Contents

1 Misc 1 2 Code of Conduct and Efectiveness 2.1 Effectiveness of IDF tactics in reducing suicide bombings 2.2 The Code of Conduct 3 Conscription 3.1 women 4 Defence or Defense? 5 1967 Occupied Territories 5.1 House demolishing 6 Pictures 6.1 Extensive damage to lives?

Misc 1

And Just out of curiousity. 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 minimalize their involvement in crowd control and non-lethal force, and that military forces in general handle this very badly. It doesn't seem obivous to me that the Israeli army handles hostile crowds better than most civilian police forces, so I'm curious where that statement comes from.

---

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. Tomohawks striking god-knows-where in Sudan and Rangers touring Mullah Ommar's house are in fact not ambigious at all: these are all official assassination attempts. Also, the US $25 million reward makes the search after OBL & Co. an officialy-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 difficult figuring out why everyone is silent with the US but so angry with Israel. Must be something in the Israeli genes. --Uriyan

It's still not an official US policy to solely target a single individual with military action that is only aimed at killing the individual. There is a Presidential executive order barring the US military from taking such action and this order has not been rescinded. There always needs to be a demonstrated military goal in taking military action. The reward for OBL is a police action that is common in the United States. Besides, bombing an area that is deemed to be a military target and also has the bonus of harboring a wanted individual is on a different level that placing explosives in a cell phone. One is military action that may result in the death of the wanted individual and the other is a prima facie assassination. I will change the sentence to reflect this. --maveric149

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

Yes and the West Bank is not a recognized part of Israel either (at least not by the States if I recall). International bounty hunts are common and this is also an area where extradition treaties and international law come in. I never once stated that the US method is better in any way than the Israeli one -- it does have major issues. Chief amoung these is a tendency to sometimes exaggerate the need to blow-up a military target just to put a certain person on the run or to kill that person out-right (remember Kadhafi in Libya?). This issue here was with the "officialness" of the US policy on assassination not on the merits of one method vs. another. --maveric149

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. Extradiction 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 hypocricy. --Uriyan

And September 11th wasn't an act of war? The US isn't pretending this is a police action either. But the US is using many means to fight this war -- including police action. --maveric149

Extradiction treaties would be nice, but then thay had to be bilateral and somehow I don't think Isreal would be willing to fulfill them. // Liftarn

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 oponent, 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

Are you arguing to change the article in some way or are you just arguing because you perceive that Israel is getting a bum rap in their war against cross border terrorism while the US is getting more or less carte blanche for fighting its war on international terrorism? If the later is true then this discussion no longer has relevance to the article and can only be counterproductive. --maveric149

Well, I'm not arguing in direct relevance to this article, but I do consider writing an article concerning this question, and this discussion with you did give me a lot of stuff to think about. But, if I had wasted your time, then I apologize :-). Uriyan

No need to apologize - we both seemed to get carried away. This whole terrorism situation is screwed up and our two nations are on different paths in fighting it. --maveric149

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

This isn't to help this specific article, but rather to help the atmosphere on wikipedia: could we not speak about "exterminating" human beings? That kind of language is extremely disturbing, with it's implicit metaphor comparing human beings to insects or rats. It definitely turns me off to participating in these articles, and I believe others as well. :( DanKeshet

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 targetted assassinations no longer applies. As such, we have seen true targetted assassinations such as the CIA hit on Al-Qaeda members in Yemen, using a Hellfire-equipped Predator UAV. Impi

---

Men serve three years in the IDF, as do the women on combat positions, but women on non-combat positions serve two. In addition, men complete up to one month annually of reservist service, up to the age of 43-45. Completion of military service gives higher unemployment benefits, child support and widow pension ([1] (http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/juice/2000/israeli_society/is9.html)) and it is also required for attaining a security clearance and serving in some types of government positions (in most cases, security-related); Israeli Arabs claim that this puts them at a disadvantage.

The information above is false; indeed, a couple of months ago there was a bill that proposed the introduction of such priveliges, 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

It was formed following the establishment of Israel by combining the groups of the Haganah, Lehi and Stern gang. The IDF has built upon the tactics of these groups (especially the latter two).

Q, I expected better from you. The IDF is explicitly known to have built upon two schools, but those were of the British Army, and of the Palmach. Lehi and Irgun personnel (and their experience) were mostly pushed away by the leftist elite (associated with the Palmach), and didn't have a major part in forming the army. --Uri

---

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)

No, it's correct as written. The army requires women who want to serve in combat positions to serve for three years because combat soldiers must go through a lengthy period of training, and the army wants to get as much use of that training as possible. -- AdamRaizen

---

the fact that the Palestinian Authority has never arrested individuals on Israel's wanted list has essentially led to

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 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)

The following information is classtified. You may add an article about units hirracy in general, but don't relate specific to the IDF and don't diclose information about its ordeal and sizes.

Whoever that was: I'd have no illusions that the order of battle would be classified, but basic unit sizes (or at least something to refer to?)? I'm only an American, but that can't be right. I'm not talking exact strength of any particular unit, but the 'notional', "This-is-what-it's-supposed-to-look-like", strength. I've seen at least the notional strength of an IDF battalion mentioned in Israeli papers. I would be surprised if similar information were classified for other unit sizes. -Penta 20:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

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)

---

Code of Conduct and Efectiveness

I have moved these sections here because they are loaded with POV and non-encylopedia information. -- Viajero 11:44, 4 Mar 2004 (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] (http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/5.doc)

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:

1. Military action can only be taken against military targets.
2. The use of force must be proportional.
3. Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.
4. Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.
5. Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.
6. Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.
7. Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to oneself and one's enemy.
8. Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.
9. Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.
10. Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.
11. Soldiers must report all violations of this code.

Source: [3] (http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-8.htm)

Returened "effectivness" paragraph. There is no factual accuracy dispute over the data brought and the simple fact that suicide bombing against Israeli civilians have dramitcly decreased. I find no POV in that paragraph, it merely states the facts. MathKnight 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another sources for effectiveness paragraph:

• Source 1: IDF statistics of thwarting attacks against Israelis (http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/5.doc)
• Source 2: CNSN News: "Israel saw 30% decrease in the number of terror attacks" (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200401%5CFOR20040108g.html)

MathKnight 12:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is gone again and I'll keep deleting it. First the numbers in there, especially of "attacks prevented" are unverifiable claims from a source whom every reasonable person knows is not reliable. Second, the fact that two things happened at the same time does not imply that one of them is the cause of the other. This is a basic principle that is taught in every beginning statistics course. Third, it is questionable whether this topic belongs in this article at all rather in articles that deal with the conflict. --Zero 01:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is easy to confirm the numbers by going through all press release and count report on suicide attack that succeeded versus attacks that were foiled by IDF forces. No one have ever raised a concrete factual disagreement with the supplied data, not even Palestinians. Nevertheless, to be more NPOV I reedited that fragment:

In the last year there was a dramatic decrease in deadly attacks against Israeli civilians. Reports of the IDF (http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/5.doc) and the SHABAK present high thwarting ratio and explain the decrease in suicide bombings as a result of the IDF counter terror tactics and construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier. Others suggest that the decrease in attacks against Israeli civilian is also a result of political moves in the Middle East, and changes within the Palestinian society.

I think we can all agree to this formulation. MathKnight 13:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am returning the CofC section, excluding 2 phrases. Someone may complain that the IDF doesn't conform to it, or it may not fit someone's political views, but it is _official_ CofC and definitely must be listed in the encyclopedic article. As a matter of fact, removing it, as if the CofC doesn't exist, discredits the NPOV. --Humus sapiens 21:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Conscription

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)

Arabs with Israeli service are not oblige to serve in the IDF. However, there is a law proposal in the Israeli Knesset to oblige Arabs to do a civilian mandatory service (such as hospitals, schools, community centers etc) instead of army service. The Arab member of parlaiment oppose this suggestion. MathKnight 20:19, 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)

I don't think they are forced to volunteer (Druze and Bedouin women are not drafted) but they have strong norm and tradition of serving in the IDF. MathKnight 17:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Legally ALL Israelis after 18 are obliged to serve in the army - 3 years for males and 2 years for females. The law does not differentiate between Arabs and Jews. Only exceptions in the law is made for those whose religion is their profession, a regulation of which both Jews and Druze make use. However, the law also states that the minister of defense decides who to draft. Four populations are drafted: Jews, Druze (non-moslim Arabs) men, Cherkess (non-Arab moslims) men and those who(se ancestors) came to Israel under the law of return. Women are exempted if they declare that they are observant. Others who want to get in volunteer. Gidonb 04:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

women

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)

Thanks! Mark Richards 20:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Defence or Defense?

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)

If that's the case, then you probably should. –Hajor

Please do, this "c" is so annoying. Are the What links here links going to be OK? --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. I think I fixed all the double-redirects but What links here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Israel_Defense_Forces) has not been refreshed yet, so I can't double-check. Kent Wang 02:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Alice miller links to a totally irrelevant article. someone should fix it

1967 Occupied Territories

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.

• I have this hunch that User:Harry_Smith is User:Dani_levin. Why is that? Jewbacca 21:12, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the language appears to be inflammatory. It also unfortunately appears to be true. There must be a way of saying what is true in a way that is not inflammatory. -Stevertigo 21:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Stevertigo, I respectfully disagree. Let's look at the copy:

• "terrorising the palestinian population" -- that's pov, doesn't mention Palestinian violence, and most importantly, confusing the firefighters with the arsonists
  • While I agree that "terrorising" is not a pov term, I will point out that "terrorism" is a pejorative that is used to refer to Palestinian violence. Does Israeli violence justify Palestinan violence? Of course not, and it doesnt work the other way either.
• "destroying houses" -- is better as "demolishing houses of militants" and also needs to be in context
  • "In context" is fine, as long as the context is NPOV.
• "attacking and killing civilians (including children)" -- this doesn't belong here. Every army has killed civilians (including children) and yet doesn't appear on the page of the United States Army or elsewhere. The text as is implies that the IDF deliberately targets civilians and children and that has never been demonstrated. In fact the IDF conducted door-to-door operations in Jenin losing its own men and women to militant battles to avoid harm to civilians (they could have just leveled the city from the air and not lost a single Israeli soldier)
  • I think the point of clarifying this isnt to single out the IDF, for criticism, but to make note of what this particular military does, in this article, and to do the same for other miltaries on their articles. The Icelandic Defense Force article for example, might make note of their use of waterballons against passing citizens. Of course, a separate page is usually the solution for adding this kind of material.
• "and other war crimes" -- too general and ambiguous. Specify what they are so they can be verified and debated.
  • Agreed, but then that might be criticised due to length, so I understand the tendency to be brief.
• "The IDF is also responsible for protecting Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza." -- this sentence is almost a non-sequitor. The previous sentences mention alleged crimes of the IDF, whereas this sentence discusses a responsibility of the IDF (or a charge it is given from the Israeli government). Leaving it in this position suggests it is a crime to protect Israeli settlements.
  • I agree that theres a technical issue; that the IDF is simply an enforcement agency to defend settlers engaged in illegal occupation, and is not itself the actual illegal occupier. Its a rather bland technicality though. There might be a way to express this in a way that is fair to all parties, regardless of their particular technicalities.
• Jewbacca 21:49, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Stevertigo 22:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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.

1. The status of the Golan, WB and GS are a political issue and this not the place to discuss it - a specially when there is no agreement about that status.
2. The IDF indeed protect settlers, but in the context you wrote it implies that protecting settlers is a crime (and if protecting them is a crime, should we let everyone who wants to slaughter them?).
3. The IDF indeed demolish structures, but you ommits the reasons for that. The IDF not demolish houses for fun, but as mean for fighting terrorism. There is already a well-writtem discussion about that issue in al-Aqsa Intifada article, which was NPOVizied by co-work of both sides.
4. Tactics of the IDF during the al-Aqsa Intifada handles in al-Aqsa intifada ("Tactics" sub-section) article and therefore have no place here.
5. Your writing is still inflammatory, and as you adimted - your are trying to force your OPINIONS as FACTS.

MathKnight 10:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

House demolishing

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

No, they demolish houses as a deterrent, or perhaps even collective punishment. Houses are never demolished as a means of "ethnic cleansing", although this is often claimed. Jayjg 17:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This argument does not belong to this article. MathKnight 17:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right; that's why it's on the Talk: page. :-) Jayjg 17:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Were ethnic cleansing Israel's goal, there would be no Palestinians inside of two weeks, let's be rational here. The policies behind the demolition of the houses are really quite simple to understand. Suicide bombers are most often not the poor, desperate people they are painted as, most are reasonably well-educated middle-class young men. The thing is, when one of these people becomes a suicide bomber, his family benefits. This used to be a $25 000 cheque from Saddam Hussein to the family, though that has now dried up. Money from Islamic charities linked to groups like Hamas still send money to the family though. Therefore many suicide bombers do what they do in the knowledge that their family will be better off afterwards. Now, with the home demolition, there is no net advantage to the family, they become worse off. Therefore potential suicide bombers now think twice before blowing themselves up.... There is also another element to it, no family wishes to be tossed out on the streets with no more house, and so where families would previously support the family members who decided to become suicide bombers, the months since Israel instituted this policy have seen more and more families tip off the IDF about a bombing plan, allowing the IDF to arrest those responsible and prevent loss of life. Impi 17:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Even if they did "demolish houses to force people to move", forcing someone to move 1 kilometre to a different section of town is not "ethnic cleansing". Jayjg 14:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These are false accusation, not facts. The allegations of ethnic cleansing are absurd: if the IDF indeed commited an ethnic cleansing, how is that only about 3000 Palestinians (out of about 3,000,000) were killed? If you reach to prevent ethnic cleansing I suggest you to redirect your effort into the Darfur conflict in Sudan. MathKnight 12:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. // Liftarn

Hang on a bit, you opened this piece with something that looked suspiciously like opinion, and we responded, in a contrary manner, with facts. In your responses, you have offered no counter-facts, merely reiterated your original point, and accused us of using personal opinions rather than facts. That's not the best way to debate constructively....

In any case, every single house demolishment the IDF undertakes has to do with security, either of its personnel or of the citizens of Israel. There is no "ethnic cleansing" or revenge involved. Just to go into the former for a bit, ethnic cleansing is not destroying somebody's house so they must move 20 metres away. Ethnic cleansing is attacking a certain racial or religious group, in a concerted manner, with intent to either kill them all or get them all to move far, far away to a different country, in order to make your own abode "pure". Evidently, with a 20% Arab minority population, and no concerted attempt to kill or move all Palestinians, there is no ethnic cleansing going on.

So now we move to the reasons behind the home demolitions. I already went into great detail about the IDF destroying the homes of suicide bombers, so now let me move into two other reasons the IDF destroys houses, namely the Philadephi Line and similar buffers, and tunnels. Now the Philadelphi Line is the buffer zone between Egypt and Gaza, which Israel is obliged to patrol by treaty with Egypt. Recently they lost quite a few soldiers through the booby-trapping of the roadway, and snipers shooting them. So they destroyed a patch of houses along one part of the strip to widen it and make it harder for their personnel to be targetted and killed by militants. Related is the issue of tunnels, particularly from Egypt, which run under the Philadelphi Line and come up inside Palestinian houses. Each time Israel destroys a tunnel inside a house, the explosives destroy the house itself. Moral of the story? Don't hide a weapons-smuggling tunnel in your house. Added to this is the fact that Palestinian militant organisations often booby trap a number of houses and roads, in order to detonate the explosives and kill IDF troops on operations, so not all houses that are destroyed are destroyed by the IDF.

So, while we may disagree with the tactics used (some regard house demolitions as an excessive use of force), I think it's rather clear that the reasons behind it are security, not revenge or ethnic cleansing. If you have evidence to refute that, you're welcome to share it. Impi 19:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

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)

These two pictures are taken from a well-known porno site of a women dressed as a soldier (though she's not). They should be deleted. MathKnight 19:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Extensive damage to lives?

This is bad grammar, on top of being POV. The bulldozers primarily damage property. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep fair, enough - it was a quick an dirty edit. Hopefully this change makes more sense. As for being POV - are you denying this happens? Pretending Palestinians are not killed these operations is the hight of POV. If you can think of a more neutral way to put it than I have, feel free. AW 11:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)