Talk:Dahiya doctrine

Removed references available on Archive.org
Most original references were removed by Israeli newspapers but are still available from archive.org. Can please someone with the proper editing rights fix it? (e.g. 3 --> 3, 4 --> 4, 6 --> 6) ED3202 (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Was, not were"
Sorry, i don't have the tenure to edit this article, but the Dahieh neighbourhood in Beirut was heavily damaged, not were heavily damaged. Maybe someone can edit it. Itsameno (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Biased introduction
November 30 edit note says `Removed OR wording not mentioned in listed RS. Changed wording to actual intent listed in RS.` But the user just made their own OR wording not found in the referenced source. Perhaps not original research, but it certainly sounds dubious and biased to me. The source just refers to the Dahiya doctrine as "the threat to destroy civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes". But then the source uses Hizballah as an example of such a regime, and Hizballah isn't has never been a "regime", so that's a bit strange.

This research article that I found: "The analysis of Dahiya doctrine in the context of Israel’s further security claim", considers the Dahiya doctrine to be a "deterrence model" that is based on "harming military infrastructure of the organizations and their civil elements and forcing them to change their behaviors". Now someone go clean up this mess, I don't have edit permission. Torr3 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A definitional statement like this (defining it as specifically targeting civilian infrastructure) needs much better sourcing than a literal aside from a single book, especially when it is contradicted by every Israeli articulation of the doctrine in the rest of the article. The article cannot be considered neutral POV as it stands. FabBol (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Questionable chapter on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war
The "2023 Israel-Hamas war" chapter is not good.

1. Why should I trust, a left-wing opinion magazine and this "Local Call" outlet that doesn't even have their own Wikipedia article, on something of this importance?

2. It's WP:NPOV in my view. "confirmed the deliberate process used to carry out strikes on civilians in unprecedented numbers", well, the article also quotes an IDF spokesman who says the AI system allows them to do minimal damage to the enemy. That seems more plausible to me. And the whole sentence that I just quoted is really unfair and misleading in my view. The whole chapter seems to cherry pick statements, without giving it sufficient context, in order to make Israel appear as bad as possible.

Controversial topics require a high degree of rigor and strict adherence to neutrality. Torr3 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The "Criticism" chapter
Can we have someone other than a 9/11 truther be the voice of criticism? Torr3 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza conflict is wrongly named
In Gaza 2023 section in the History there is a mention of "2023 Hamas-Israel war". This gives a reader a wrong impression on who is waging a war (Israel) against whom (Gaza). The linked page is "2023 Israel / Hamas war" which better reflects the reality.

Moreover it has been widely pointed out that the war is on Gaza rather than with Hamas. 2003:D4:7713:3D00:3851:FE75:DA10:F7BF (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

IDF Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot not sourced
"The doctrine was outlined by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot." is unsourced, can we add a source for this or remove the statement? TheJoFe (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)