF's budget as 9 billion dollars while other show it as 18 billion dollars. Is it due to the difference between the Israeli GDP measured in Nominal and PPP ? -- Krotx ( talk) 07:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well the wiki page says its 18 billion. -- Krotx ( talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it only available for Jews? Or can anyone volunteer? OneGyT/ T| C 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Foreign citizens are allowed to join the IDF but they must be Israeli citizens when they actually join. To become an Israeli citizen is by being born in Israel, having an Israeli parent, marrying an Israeli or by "Aliya" which is the law of return for people who can prove they are Jewish and therefore "returning" home to Israel. For example, a young man in the US or Europe decides he wants to be in the IDF, so he goes to Israel and volunteers at a "Lishkat Giyoos" or recruiting office (which is a misnomer as its really a conscription office) but they will inform him he needs Israeli Citizenship to serve. So his choices are to get married, prove he was born in Israel, prove his parents are Israeli or finally prove that he is Jewish and this is not decided by the IDF, this is decided by the Interior Ministry. Only once he has Israeli Citizenship and a "Tuedat Zeut" or ID card with his ID number on (Issued by the Interior Ministry) can he join or be conscripted into the IDF. So once he is in he is not actually "foreign" any more. I served 94-97 and I am from the UK but am obviously duel national now. So when the media interview IDF soldiers with American, South African and British accents they are actually Israelis, its just the news crew are too lazy to learn Hebrew or hire an interpreter. DETCORD 07 Aug 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.104.225.253 ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if 89.104.225.253's answer was sufficiently clear however Jews or possibly all those proving a right of return can serve in the IDF even without Israeli citizenship. Menachemsdavis ( talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Cloachland amended this title to counterinsurgency tactics, and I amended it back. Although "terrorist" may be a loaded word, the section title "counterterrorism" is more in line with the stated mission and goals of the IDF and is also a more accurate description of that article section. Cf. counterinsurgency and see how it is nothing like what is described in the article. I reverted it, and think trying to avoid the use of the word terrorism is either excessive political correctness or actually skews into a non-neutral pov.-- Wikiwriter706 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirm / Deny. Damn that'd be hot.
And Just out of curiosity. Who exactly considers the Israeli Army to have the most effective methods of crowd control and use of non-lethal force?
Conventional military wisdom is that armies should minimize their involvement in crowd control and non-lethal force, and that military forces in general handle this very badly. It doesn't seem obvious to me that the Israeli army handles hostile crowds better than most civilian police forces, so I'm curious where that statement comes from.
[It seems logical that this is based on their development of sonic weapons]
==
As to Israel's being the only country that uses assassinations as a defensive measure: how would one categorize George W. Bush's request to bring Mr. Bin-Laden, dead or alive? Mullah Omar? -- Uriyan
Semantics. The official policy still is that targeted assassinations by the US are not-sanctioned by the US government. However, that doesn't mean that the US military has to avoid bombing places where OBL might be for *eh-hem* other legitimate reasons. Oh darn is if they happen to kill OBL in a raid or he happens to not surrender to ground troops. That's what was meant. The statement in this article about the "officialness" of the US policy needs to be changed. -- maveric149
U.S. Tomahawks striking god-knows-where in Sudan and Rangers touring Mullah Ommar's house are in fact not ambitious at all: these are all official assassination attempts. Also, the US $25 million reward makes the search after OBL & Co. an officially-sanctioned bounty hunt. Israel does not play in these games: it does not do carpet bombings and it does not lease its affairs to subcontractors. But I still have difficulty figuring out why everyone is silent with the US but so angry with Israel. Must be something in the Israeli genes. -- Uriyan
Funny, I never knew Afghanistan was a part of the U.S. - or how one would explain the bounty regarding Bin-Ladin a police action? Also, a point to ponder about - which is more moral: placing explosive in a guy's cell phone, or carpet-bombing the whole city in which he's in? -- Uriyan
You see, Israel is not pretending this to be a police action. This is a war, and in a war you sometimes do things you're not normally be doing in peacetime. Extradition treaties (read: Oslo) would be nice, if the Palestinians had bothered to fulfill them. As to the U.S. method, it's much worse than the Israeli one, as it involves killing huge amounts of people, most of whom are innocent. The reason why the U.S. can proceed, and Israel can't? The U.S. is the U.S., and Israel is Israel. Talk about hypocrisy. -- Uriyan
Exactly my point. Both Israel and the U.S. are now participating in a new kind of warfare. This warfare is different from most major conflicts of the past, as it involves fighting a vastly inferior opponent, who however has the advantages of stealth, mobility and the more powerful side's ignorance. Both Israel and the U.S. are committed to their warfare, which translates into their readiness to commit actions which go against regular peace-time morals (as well as international conventions), for example assassinating enemy leaders through various means. This is tragic, but that's the nature of war. But now the big question: if you take some more-or-less impartial observers (e.g. Europeans): why do they begin to care so much when Israel is fighting its war - but forget all their conventions when the U.S. does the same thing? Is that hypocrisy, or what? And yes, the fact that not a single word or deed by Palestinian Authority was there to oppose the hostilities then in October 2000, makes them responsible for the current Intifada. -- Uriyan
Well, I'm not arguing in direct relevance to this article, but I do consider writing an article concerning this question, and this discussion which you did give me a lot of stuff to think about. But, if I had wasted your time, then I apologize :-). Uriyan
I agree to the situation's being screwed up, but I don't really see a difference between Israel and the U.S.: both countries were not exactly the favorites of the Muslim world, both were attacked and now both try to exterminate the terrorists - without a complete success so far, with thousands of innocent people getting hurt on both sides. -- Uriyan
Well, I was writing in a hurry and I rather meant eradicating terrorism as a phenomenon threatening U.S. and Israel. But, to me, the very concept of terrorism is so morally repulsive (no matter who carries it out), that I do not see a moral problem in killing an active terrorist. I think that war is war, and until it ends, I will not feel compassion for the soldiers of the other side. This does not hold true for non-combatant civilians - but terrorists do not belong to them. Perhaps many of those who read this would disagree with me - but there are no daily attempts on the lives of most of them. -- Uriyan
Hmm, just as an aside, as far as I was aware the US executive order that bans assassinations is rescinded in wartime. As the US is now engaged in a war, the ban on targeted assassinations no longer applies. As such, we have seen true targeted assassinations such as the CIA hit on Al-Qaeda members in Yemen, using a Hellfire-equipped Predator UAV. Impi
I have read this before in people`s forum signature: "You don`t win a war by dieing for your country, You win the war by making the other poor bastard die for he`s." I think that is one of the deepest and most correct things I have read that people said about war. Another thing would be: "When the reach wage war it`s the poor who die." Taken from the lyric of Hands Held High by Linkin Park.
The information above is false; indeed, a couple of months ago there was a bill that proposed the introduction of such privileges, but it was turned down. Currently, there are no civilian benefits associated with serving in the army. -- Uri
Q had written the following, which I turned into a clause. -- Ed Poor
As for an answer, The IDA were trained by the British and by them selfs. The three main groups that had formed it were: Palmach,Lehi and Etzel. And again,No not all training came from the British,This three groups were not trained to be an army but they had already fought well as guerrilla groups. Later on the British trained some of them like real soldiers and these trained the others. If you think this is wrong some how,You better have a very good proof as I am very sure of what I wrote here - ziv.
Apart from Uri's statement above saying info is wrong (I have no view on this), I do feel that "Men serve three years in the IDF, as do the women on combat positions, but women on non-combat positions serve two." is at least a mis-type with combat and non-combat probably swapped round. -- SGBailey 07:27 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)
The PA has arrested such individuals, according to the news I read. Not always, and not always when Israel wants, and sometimes they let them go (and sometimes the prisons get bombed) - but never is way too strong a word. Martin
I agree,Martin.Say would you happen to be from Israel? (Personal question nor related to this article what`s'o'ever.) - ziv.
I tried to improve the English and the NPOV a bit but there is much yet to do. Don't use words like "recently" and "lately", they get out of date too quickly. I removed the sentence "The International Solidarity Movement, which has blamed the IDF for downright murder, has lately been found to house escaping Palestinian terrorists, under the cover of "peace activists"." because it is a pure lie. It was found that some Palestinian on a wanted list had attended an ISM meeting; that's not even close to the same thing. Btw, "alleged" nuclear capability? Come off it. -- zero --- 80.179.85.7, I'm sorry to report that most of your additions are duplicate work of articles that already exist. While additions are never a bad thing, rehashing the complete history of Israel on this page may not be feasible as the article loses focus on the IDF which is what the article should be about. Maybe you should consider working on articles about Israeli history instead? Please also read Wikipedia:NPOV. BL 03:27, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm recently started working about IDF history. So far, I added the history from 1948 until 1981. The next big entry would be 1982 Lebanon war.
Also, I have entred a subsection about IDF technology and weapons with general introduction and a list of weapons (the "tech tree").
I think the Sheva' Brigade is more often called the 7th Brigade nowadays, the other brigades seem to have retained their "nicknames" though. BL 23:32, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It may be useful to add a section on unit sizes in the IDF. After a while, the whole platoon, company, squad/section, etc thing gets difficult for newbies, especially in how many of x are in y and so forth and so on. More especially, every nation has its own idea of how it works, so looking at how the IDF organizes may be a good idea. - Penta 06:54, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Information on basic unit size and the basic structure of the army is enough to estimate it`s size. Israel does not have a,Well I`ll stop here I can`t say what I wanted. Lat`s just say that Israel is not the U.S and cannot let it`s enemys see it`s cards. - ziv.
The refusal to serve section of this page duplicates in part the referenced refusal to serve page. Should we combine the two pages or replace the refusal to serve section here with a stub that points to the other page? OneVoice 15:00, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As was pointed out to me by Flyingbird on the Dutch Wikipedia, the name Israel Defense forces is incorrect. It should be, and the Irseli Army indeed calls itself, Israel Defense Forces (please take a look at the official IDF site). I will try to change the name. User:Gidonb 13:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What you mean is that "Defence" is wrong and "Defense" is right. Of course the official name is the Hebrew one, but you do seem to be correct about the IDF-preferred English spelling. Go ahead and change it. -- Zero 00:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Defence and Defense, both forms are correct and widely used by almost everybody. MathKnight 21:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have already made a comment about the name,I direct translation from Hebrew to English. - ziv.
I have moved these sections here because they are loaded with POV and non-encylopedia information. -- Viajero 11:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to say that although not everything Anti-Israel is necessarily Anti-Semetic, the previous comment is without question dispicable in nature. To say that "we stopped caring about the holocaust a long time ago" is absolutely revolting and you should be ashamed of yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.82.19 ( talk) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Effectiveness of IDF tactics in reducing suicide bombings
The method, combined with a network of checkpoints and the re-occupation of all Palestinian areas in the West Bank, has resulted in a dramatic and sustained decrease in suicide bombing attacks. Suicide bombing attacks reached a peak of 17 in March 2002. The first six months of 2002 witnessed 60 suicide bombing attacks while the IDF prevented 32. In the last six months of 2003, there are been a total of 9 suicide bombing attacks versus 79 attacks prevented by IDF. [2]
The Israeli Gaza Strip barrier has proven effective in prevent suicide bombers from leaving Gaza. No suicide bomber has left Gaza since 1996.
The Code of Conduct
In 1992, the IDF has writen down a Code of Conduct that is a combination of international law, Israeli law, and the IDF's own traditional ethical code - Ruach Tzahal רוח צה"ל ("[ http://www.idf.il/english/doctrine/doctrine.stm the spirit of the IDF]"). The IDF Code of Conduct emphasis values such as comradship, courage, proffesionalism, devotion and purity of arms. This ethical code derive its values from the Jewish hertiage, the democratic norms and the traditonal value of the IDF.
Recently, a team of proffesors, commanders and former judges, led by Tel Aviv University head of Ethics cathedra, proffessor Assa Kasher, wrote down a code of conduct which emphasis the right behaivor in low intensity warfare against terrorists, where soldier must operate within civilian population. Reserve units and regular units alike are taught the following eleven rules of conduct, which are an addition to the more general IDF Spirit:
- Military action can only be taken against military targets.
- The use of force must be proportional.
- Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.
- Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.
- Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.
- Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.
- Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to oneself and one's enemy.
- Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.
- Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.
- Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.
- Soldiers must report all violations of this code.
Source: [3]
MathKnight 12:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The IDF has never lived up to this ideal. Bearing in mind the countless IDF war crimes it looks merely as a cynical mockery of its victims! -- 145.253.238.10 15:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) What is your definition of "war crimes"? This is just more Nazi-like rhetoric by the enemies of Israel.
My definition? For example : http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950828/israel.html or http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html or http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/17/photo-of-the-day-israeli-kids-sends-gifts-of-love-to-arab-kids/ To denounce any criticism of Israel as "Nazi-like rethoric" (sic!) is ridiculous. -- 145.253.238.10 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Israeli Arabs, with few exceptions, are not obliged to serve, though they may volunteer.
What are these "few exceptions"? -- zeno 13:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Druze serve, as do many Bedouin groups. Danny 13:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do they serve, or do the have to serve? We have a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether Israeli Arabs have to serve or not. What is the general rule here? I know some Arabs with Israeli citizenships, and they did not serve in the Army. -- zeno 19:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the information - one more question: Do Druze and Bedouins count as Arabs in this sense? Or is military service mandatory for them? -- zeno 08:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
With regard to conscription of Palestinian Israelis, the following is an extract from "A History of Modern Palestine - One Land, Two Peoples" by Ilan Pappe (Cambridge University Press 2004). "In the early 1950s, the government was divided on the question of Palestinian conscription to the IDF. The secret service predicted that the Palestinian minority in Israel would reject conscription, and suggested that all that was needed was to call up the intake for one year. When they refused, the government would be able to declare that the Palestinian community as a whole refused to serve in the army. When the experiment took place in 1954, to the surprise and bewilderment of the secret service, every conscript responded to the call-up. In addition, the Communist Party supported the potential recruits and the call-up day was turned into a festive event. No one was actually conscripted; the policy makers simply ignored these people's readiness to serve. What is more, the government's interpretation of the events gave it another tool in its discriminatory policy against the Palestinian minority, which still is being applied today: only people who have served in the army are eligible for state benefits such as loans, mortgages, and reduced university fees. There is also a close link between industry and security in the Jewish state, which means that significant sections (almost 70 per cent) of industry are closed to Palestinian citizens because they have not served in the army." Is there any reason why the substance of the above should not be included in the article, especially given the significance of IDF service as a qualification for civic entitlements? Incidentally, please could we desist from referring to Palestinian Israelis as Arab Israelis. One would not refer to Northern Irish nationalists as European Britons. There are many non Palestinian Arab Israelis, but they are all Jewish, and are confusingly referred to as just Israeli, or more clearly as Mizrahi or Sephardi. That this misleading nomenclature is widely used elsewhere should not prevent us from using clear, unambiguous terms here. Milezmilez 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
When did women begin to be drafted into the Israeli military? Thanks, Mark Richards 17:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Since Day 1, i.e. since the foundation of the IDF in May 14, 1948. In the 1948 War of Independence the IDF even had one female combat pilot. Untill this day, women are drafted to the army. However, most of them serve in uncombat position and have only to do 2 years of regular service (instead of 3 for men). MathKnight 20:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Pre-edit the article stated that "Israel is the only country which currently has female conscription..." This is absolutely false. In Peru "All men aged 18 to 50 and women aged 18 to 45 are liable for military service. Military service lasts for 2 years." [4] China by law has conscription for both males and females. Libya has required female conscription by law since 1984. There are many other examples, but I think the point is made. I am removing this false statement from the article. --A
I returned the omitted sentence "Most Israeli men, however, do not serve in reserve service, for various reasons". This is to contrast the sentence before it, which may create a false impression about Israeli society. Furthermore, it is a well-known issue, and I can refer the Hebrew-speakers among you to [5] [6].-- Doron 21:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I made an (incorrect) edit to the sentence about most Israelis not serving in the reserves. Now I'm curious why this is the case. Is it because a high percentage are above the maximum age? are there a lot of exemptions? some combination of the two?
Also, that seems to contradict the earlier part of the paragraph, which discusses the social aspect of reserve service. Maybe we could reconcile the two parts of that paragraph? Chuck 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Although still available to be called up in times of crisis, up to 70% of Israeli men, and a higher percentage of women, do not actually perform reserve service in any given year. Units do not always call up all of their reservists every year, and a variety of exemptions are available if called for regular reserve service. Virtually no exemptions exist for reservists called up in a time of crisis.
Image:Israeli solider2.jpg, Image:Israeli soldier.jpg - I removed these as uninformative and unnecessary - an image that actually shows the uniform and less pout would be much better. These add nothing to the article -- sannse (talk) 18:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I rename this page to "Israel Defense Forces" (notice the 's' in 'defense')? It is in line with the official IDF website. There are also 5 times more pages on Google that use this spelling. Kent Wang 02:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
HILARIOUS! The correct English spelling is "annoying" ! Ignoramus. -- 213.121.207.34 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alice miller links to a totally irrelevant article. someone should fix it
It's very important to include something like this:
Since the occupation of the Occupied Territories in 1967, the IDF has been involved in terrorising the palestinian population. This includes assasinations of palestinian leaders, destroying houses, attacking and killing civilians (including children) and other war crimes. The IDF is also responsible for protecting Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
Dani levin.
This is a propoganda paragraph, full of incitement and out-of-context. Wiki is not the place for hate-speak such as what you wrote. Stop insert this paragraph, because it will be removed again. MathKnight 17:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's not propaganda. I think Dani is right. It should be on the page. Harry.
The IDF (not the settlers) has occupied the Golan, Sinai, West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and the IDF is protecting settlements and demolished (destroys) houses. What is not true? Of course settlements and protecting them is a crime (to my opinion), but even if you don't think so - it's a fact that the IDF is protecting settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (and also the Golan). Dani levin 09:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This in article about the IDF, not about the disputed territories.
MathKnight 10:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
IDF may not "demolish houses for fun", but they do demolish houses for more reasons than "as mean for fighting terrorism". Many times they demolish houses as a form of revenge or ethnical cleansing. // Liftarn
It looks like we've drifted from facts to personal opinion here. IDF may demolish houses as a form of revenge or collective punishment. If it's effective or not is another issue. IDF also demolish houses to force people to move. If it's ethnic cleansing or not is another issue. // Liftarn
Apparently the house demolition policy has never been applied when Jewish Israelis kill Arabs, such as the case of Baruch Goldstein who killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 shooting attack in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, West Bank. If it had been an Arab who killed and wounded the same number of Jews, would he have been considered a terrorist, and would his family home have been bulldozed? Edison 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Baruch Goldstein was not put on trial, he was killed in the mosque by Palastinians that he was trying to kill. In your house demolition context though his house was not being used as a base for criminal activity and therefore would probably not been demolished even if the IDF took the unusual step of destroying an Israeli house. Ami Popper on the other hand murdered seven Palstinian workers in 1990 and was convicted in court and sentenced to life imprisonment. I assume you have confused the names. Incidently, all house demolitions must be authorised by a senior commander and are vertainly not picked out and decided upon by the bulldozer driver himself. DETCORD
The following two quotes are from the Wikipedia page on Menachem Begin:
Menachem Begin, the day after the UN vote on the 1947 UN Partition Plan: "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever."
Soon after Menachem Begin and the Likud party won the Israeli election in 1977, the government's foreign policy was stated as follows: "The Jewish people have unchallengeable, eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel [including the West Bank and Gaza Strip], the inheritance of their forefathers (and he pledged to build rural and urban exclusive Jewish colonies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." (Iron Wall, p. 354-355)
In light of these comments, how is it possible to conclude that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian populations from the occupied territories isn't official state policy? UnderdogBA 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I left the text about accusations of human rights groups but moving the following phrase to talk: Palestinians and their supporters often refer to the IDF as the "Israeli Occupation Force" (IOF). This label expresses their belief that the primary role of the IDF is maintaining an "Occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rather than "Defense" of Israeli citizens. Some even refuse to use the official title at all, claiming it is a propaganda term. -- Every army has opponents and eenemies, but what makes this encyclopedic? Do we list denigrating expressions in other similar articles? Do we mention how did the Palestinians named Jordanian and Egyptian armies that occupied WB & GS for 19 years? ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This is bad grammar, on top of being POV. The bulldozers primarily damage property. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe a very small number of Palestinians are alleged to have been killed by bulldozers, though I don't have any links supplying statistics. In any event, at most only a tiny percentage of the Palestinians killed in the conflict have been killed by bulldozers; the significance of bulldozers is in their destruction of property. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Harming life" is an emotive and vague term. The bulldozers are intended to damage property, and that is what they generally do. As well, removal of your lengthy addition to the caption was not "vandalism", but actually rectification of "POV pushing" and "turning a caption into an essay". As for "Pro-Palestinian", it's fairly neutral and accurate, and certainly far moreso than the alternative you inserted. Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did come up with a way that was an alternative that was more neutral; I censored no facts, just removed POV-pushing. Get consensus for your controversial changes before trying to force them on the article; this is how Wikipedia works. Regarding the specific changes:
There are many Israelis that are "anti-occupation", yet certainly not anti-Israel. On the other hand, I'd be very surprised if any of them uses "IOF". And being pro-Palestinian does not imply that you are anti-Israel. "Pro-Palestinian" in this context would probably be quite accurate and NPOV.-- Doron 17:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Out of interest, why is the translation of General for Rav Aluf considered more appropriate? I mean 'Colonel General' is the highest rank in a lot of eastern European armies, but it isn't generally translated as 'General'. Just curious. -- 203.17.44.84 03:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Not very important but the name "Katzin Miktzoa Academy" should be used with "Miktzo'ai" (מקצועי) and not Miktzoa (adj. instead of noun), I saw it refered to as "Miktzoa" in some old IDF page, but it is written as "Miktzoai" in a newer one and that's the way I always hear when people are talking about it (I'm an "Atudai"). anyway, "Miktzo'ai" doesn't look like a good transcript for me.. maybe there is a better way to write it? also I changed "Academy" to "Academay" as it should be but that looks a bit weird too? Yonir 03:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Tiron is not a rank, all recruits have a rank of private. -- DimaY2K 20:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Private First Class (turai rishon) is no longer used in the IDF. I suppose it ought to be removed from the table.-- Doron 13:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I intend to remove this rank, if there is no objection.-- Doron 17:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
24.218.166.33 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Typing "IOF" into the search box should not redirect to the IDF page. There should be a seperate page about the differences. If you disagree, why?
IDF has the follwing directorates(lame translations are mine):
Although some are mentioned at the Generel Staff list(Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot — Head of Operations Directorate; Maj. Gen. Itzhak Harel — Head of Plans and Policy Directorate), nothing is written about the Directorates of Planning, and Operations in the article.
The military structure section needs to be somehow rearranged(perhaps by directorates instead of by fields?), and directorates of planning and operations added.
I know I'm not capable of making edits of such magnitude, but I'll appreciate it if somone incorporated these issues into the article(esspecially the existance of the Operations Directorate and the Planning Directorate)
conio.h •
talk
02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The word "Zroah" in Hebrew ("זרוע"), though meaning "arm" in plain translation, actually translates to "service". In the US or British army, we might say "tri-service operations", meaning operations involving all three services- army, navy, and airforce. In Hebrew- this would become "tlat-zro'i". So "service" is the correct rendition of "זרוע" when discussing military issues.
The IDF General Staff branches have changed and must be updated: There is no longer a "Technology and Logistics Branch"- but rather a "Logistics and Medical Branch". In Hebrew this is called "אלר"ם"- or "אגף הלוגיסטיקה, הרפואה, והמרכזים"... As far as I know, these structural changes have not yet been updated on the official IDF site (www.idf.il).
-- Iyavor 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to move section #4 ( Israeli military technology) to a child article (e.g., Israeli military industries or Israeli military technology). Most of this section doesn't relate directly to the IDF, which does not invent technology - just purchases and uses it. For example, I really don't see why the main article about IDF should list all the different small-arms ever invented in Israel. Any objections? altmany 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Does any one know what insigna Israeli combat medics wear to identify themselves as combat medics(prior to the Red crystal)? Would it be the red Star of David? did it still protect them under the Geniva convention eventhough it was not recognized? We're trying to figure this out over at Talk:Combat medic. Any help would be apreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Are those models accurate? Do medics have machine guns mounted on ambulances? Is this type of thing universial?
As a person who served as a medic i can help explain: Some medics serve as an integral part of the the fighting unit. there is at least one medic in every platoon. as such they are equipped with machine guns and are combat soldiers just like their comrades. Other medics serve on more distant lines such as on the battalion level under the command of a doctor. they too are armed and technically considered combat soldiers as they are normally merely in the more distant part of the combat zone. the farther you go back to the brigade and the divional level the more "medical" the medics are and the less "combatant".
Why is there no insignia section? I think it's a definite must to explain berets, pins, aiguilettes, etc. I'll make a child article if I can, and link to it from here, but I don't have knowledge on all IDF insignia, especially the pins, which not even the IDF website has AFAIK. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 11:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Under "minorities in the IDF" the name Circassians used to link to Adyghe but I've changed it to the more logical link (from where you can get to the other one, it just seems less confusing this way). Iancaddy 01:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any good sources about the IDF and their use of US military equipment. I'm doing a research paper on US foreign aid to Israel and military aid is my focus. Thanks Tempest12 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
does anyone know something about the fact, that foreign citizens are allowed to join the IDF? I heard some things about that but without any sources. And the I-Net is kinda deep, what makes the search taking time. So, if anyone got any information about that point: It'd be good to add it, because it's always good to know (in the article about the US Armed Forces it's said).
Thanks, Mr.99 - 04.Feb.'07
Foreign citizens are allowed to join the IDF but they must be Israeli citizens when they actually join. To become an Israeli citizen is by being born in Israel, having an Israeli parent, marrying an Israeli or by "Aliya" which is the law of return for people who can prove they are Jewish and therefore "returning" home to Israel. For example, a young man in the US or Europe decides he wants to be in the IDF, so he goes to Israel and volunteers at a "Lishkat Giyoos" or recruiting office (which is a misnomer as its really a conscription office) but they will inform him he needs Israeli Citizenship to serve. So his choices are to get married, prove he was born in Israel, prove his parents are Israeli or finally prove that he is Jewish and this is not decided by the IDF, this is decided by the Interior Ministry. Only once he has Israeli Citizenship and a "Tuedat Zeut" or ID card with his ID number on (Issued by the Interior Ministry) can he join or be conscripted into the IDF. So once he is in he is not actually "foreign" any more. I served 94-97 and I am from the UK but am obviously duel national now. So when the media interview IDF soldiers with American, South African and British accents they are actually Israelis, its just the news crew are too lazy to learn Hebrew or hire an interpreter. DETCORD 07 Aug 07
Interesting to know how many people are fit for military service and how many are reaching military age anually (not really), how how big is the current israeli army? -- 62.251.90.73 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The data in infobox only lists how many people could be in the army max if the governement would recruit every healthy young male there is. Not how many there are in the army right now, and that is what I asked for. -- 62.251.90.73 11:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That would ignore the professional part of the army. -- 62.251.90.73 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you trolling me, I'm just curious to know what the size of the Israeli military is, and some juggling with as a start only the number of young males every year is not gonna cut it. Isn't there a reliable source? -- 62.251.90.73 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good reason not to give information someone asks for. -- 62.251.90.73 12:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So is there anyone that knows aprox how many people work in the Israeli army? -- 62.251.90.73 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to summarise Israel's military capability (number of aircraft, warships, tanks etc) and put this into context in relation to other militaries in the region, taking into account that Israel's equipment is likely of a higher quality. Cloachland 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I agree. Also, doesn't the US have a recently-built anti-ballistic missile system? President Bush referred to it when discussing the failed DPRK Taepo-Dong 2 launch, saying we had a system that may have been able to shoot it down if it approached US territory. I believe we have bases in Alaska...I'm not sure where else. -- the_paccagnellan 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since I posted, but I believe I asked the question because the article stated that Israel had the world's only anti-ballistic system in place, and I was wondering if that is still accurate after the installation of the US system. The US system, even if not "perfect," does seem to be operational. -- the_paccagnellan 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Under the 'Values of the IDF', following the line on 'Purity of Arms' someone has linked to the Qana Shelling. Perhaps this should be moved to counterterrorism tactics, or under another section of controvery regarding the IDF? It seems out of place to me, in what should be a simple statement of the IDF's own values.
IDF will further be known as the IOF, IllegalstateofIsreal Offense Forces.
It is sad when people hate Israel more than they love their own children. As
Thomas Friedman has said, "people have to stop getting their 'buzz' on destroying Israel and look to the future."
What do you want to say with this sentence??
I wonder if some Nazi scholar made the same statement in 1939, during the invasion of Poland?
"People have to stop getting their buzz on destroying Germany and look to the future."
Unfortunately we are forced to look at the present as well as the future. Especially when witnessing the destruction of a country and watching daily images of women and children being massacred by the Israeli "Defence" Force.
So much for their values... They have never had any except those of theft, murder and oppression.
-- Burgas00 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC) This is all lies by anti-Israel crowd. There were no " massacres". Anyone who compares the German invasion of Poland with Israel's half -heartened "war" with the Hezbollah terrorists, knows absolutely zero about military history. Six million Poles including 3 million Christians were murdered by the Germans in WWII. That was almost 20% of the population. Anyone who makes such a comparison should be banned from Wikipedia.
When will you get off that anti-Israel crowd bandwagon? Don't you realize that the world is sick and tired of your dribble? If the IDF is such a "capable" army then why do they make "mistakes" like the one in Qana where more than 50 innocent civilians were murdered? And don't give me the human shield argument. That one's as BS as any of the IDF's arguments.
Is there any historical conflict where an army had caused LESS civilian casualties then Israel has caused? To make your lives easier on the search, the Palestinians report approximately 3000 Palestinian civilian casualties since the occupation started in 1967. For contrast, Iraq has already passed 1,000,000 casualties in two years.
There was an unsourced claim that Israel had nuclear weapons, which an anonymous editor 130.64.130.33 removed, on grounds that "(Israel has never confirmed or denied nuclear capabilities -- therefore to assert that is has such capabilities is invalid.)" I agree that such a statement needs a verifiable source, such as neutral publications with estimates of their weapons systems, or newspaper articles. And even then, it should be qualified, such as "Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, told the Sunday Times they have at least 100 nuclear weapons" with a cite from the article Israel and weapons of mass destruction to back it up. Other estimates there range from 75 to 130 nuclear weapons in Israel's hands. That article says "Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons and intermediate-range ballistic missiles to deliver them." Google gives over 13 million hits for "Israel nuclear weapons." To forbid that info in this article is extreme censorship and extremely POV. Edison
BillCJ has seen fit to call the kidnapping of Vanunu "apprehension", claiming kidnapping is a too harsh word. I'd like to say it's not, and have edited it to "hijacked", with a link to the picture of it written on Vanunu's hand. I hope it will not be edited back to something that could be mistaken for legal conduct. - S Siverud (no, I don't feel like registering) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.46.230 ( talk) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, screw it then. I guess it would be too much to ask to call a kidnapping what it is when a government is responsible. I suggest you change the other articles mentioning Mordechai Vanunu to reflect this - Not only does it call it a kidnapping and a "hijacking", it even calls it an abduction. Let's go on and call the insurgents in Iraq capturing American soldiers something similar - they are "apprehending" "members of the occupying forces" and sometimes "neutralizing" them. Or would that be biased? Not the least bit more than what you are doing to this article. There's no point in me caring about it, so I'll just ignore all the errors on this site. It's really no point. Good luck, and happy editing! 217.208.46.230 ( talk) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the article the Galil is the standard service rifle for the IDF but I saw a picture on the internet of Female IDF soldiers carrying what looked to be M-16A2 rifles. The M-16 is not listed anywhere on this site so I was wondering if that's for females only?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.61.127.241 ( talk)
There is no "Official" IDF rifle, but the IDF issues weapons that it has in stock M16A2, M4, Galil, Uzi and now the Tavor on the basis of the units combat role. For example, rear eschelon troops need a rifle for self defence so this will most liklely be an m16 or Galil. They will also usually be grouped by Batallion for ease of distribution and commonality of function. M4 are usually for combat troops only, but they also have an annoying habit of being issued to Rear Eschelon officers just because they are officers and without regard to any combat need. Im sure the new Tavor rifle will be the "must have" status symbol for the office warrior in the Kirya or IDF HQ in Tel Aviv. DETCORD 07 Aug 07
Is military service compulsory for those who make aliyah later in life, or only those born in Israel? LordAmeth 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only are olim (immigrants) over the age of 39 not obligated to do military service, they are actually discouraged. There are some volunteer programs, however, that allow older men and women to serve the IDF in the relative safety of several bases throughout the country. [Daniel - March 2007]
I read somewhere that people with strong ideas were travelling to Israel to join the IDF even though they didnt have Israeli citizenship. In the UK the media was suggesting that British citizens declare their conscription into the IDF because of the on going situation there. Is it correct that if any non Israeli wants to join the IDF then they will be admitted ? ( if they meet entry requirements).-- Redblossom 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
See my above clarification on this issue. DETCORD
Has anyone noticed that the OGG file is incorrect? It says tzva hagana le Israel, when it's supposed to be hahagana. Please fix this. I have somewhat of a Russian accent. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
On the whole, this article is dangerously undersourced. Edit conflicts abound and nothing can be done about it because nobody is ponying up any real information, just accusations of POV editing and censorship. I implore the major editors around here to scrounge up some real information, because nobody in their right mind would take this article seriously as is. If you think it is worth it, why not bring it up to featured status? JHMM13 05:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Citations from the IDF's official website shouldn't be included in this article simply because it sets a precedent for future inclusions of information released in press conferences and or press releases by the IDF. In other words, if you're going to cite the IDF then you need to balance it with another source from a neutral, but well respected (read: no fox, no blogs, no personal websites or pro-Israel websites) source. If you want to be neutral there is a way to achieving that end without resorting to cut and paste AND turning Wikipedia into a mouthpiece for the IDF and the Israeli government. -Josh-
For any people coming to this article in the future, or if anyone already here gets heated about something, do not fling around accusations of conspiracies, because 99% of the time they are patent nonsense and do nothing to help the situation. Regardless of anyone's personal background with the IDF, personal attacks and illogical positions (i.e. ultra-nationalism, ultra-partisanship) do nothing to help anyone. I don't care if the IDF saved/killed your baby, please check personal feelings at the door. JHMM13 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You said, "There are just as many people on Wikipedia trying to turn other articles into a "mouthpiece" for any other cause that exists".
And your point is? If others on Wiki are trying to turn their articles into a mouthpiece, then it's ok to do the same here, because "they're doing it, why can't we"? Am I having a discussion with a 7 year old or a mature adult? I need to know before I waste my time on this nonsense.
Also, what you said doesn't answer the main question. If that's your justification for turning this article into a hack of an article, then by all means do as you please, I will not take part in such a sham.
"A long-standing policy dating to Israel's early years extends an exemption to all other Israeli minorities (notably Israeli Arabs but also Black Hebrews and others)" This does not make any sense to me. For one, I know that many Black Hebrews do in fact serve. More importantly, however - they are not, for the most part, Israeli citizens, and would not be required to serve anyway. If I am right, this should be removed. -- Israelish, April 27, 2007 22:26 (UTC)
The first sentence goes like this: Israel has female conscription, but about a third of female conscripts (more than double the figure for men) are exempted, mainly for religious and nuptial reasons.
I have read a couple weeks ago in a Yediot article (huge one, it spanned 2 pages) that 37% of IDF women are exempted. Can anyone find this article, change the Wiki article accordingly, and add a source? I think the figure for men was also quite different. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"Israel is the only country in the world with an operational anti-ballistic missile defense system ("Hetz", Arrow, developed with funding and technology from the United States), though an operational system is in place protecting the Moscow area."
The above sentance seems to be garbled, it makes no sense. Can somebody fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.16.41.245 ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
1. Does IDF have 3 Field grade officers, or 3 field grade officer ranks? 2. Listing of the Hebrew names and Hebrew abbrs of the ranks is unhelpful, unless they are correlated to equivilents in the militaries of the English Speaking world, ie. Lt. Gen. At the top of the article serveral Lt Gens are referred to...are they Rav Aluf, Aluf, or Tat aluf?
Main articles: Israel Defense Forces ranks and Israel Defense Forces insignia The Israel Defense Forces has four enlisted ranks, as well as:
3 Supreme or General Officers: Rav Aluf (Ra'al), Aluf, Tat aluf (Ta'al) 3 Field or Senior Officers: Aluf mishne (Alam), Sgan aluf (Sa'al), Rav seren (Rasan) 3 Company Grade or Junior Officers: Seren, Segen and Segen mishne (Sagam) 2 academic officers: Katsin akademai bakhir (Ka'ab), Katsin miktsoi akademai (Kama) 5 non-commissioned officer ranks: Rav nagad (Ranag), Rav samal bakhír (Rasab), Rav samal mitkadem (Rasam), Rav samal rishon (Rasar), Rav samal (Rasal) Non-officer enlisted ranks include: Samal rishon (Samar), Samal, Rav turai (Rabat), Turai
Unlike most world armies, these ranks are common for all corps in the IDF, including the air force and navy.
Enlisted personnel sew their ranks to their sleeves, while officers and NCOs wear them on their shoulders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.16.41.245 ( talk) 20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks to the CIA factbook, I found that it's 17-49 for aviability, not 15-49. However, I can't change it. Anyone want to do such for me?
Here's the link to such;
lolcats 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole Specific weapon systems section is a mess. Locally developed systems, purchased weapons, active weapons, obsolete weapons, never produced prototypes... Total mess. I suggest removing the whole section and putting there a link to Military equipment of Israel article. Flayer 09:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Could somone please help me fix the colors of the table ? Acidburn24m 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The section, first sentence currently reads '... of presumed Palestinian leaders'. Wouldn't 'presumed terrorists' be more accurate? I think this is NPOV given 'presumed', and they're being killed for that presumption, not because they're Palestinian leaders. (No one is trying to kill Abbas.) In addition, next part of that sentence, 'claiming that it aims at preventing future acts of violence by killing a person related to anticipated future violence', is awkward and confusing while seeming to imply that the targeted killings are of people already linked to violence. I suggest, '... claiming that it is preventing further violence by these individuals'. GUSwim 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I edited this section on Dec. 25 2007 since it was totally POV. And since it was undone once more, I edited again, this time without actually adding any new information but at least trying to make it seem slightly less ridiculous. Maybe this time the pro-palestinian who is in charge of this artice will stop making this article his own playground. Finally, I think that it takes some nerve deleting additions under the pretext of no data to back them up while not providing any to the original and obviously POV edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.87.241 ( talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of all the important Armies. i.e. Australian Army, German Army, Italian Army. A full listing of finished graphics can be found at commons:Category:Military OrBat Graphics. I would also like (very much ) to create a graphic of the Israeli Ground Forces but the information at this point is not sufficient and to tell the truth, what information is currently given on wikipedia is more confusing than helpful... If anyone wants to help- the information I need would be to know which Brigades are belonging to which divisions or Commands and what battalions make up the Brigades. As soon as I have this information I will speedily create the graphic :-)-- noclador 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the aim was to create a graphical representation, not a textual one. A textual representation would really be easier, but I have already created a chart in PowerPoint. I will include it shortly in this talk page. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 01:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC) I have included a screenshot, to the right. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 02:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Look on globalsecurity.org and you will see Israel has only around 1600 artilery peices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.221.225 ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't view this article as a neutral one, where it refers to Palestinian militants (which Palestinians refer to as freedom fighters) as terrorists, while it refers to the actions of the israeli army as defensive. A more objective article would describe the israeli army as an occupying army of the Palestinian lands, and the Palestinian militants as resisting forces or simply as militants. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAminHabash ( talk • contribs)
it is impossible to have a neutral wiki topic for anything israely or jewish i have noticed. antisemites/people who dislike israel change known facts on countless topics on wiki, i for one have stoped using wiki for anything that has to do with israel. everyother day something else apears that is clearly untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.214.57 ( talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is possible to have a neutral article on any topic if it is written by a person who doesn't feel concerned, i.e.,for this particular topic, neither a Jew nor a Muslim(or a personnal who has ideological sympathy for their cause)... maybe an Hindu or a budhist... Mitch1981 ( talk) 11:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
may someone please fix this article its a very anti-israel article and is bias in every shape and form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 ( talk) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
can someone fix that controversies article its extremely anti-israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 ( talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there EXISTS a controversy section is anti-Israeli. It is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand. The page on the US army has no mention of the Guantanamo incident, and the page on the Syrian army has no mention of the surprise attack on Israel in 1973 which was a violation of any conceivable rule of engagement. The wiki pages are there for information about the armies. Any controversial activities or human rights incidents should have their own place - otherwise we need to accommodate all historical incidents of human rights abuse that involved any soldier in history, which is of course ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.15.99 ( talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
surely just because it doesnt exist on other military articles doesnt mean it shouldnt exist on this one. in order for it to be a balanced and truthful article it needs to mention the controversies if there are controversies. idf or united states army, hezbollah or the peoples army of vanuatu. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.105.213.11 (
talk)
14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If the allegations of crimes are against individuals, they belong in stories about those individuals - just like the Guantanamo incident is not a part of the US army page. If the allegations are against the policies instructed to the IDF from above, they should have their own pages under controversies of the nation's conflicts page - just like the genocide committed by the German Army in WW2 is not a part of the German army page, and just like the rape of Nanking is not a part of the Japanese Army page.
A military only conducts policy, it doesn't create it, so it is not the address of controversy. The correct meaning of controversy in this context is, for example, if some people claim the IDF should combine the Navy and the Air Force into one body, etc.
I removed the following sentence and its citation from the article;
<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israels-warning-rocket-fire-from-gaza-will-result-in-a-palestinian-holocaust-790004.html</ref>
This statement is an example of (without presuming to know the intent of the editor who posted it) a deliberate mistranslation in support of a political ideology which has been circulated by several papers, including the British Tabloid which is used as a reference, in recent weeks. It refers to a statement by Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defense minister, in which (properly translated from the Hebrew) he said “The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger disaster because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” The Hebrew word for "disaster" is Shoah. Though this is also the word Jews and Israelis use to describe the Holocaust, that is not its exclusive meaning. While Vilnai himself has acknowledged that it was unwise to use this word owing to the inevitability that foreign media sources would jump on the opportunity to mistranslate his statements, it is clear that his intended meaning was "disaster," not "holocaust."
Rudy Breteler ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) i think your excuse to remove this line is BS. shoah as far wikipedia is concerned is translated as holocaust if you search it, but whatever i knew that line wouldn't last anyways but come on just be straight that material critical of the idf isn't welcome here because of YOUR political ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.78.250 ( talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"As of 2002, 33% of lower rank officers are women, 21% of Captains and Majors, and 3% of the most senior ranks."
These terms are quite confusing. In the army, there are "junior officers" (lieutenants and captains), "senior officers" (majors, lieutenant-colonels and colonels) and general officers (generals). I think that the figures should stick by these dinstinctions Mitch1981 ( talk) 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the number of journalists that have died in the occupied territories, it is sort of silly not to atleast mention it in the controversy section i think... They have also been accused of bulldozing Palestinian houses, sniping,shelling,etc innocents civilians... Theres a BBC documentary called The Killing Zone that shows some of the alleged things that are happening over there. I just think its too short and it shouldnt be ignored completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that PalestineRemembered is intent on adding a detailed account of Breaking The Silence's coverage on the IDF to the article. I think this violates WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE for the following reasons:
Editors, please provide input on this issue. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Is there an article of criticism of the IDF of some sort? I know there's Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, but that's not the same. Israeli peace camp is also different. Maybe there should be an article summing the various groups Machsom watch, B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, etc. -- Nudve ( talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I just removed vandalism from the page. I think that it is time for a silver padlock to be placed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailwin ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are portions of this article that are absurdly propagandist eg "In September, 1982, it is alleged by some Arab and other left-wing groups that IDF forces permitted Lebanese Phalangist troops to enter the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps." This event - directly equivalent to a pogrom - was taken very seriously indeed, and the Knesset committee either blamed Sharon personally for it, or was otherwise highly critical. PR talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know how to fix this, but the words in the Hebrew name are backwards.-- Iclavdivs ( talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Enough said. How many soldiers deserted and later joined IDF? What was their contribution? What was contibution of trainings carried by instructors from Anders Army (I think they were for Irgun fighters) when it was in Palestine? Should any of this be mentioned in article? Szopen ( talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In what manner do minorities serve - there is a section dedicated to it, but it leaves some questions unanswered. What about 'special' units, designed for foreign volunteers, and minorities. I'm particularly thinking of language. Arabic and English are official languages of Israel, but what about in the military. Is it just assumed that few Arab Israeli's who decide to join will speak Hebrew? What about conscripted Druze etc., and recent Jewish immigrants, who can't speek Hebrew? - Matthew238 ( talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article reads like Nazi propaganda. It is very one sided and very far from factual. Anytime anyone posts any reasonable information they are labelled as anti-Semitic by the pro-Zionist, pro-illegal occupation, trolls who congregate on Wikipedia. You are not fooling anyone. You all know who you are. Gone is the time wikipedia would be considered a reliable source for any political research information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.52.44 ( talk) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done anon! What I do not understand however, is that you do not join in! Anonymous IP's suggesting changes make no real change: join in, search for people who share you opinion and contact some admins, don't jusr go here screaming complaints, take action if you dare! Happy editing. J.B. ( talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the statistics should adhere to the original source, despite crash cases and cases where equipment was known to be taken out of use. The source publisher releases this kind of information every so often, so we shouldn't have major discrepancies, while reducing the number of planes/helicopters/etc. after each crash is a form of original research because there's no way of knowing if we missed certain cases, if some cases were classified, etc. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This was mentioned by someone earlier, but it seems like the Alice Miller linked to on this page is not the same one in the article. I don't know for sure if it's wrong, but it doesn't provide any useful information even if it's right, so i'm removing the link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.94.143 ( talk) 22:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the martial art Krav Maga is the official self-defence system of the Forces. Maybe this needs to be incorporated or mentioned in the article somewhere??-- Sonjaaa 10:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
"received US$4.8 billion in military aid annually" but later on: "receives more than US$2 billion per year in military aid" btw: the first figure comes with a source (did not check).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.136.147 ( talk) 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the "Values of the Code of Conduct" section has been vandalized. Can someone fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcfarland ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It is misleading to label the antecedants of the IDF as 'terrorist,' because there is no adaquate, generally accepted definition of terrorism by which most of the forces that turned in to the IDF fit. For instance, most definitions of terrorism speak of *random* violence against civilian targets--wherein the bombing of the King David Hotel, the most notorious act of violence against the British, does not qualify, as the attackers forwarned the Hotel and its occupants that the building was being bombed, and warned them to evacuate.
The Hagannah fit very, very few modern definitions of terrorism.
Irgun fit more, but still only a few. (And, honestly, none of the ones I find compelling)
Lehi/Stern gang fit most (but not all) definitions of terrorism, but it would be unfair and misleading to characterise Lehi as indicative Tzahal's origin generally.
For instance, the definition of terrorism I most hold by is 'Violent attacks against nonmilitary objectives with the intent and aim of inflicting civilian casualties in order to promote a political objective, conducted by persons disguising their identity or unit for part or all of the operation'.
So, for instance, the 'people' (and I use the term loosely) in Iraq who are dressing up as Iraqi soldiers or police, going around killing people fit the definition. The Afghans, on the other hand, who join in militias and attack the US military are *guerillas*. Their actions are still morally reprehensible, in my opinion, but they are not neccessarily terrorists, per se.
Most definitions that put Lehi as a terrorist group, and most that but Irgun up there, also would put the Minutemen (of the 18th century, not the bozos in Texas) on there too.
The definition of terrorists nowadays refers to people who pose any danger on the interests and security of the united states of america and israel, and usually the person to be labelled with this characteristic is a muslim. For instance, all the Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan resistance movements are listed as terrorist groups. however, if you look at the Virginia incident where a Korean guy killed about 30 people, that incident was not considered as a terrorist attack by American officials, although it was obvious that all the victims were killed for no reason.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by GonenMB ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidburn24m ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Now lets put a section on killings of palestinian civilians by the IDF, lets make it fair. now i know theres innocent israeli civilians killed by Militants but u gotta see both sides are fighting dirty, and killing eachothers population. user:Homan05 —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
In a recent edit, the user Ceedjee has reverted an edit by Ynhockey - more precisely, removing the word 'Christian' for the term 'Christian Phalangist' in relation to the Sabra and Shatilla massacre , due to "undue weight". Because internal Labanese violence is almost always based on religious differences, why does it carry an "undue weight"? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} The IDF is not taking part in ethnic cleansing against the Gazan population as incorrectly noted early in the article. This should instead say, "The IDF is currently undergoing an operation in Gaza against Hamas in an effort to stop Hamas from firing rockets into civilian Israeli areas."
Can I get a proper explanation of specifically what was WP:POVFORK about the partially merged and redirected article there? That seems to be a creative interpretation of "POV fork," given that it was seemingly a neutral article about a POV term. I don't appreciate being rapidly reverted after asking "please discuss before unilateral redirect," it has a rather chilling effect on the discussion. < eleland/ talk edits> 10:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To me having the redirect is more POV, since it implies that this is a normal term for the IDF. Especially since it redirects to the controversy section. It basically serves as a POV Fork of the article. You type in the POV version and you get a little article on the IDF with a POV section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.34.115 ( talk) 07:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen this flag before, is there an official source that uses it? Yonatan talk 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new IDF structure chart in hopes of correcting certain errors and also adding the airforce and navy in the same chart (see image), however, I don't want to insert it into the article without discussion. I'll do it in a few days if there is no opposition. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently Reenem re-added the Border Police image with a different caption which is more acceptable than in the past. However, I believe it is still misleading and shouldn't be placed in the article (ignoring for a second that the source of the image is unknown). As I thought about this, it also occurred to me that the other Border Police image is also misleading. Although it clearly shows a police vehicle in the foreground, the soldier on the left (most clearly visible) is from Kfir, which is part of the IDF. I'm not sure whether Border Police images are appropriate for this article at all, but if they are, I think we should find an image showing just border police in a police action. The caption, of course, should make it clear that it's not the IDF and also link to the article Israel Border Police. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is that being deleted as "irrelevant"? The Israel Defense Forces are included on this table that giving a very even view of terrorist organizations in the world. There is more than enough people that would argue that the actions committed by the IDF in the past were terrorist actions. It is not like the it is in at the start of the page either, it is in the controversies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.23.19 ( talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember, it also titled "groups accused of terrorist actions", not "terrorist groups". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.23.19 ( talk) 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
From this article it seems that it is a Anti-terror force rather than an army. User:Yousaf465 ( talk)