This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently has an "objection to wording" section asking whether the IDF's code of ethics allows harming POWs, and some editors below raised even stranger questions and accusations. This is all absolutely ridiculous, because all this discussion is based on a wrong translation. Here is the official translation of the Spirit of the IDF document from their site:
This is, I think, quite clear: "The soldier shall not ... harm non-combatans or prisoners of war". He should not harm neither civilians nor POWs. How much clearer can this get? Were did the silly notion that the text says that a soldier shall not harm civilians, but POWs are fair game?
Therefore, I think the entire "objection to wording" paragraph needs to be stricken out. This is not an NPOV issue, but rather a reading comprehension issue... And while we're at it, how about fixing the English quote in the article to match the official English translation (which I quoted here above)?
Thanks, Nadav Har'El.
84.108.166.58 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I got curious about where the lousy translation, that caused all the comotion on this article, came from. I found that until about a year ago, it was indeed the official translation on the IDF site - see [1] (this is the link on the article). However, since then it appears that the IDF realized that this was a lousy translation and published a new translation, found on the same page - see [2]. This translation is written in better English, is more faithful to the original Hebrew, and it - not the old translation - should be used in the article. The quote I gave above was from the new translation.
84.108.166.58 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous edit added the following sentence:
While the doctrine does not prohibit the use of weapons against POWs, it does not explicitly condone it. The strongest statement that could be made here would be that it implicitly condones it, but even that may have POV problems (implication being a subjective issue). As such, I've added the POV template pending further discussion. -- Safalra 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the point of view tag. Since the section on the third geneva convention has been deleted, the article seems pretty neutral to me. I also removed the "sic". The only justification that I could find for that would be if someone had the POV that the IDF was used only to attack and not defend. I note that the same anonymous coward who added them also changed IDF to Israeli Military. Might as well go ahead and call it "Zionist Entity War Machine" NPOV says we use the name that the IDF commonly goes by and calls itself without endorsing the truth of its claims. I changed Israeli Military to Israel Defence Force. David s graff 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting perhaps to see in what cases IDF forces have disobeyed this requirement and if they have been officially punished for that. It would also be interesting to see in what cases IDF forces have run risks to their own lives in order to minimize damage to civilians. David s graff 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The page in its present form cites
rabbis advocating various points — e.g. its possible suspension in wartime, combatting hostile forces embedded within civilian populations, etc. — in applying the
IDF's
Purity of Arms doctrine per
Jewish law. I fail to find any explanation of the relationship between the Jewish religious establishment (or individuals within it, regardless of position or authority in the military), and the policies and practices of the IDF. This could do with some substantiated clarification. --
Deborahjay 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Further: Meanwhile, I
did my best by particularly citing the portions of the "Spirit of the
IDF" doctrine relating to
Jewish tradition and
Israel as a Jewish state. --
Deborahjay 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In an earlier comment, David s graff posed the question: It would also be interesting to see in what cases IDF forces have run risks to their own lives in order to minimize damage to civilians. I believe a case in point is the decision to use ground forces in southern Lebanon in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. While the Israel Air Force certainly had the capability of carpet bombing from a safe height, that would have caused extensive casualties among the indigenous south Lebanese civilian population who in effect served the Hezbollah as a human shield. Despite the backup provided by artillery coverage, IDF ground troops suffered many casualties, including tank crews who found themselves facing unprecedented armor-piercing weaponry. Only a present lack of sources prevents me from adding this content to the article; I'm hoping another User will do so. -- Deborahjay 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
New Historians have challenged the vision that the IDF would have respected the code of the Purity of Arms during the 1948 War. [1] During the War, the Yishuv militias ( Irgun, Lehi, Haganah and Palmach) and later the IDF were responsible of about 20 killings and massacres that resulted in the death of 800 Palestinian Arab civilians or Arab unarmed soldiers. [2]
Recently a new section was added about how New Historians claim that the Purity of Arms value was not respected in 1948. While I question the relevance of this claim, let's assume for a second that everything Shlaim says is correct and relevant. Even so, there appears to be inappropriate synthesis here. Firstly, Shlaim does not make the claim that the value was not respected in 1948, rather he says that Israelis teach in schools that Israel had a higher moral standard than its Arab enemies. It also says that the Purity of Arms value is relevant to the phenomenon, but does not make it clear whether this is taught in Israeli schools or whether it was really respected in 1948. Secondly, while I don't have a copy of Morris's book, the statement taken from it is only relevant to Shlaim's claim if he specifically mentions Purity of Arms. Because it is implied that he doesn't mention it at all, I'd say that Morris's analysis of the 1948 war is not related here. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to add another part here. Two things: first of all, if Shlaim is the only historian making this connection, there should not be a 'New Historians claim', but rather 'New Historian Avi Shlaim claims'. Secondly, I can't see how the claim is relevant at all to this article. Purity of Arms was written in 1994, as a result of the First Intifada, and as far as I know, no person other than Shlaim claims that it should or did apply to any period before that. If indeed no one person makes this connection, then I believe this is undue weight in the article, and a fringe viewpoint. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
References
There are 500+ hits !
Ceedjee ( talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please advise which sources are not considered to be RS, as there are plenty of examples of criticism of the myth of purity of arms, as any search will show. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to translate precisely this text and provide the equivalent sources to balance the lead :
Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Its detractors challenge this image (60,61), notably in the light of certain harsh actions and massacres which have marked the army’s history. Among these incidents are numbered massacres that took place during the war of 1948 (62), at Qibya (63), at Kafr Qasim (64), and with prisoners of war (65,66), at Sabra and Shatila (67), and the Qana (68). To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin (69), Operation Cast Lead (70) and the Gaza Flotilla Raid (71). A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society: the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel. Nishidani ( talk) 19:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, its detractors challenge this image, [1] [2] notably in the light of certain harsh actions and massacres which have marked the army’s history. Among these incidents are numbered massacres that took place during the 1948 War, [3] at Qibya, [4] at Kafr Qasim, [5] against prisoners of war, [6] [7] at Sabra and Shatila, [8] or at Qana. [9] To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin, [10] Operation Cast Lead, [11] and the Gaza Flotilla Raid. [12] A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society. [13] The massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel. Anyway, according to Gideon Levy, the "majority of the Israelis is still deeply convinced that their army, the IDF, is the most morale army of the world, and nothing else".Cite error: The opening
<ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
References
There appears to be some unreliable/non-neutral sources utilized in the section. More importantly some of the content appears to be OR as it does concern the concept of purity of arms. Please note that this section is not the garbage dump for whining about the IDF.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the use (and attempted use) of cholera and typhoid bacteria by the Haganah and Irgun in the immediate post-WW II period might be of relevance ... but, of course, only if sources mention them in the context of Zionist leaders' espousal of "purity of arms." ← ZScarpia 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Brewcrewer is consistently restoring POV statements such as Detractors of the IDF. Imagine if the concept of purity of arms was introduced as Supporters of the IDF claim that they follow this concept. Please do not restore this content without further discussion. I think that this is clearly POV. If you can find sources that describe the authors of the criticism as detractors of the IDF then feel free to add it. But do bot restore in the neutral voice of wikipedia. Socks do not write sentences like this. 109.157.215.0 ( talk) 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Purity of arms. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article currently has an "objection to wording" section asking whether the IDF's code of ethics allows harming POWs, and some editors below raised even stranger questions and accusations. This is all absolutely ridiculous, because all this discussion is based on a wrong translation. Here is the official translation of the Spirit of the IDF document from their site:
This is, I think, quite clear: "The soldier shall not ... harm non-combatans or prisoners of war". He should not harm neither civilians nor POWs. How much clearer can this get? Were did the silly notion that the text says that a soldier shall not harm civilians, but POWs are fair game?
Therefore, I think the entire "objection to wording" paragraph needs to be stricken out. This is not an NPOV issue, but rather a reading comprehension issue... And while we're at it, how about fixing the English quote in the article to match the official English translation (which I quoted here above)?
Thanks, Nadav Har'El.
84.108.166.58 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I got curious about where the lousy translation, that caused all the comotion on this article, came from. I found that until about a year ago, it was indeed the official translation on the IDF site - see [1] (this is the link on the article). However, since then it appears that the IDF realized that this was a lousy translation and published a new translation, found on the same page - see [2]. This translation is written in better English, is more faithful to the original Hebrew, and it - not the old translation - should be used in the article. The quote I gave above was from the new translation.
84.108.166.58 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous edit added the following sentence:
While the doctrine does not prohibit the use of weapons against POWs, it does not explicitly condone it. The strongest statement that could be made here would be that it implicitly condones it, but even that may have POV problems (implication being a subjective issue). As such, I've added the POV template pending further discussion. -- Safalra 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the point of view tag. Since the section on the third geneva convention has been deleted, the article seems pretty neutral to me. I also removed the "sic". The only justification that I could find for that would be if someone had the POV that the IDF was used only to attack and not defend. I note that the same anonymous coward who added them also changed IDF to Israeli Military. Might as well go ahead and call it "Zionist Entity War Machine" NPOV says we use the name that the IDF commonly goes by and calls itself without endorsing the truth of its claims. I changed Israeli Military to Israel Defence Force. David s graff 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting perhaps to see in what cases IDF forces have disobeyed this requirement and if they have been officially punished for that. It would also be interesting to see in what cases IDF forces have run risks to their own lives in order to minimize damage to civilians. David s graff 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The page in its present form cites
rabbis advocating various points — e.g. its possible suspension in wartime, combatting hostile forces embedded within civilian populations, etc. — in applying the
IDF's
Purity of Arms doctrine per
Jewish law. I fail to find any explanation of the relationship between the Jewish religious establishment (or individuals within it, regardless of position or authority in the military), and the policies and practices of the IDF. This could do with some substantiated clarification. --
Deborahjay 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Further: Meanwhile, I
did my best by particularly citing the portions of the "Spirit of the
IDF" doctrine relating to
Jewish tradition and
Israel as a Jewish state. --
Deborahjay 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In an earlier comment, David s graff posed the question: It would also be interesting to see in what cases IDF forces have run risks to their own lives in order to minimize damage to civilians. I believe a case in point is the decision to use ground forces in southern Lebanon in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. While the Israel Air Force certainly had the capability of carpet bombing from a safe height, that would have caused extensive casualties among the indigenous south Lebanese civilian population who in effect served the Hezbollah as a human shield. Despite the backup provided by artillery coverage, IDF ground troops suffered many casualties, including tank crews who found themselves facing unprecedented armor-piercing weaponry. Only a present lack of sources prevents me from adding this content to the article; I'm hoping another User will do so. -- Deborahjay 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
New Historians have challenged the vision that the IDF would have respected the code of the Purity of Arms during the 1948 War. [1] During the War, the Yishuv militias ( Irgun, Lehi, Haganah and Palmach) and later the IDF were responsible of about 20 killings and massacres that resulted in the death of 800 Palestinian Arab civilians or Arab unarmed soldiers. [2]
Recently a new section was added about how New Historians claim that the Purity of Arms value was not respected in 1948. While I question the relevance of this claim, let's assume for a second that everything Shlaim says is correct and relevant. Even so, there appears to be inappropriate synthesis here. Firstly, Shlaim does not make the claim that the value was not respected in 1948, rather he says that Israelis teach in schools that Israel had a higher moral standard than its Arab enemies. It also says that the Purity of Arms value is relevant to the phenomenon, but does not make it clear whether this is taught in Israeli schools or whether it was really respected in 1948. Secondly, while I don't have a copy of Morris's book, the statement taken from it is only relevant to Shlaim's claim if he specifically mentions Purity of Arms. Because it is implied that he doesn't mention it at all, I'd say that Morris's analysis of the 1948 war is not related here. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to add another part here. Two things: first of all, if Shlaim is the only historian making this connection, there should not be a 'New Historians claim', but rather 'New Historian Avi Shlaim claims'. Secondly, I can't see how the claim is relevant at all to this article. Purity of Arms was written in 1994, as a result of the First Intifada, and as far as I know, no person other than Shlaim claims that it should or did apply to any period before that. If indeed no one person makes this connection, then I believe this is undue weight in the article, and a fringe viewpoint. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
References
There are 500+ hits !
Ceedjee ( talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Please advise which sources are not considered to be RS, as there are plenty of examples of criticism of the myth of purity of arms, as any search will show. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to translate precisely this text and provide the equivalent sources to balance the lead :
Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Its detractors challenge this image (60,61), notably in the light of certain harsh actions and massacres which have marked the army’s history. Among these incidents are numbered massacres that took place during the war of 1948 (62), at Qibya (63), at Kafr Qasim (64), and with prisoners of war (65,66), at Sabra and Shatila (67), and the Qana (68). To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin (69), Operation Cast Lead (70) and the Gaza Flotilla Raid (71). A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society: the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel. Nishidani ( talk) 19:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, its detractors challenge this image, [1] [2] notably in the light of certain harsh actions and massacres which have marked the army’s history. Among these incidents are numbered massacres that took place during the 1948 War, [3] at Qibya, [4] at Kafr Qasim, [5] against prisoners of war, [6] [7] at Sabra and Shatila, [8] or at Qana. [9] To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin, [10] Operation Cast Lead, [11] and the Gaza Flotilla Raid. [12] A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society. [13] The massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel. Anyway, according to Gideon Levy, the "majority of the Israelis is still deeply convinced that their army, the IDF, is the most morale army of the world, and nothing else".Cite error: The opening
<ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
References
There appears to be some unreliable/non-neutral sources utilized in the section. More importantly some of the content appears to be OR as it does concern the concept of purity of arms. Please note that this section is not the garbage dump for whining about the IDF.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the use (and attempted use) of cholera and typhoid bacteria by the Haganah and Irgun in the immediate post-WW II period might be of relevance ... but, of course, only if sources mention them in the context of Zionist leaders' espousal of "purity of arms." ← ZScarpia 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Brewcrewer is consistently restoring POV statements such as Detractors of the IDF. Imagine if the concept of purity of arms was introduced as Supporters of the IDF claim that they follow this concept. Please do not restore this content without further discussion. I think that this is clearly POV. If you can find sources that describe the authors of the criticism as detractors of the IDF then feel free to add it. But do bot restore in the neutral voice of wikipedia. Socks do not write sentences like this. 109.157.215.0 ( talk) 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Purity of arms. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)