Talk:Israel Defense Forces/Archive 1

Military Budget
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)
 * Which sources say $18 bln.? The budget is indeed around $9 bln. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the wiki page says its 18 billion. --Krotx (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The figure is for 1999. I'm not sure about the 2008 budget, but the 2007 budget was about $12 bln at the time (NIS 50.2 bln). I think the 2008 budget figure in dollars needs to be found. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversea volunteers section
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)
 * You may gain citizenship by naturalization as in most countries- see Israeli nationality law. PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:17, 23 October 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)

"Counterterrorist tactics"
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)


 * The tactics are known as 'counter-terrorism' tactics, I can't see the POV in calling them what their actual name is - besides, even Wikipedia NPOV recognises various definitions of terrorism. Qassam rockets on villages and suicide bombers on buses and cafès are amongst those definitions. --Joffeloff 17:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Skirts part of the female uniform?
Confirm / Deny. Damn that'd be hot.


 * While you're probably not interested in this because you want to contribute to Wikipedia, the answer is that religious women are allowed to wear skirts instead of pants. There may be other exceptions I don't know, a female soldier may know how to answer this better. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought women in the navy wore skirts off-duty.. Or well, could. Am I wrong? --Joffeloff 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Skirts can be worn by any female soldier who declares herself as relegious. Where they serve in the army is irrelvant.--88.154.226.4 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with a declaration of "relegious". Skirts are a part of the female uniform, and can be worn by any female soldier. Former user 2 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure however that those who choose to wear skirts can qualify for a combat unit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chillin1248 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, Woman in the IDF wear skirts-with thier class"A" uniform. This is the dressier, nicer looking blouse and skirt set that woman wear. With work or combat fatigue clothing, they wear pants. In addition, they usually wear, with this uniform: Black sandals(footwear is at the womans' choice, but must be black), and the womans hat-looks like an enlarged field cap.216.208.38.26 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Trainman 2

Misc 1
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]


 * First,I second you on that I would also like to know where the statement comes from,Although,I think it`s true...Well...You can`t blame me I`m an Israeli my self.Second,It`s all about numbers...You can place 10 police man for every person in the crowd but you can place 100 soldiers for every person in that crowd and the lack of those would go un-noticed as far as a need for them goes,Not some thing you can say about police man,They are always needed some where else.
 * I was ones told that Israel is a bad country for criminals because of all the soldiers with weapons that are every where...Maybe it`s true...I don`t even think Israel has the number of police man needed for a crowd that would have the Army sent to stop it...I don`t see too many cops around...I also don`t walk more then a small number of meters before I see a soldier with he`s/her weapon.
 * As for your sonic weapons comment,I will take that as a bad joke. ziv.

==

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


 * 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 among 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. 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
 * 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
 * Extradition treaties would be nice, but then they would have to be bilateral and somehow I don't think Israel 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 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


 * 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 blanch 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 which 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 participate 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 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.


 * Men serve three years in the IDA, 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 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 privileges, but it was turned down. Currently, there are no civilian benefits associated with serving in the army. --Uri


 * I will correct this - There is no higher unemployment benefits,child support or a better pension.The army does,how ever,pay it`s soldiers and completion of military service is some times required for a security clearance depending on your position,Added by ziv*

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 IDA has built upon the tactics of these groups (especially the latter two).


 * Q, I expected better from you. The IDA 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


 * A random comment:I might be wrong here but as far as I know,and i`d need to be terribly wrong about this since I am an Israeli,It`s called "Tsva Hahagana Le Israel" Which translates to: "The Israeli Defense Army",My point being It`s "IDA" not "IDF",By the way,IDF is marked as an error...I wonder why.This comment I have dropped here at random as I have tired of reading it all and finding "IDF" every where.*

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)


 * 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 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 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)

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.

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)

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. 

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 &#1512;&#1493;&#1495; &#1510;&#1492;"&#1500; ("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:


 * 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
 * Source 2: CNSN News: "Israel saw 30% decrease in the number of terror attacks"

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 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * Well, they are usually reffered to (by Israel and Western media) as "Israeli Arabs"... Whatever their feelings may be. Also, this accusation needs more backing up - you can't just blame Israel in this manner without more evidence. This "New Historian" (Ilan Pappé) is known to back up such accusations against Israel without providing any real evidence... He is a known ani-Zionist and pro-Palestinain historian - you need to provide additional, unbiased sources. See WP:QS PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (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)


 * Yea but the last year by most men, isn't a real year. They are allowed to go home, they are allowed to work short hours (a lot of them do, so they have money to come touring and land up in Australia and also happen to visit me :). This doesn't apply to higher ranked men, or men that must serve 4 years (mainly the stongest or smartest or the best for the army). I wonder if women also get to go home their final year and work short hours. I am going to ask tommorow when I see some Israelis, so if anyone is interested in the answer just message me to reply to this the answer. 220.233.48.200 15:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That might've been your experience but it isn't true for most men (that the last year is a "toy year"). For most men, the last year isn't principally different, though obviously higher rank and "seniority" gives certain perks and benefits. --ToastieIL 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Israel is far from the only country with female conscription
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." 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 find this hard to beleive, that China also requires females for the army. China has a SORTAGE of females compared to males. I sure hope what you say is not the case. 220.233.48.200 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that having conscription law, and actually using it are 2 different things. i.e. China's conscription law includes women, but in pratice the only requirements are for 18 year olds to register (like US selective service) and service in the PLA is voluntary.  There are other countries with conscription laws for women, but very few of them do it in pratice.  -- Adeptitus 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Omitted sentence about participation in reserve service
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 .--Doron 21:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. That was moi, I removed it by accident whilst writing on reform in the reserve service &mdash; sorry about that. About the p-f, I simply neglected to find out the full name for the abbreviation, freedomizing (חפשיים) it, for some reason. Anyway, thanks for your help, Doron. El_C 00:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Always happy to enlighten people about IDF slang :)--Doron 01:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, t'was simple enough, but it appears that I'm a bit out of touch! :\ El_C 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Most Israelis don't serve in reserves?
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)


 * Well, women are almost never called for reserve duty since (1) many become married and/or pregnant causing them to be excempted, (2) so many women (in much larger percentage than men) are excempted from active service in the first place, (3) so many women (again - much more than men) serve in non-essential roles during their short active service, so they're not really needed in reserve duty, (4) a law that says wemon can't be called for reserve duty for more than a few years (as opposed to ages 40+ for men) (5) and so many other reasons that cause all army units to forgo use of their potential wommen reservists. About the only exception to this rule is women serving in a select few intelligence roles, and women fighter pilots, but this too is only for a few years of reserve duty.


 * In the case of men, this is more complex: there are many excemptions here too. But perhaps the most important reason is that stricter accounting practices have been enforced within the IDF during the past few years. Reservists are no longer treated as "slave labor" by their army unit - instead, the units now get a certain financial "budget" which they need to spend wisely and reservists are treated as very costly labor. Therefore, units stopped using reservists unless absolutely necessary, and rely more and more on active-service soldiers.


 * An important point: while in practice most Israeli men may not be called into active reserve service for the aforementioned reasons, most men are still officially under the reserve duty obligation and might be called into active service. So, not being called into active service one year doesn't mean you won't be called for in the next.


 * There's no conflict with the social aspect: for those who do serve in reserve, it is still a major factor. Also, the concept of reserve duty became so ingrained in Israeli society, that it became a symbol outweighing its actual use (compare Apple Pie in American society) --altmany 14:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about something like this to make that sentence more clear:
 * "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."
 * Source:  Chuck 18:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the percentages are higher, but I agree - I'm now updating the article with minor changes. --altmany 18:52, August 24, 2005 (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)

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)

HILARIOUS! The correct English spelling is "annoying" ! Ignoramus. --213.121.207.34 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey anonymous punk, don't be such a child. Americanized "Defense" is just as "correct" and valid as the original King's English "Defence." Ignoramus.


 * Done. I think I fixed all the double-redirects but What links here 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


 * Even if "defence" is the correct english spelling, if the Israelis spell it the american way in officially then page title should be spelt with an "s" Rm uk 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, you are correct Rm uk

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. MathKnight 10:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 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.

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)

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)
 * Doesn't it seem just the tiniest bit ironic to you that you have to go back TWELVE YEARS to find that example? Besides which, Goldstein was put to a trial. Would you rather that Israel attempted to extradite and put to trial the full families of suicide bombers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.105.30.44 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2007 (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

Ethnic cleansing
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)


 * Very simply, unless you don't want to see it. First, Menachem Begin is not currently a major player in Israeli state policy. He has been out of politics for 23 years, and dead for almost 15. If that's the best source you can find, you might want to go shopping for another cause.


 * Second, I see no reference to removing anyone from any land in the statement, including the insertion that is not part of the original quote. Building exclusive communities, while perhaps not laudable in our eyes, is not the same as ejecting people from existing communities.


 * Third, can you cite any instance of Israel forcing non-Jewish Israelis to leave the country en masse? I thought not. Flourdustedhazzn 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Denigrating expressions
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&larr;ну? 11:17, 24 November 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)

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)
 * Your last two edits to this article amount to little more than valdalism. Please revert them. I haven't touched them because I'm too anrgy with your patronising attitude, so will wait till I've calmed down first.
 * a) Ten extra words in no way amount to "an essay". You have no objective reason to remove these facts. Furthermore, "often" is almost certainly an understatement in terms of the consquences to Palestinians lives. I aks again: if your house was destroyed in an act of collective punishment would or would not your life be harmed?
 * b) The title "pro-Palestinian" is about as biased as you can get.


 * Please remedy this. AW 23:55, 25 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'm sorry, but is rediculous to keep crying "POV", "POV" when you suggest no alternative. If the facts I have added were phrased in a way that was too skewed towards one point of view, then you should be able to come up with an alternative wording that is more neutral. Instead you censor the FACTS.


 * a) This new version, actualy has less words, so don't just revert it. I've also removed the bit about "keeping Israeli casualties low", because a claim like that really needs some evidence backing it up (plus 10 words in the caption seems to mean so much to you). Again, if you see a more neutral way of phrasing something do so. Don't just delete. This is how Wikipedia works.


 * b) "Pro-Palestinian" is biased because it implies that those tarred with this brush must be "anti-Israeli". What exactly is wrong with the term "anti-occupation"? AW 13:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * a) Your editions contributed nothing to the knowledge but removed balance. The previous formulation was far better. As for proofs for the claim stated about low casualties:
 * It is a common knowledge.
 * It is discussed in the relevant articles (Caterpillar D9 and the al-Aqsa Intifada).
 * b) Come on, almost all the groups that use the term IOF are self-proclaimed anti-Israeli (which is not neccesserally equivelant to pro-Palestinian). MathKnight 14:38, 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:
 * 1) My new version is even shorter.
 * 2) The assumption that "pro-Palestinian" is the same as "anti-Israeli" would be disputed by many pro-Palestinian groups.  Also, "anti-Occupation" is both a POV and a whitewash of most of the groups that use this term. The equivalent of "anti-Occupation" would, in this case, indeed be "anti-Israeli", but rather than using that POV term I, unlike you, chose the more neutral "pro-Palestinian", which could mean "pro-Israeli" as well.  I'll change it now to "Palestinians and their supporters", does that satisfy you? Jayjg (talk)  15:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

General/Lieutenant General
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)
 * I've seen both used interchangebly, but www1.idf.il uses Lieutenant General - Chief of Staff. El_C 03:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Academic Officer
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
Tiron is not a rank, all recruits have a rank of private. --DimaY2K 20:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ranks -- Private First Class
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?

The IDF Directorates
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.
 * Directorate of General Staff (אגף המטה-הכללי)
 * Directorate of Operations (אגף המבצעים)
 * Directorate of Intelligence (אגף המודיעין)
 * Directorate of Planning (אגף התכנון)
 * Directorate of *** (אגף התקשוב)
 * Directorate of Technology and Logistics (אגף הטכנולוגיה והלוגיסטיקה)
 * Directorate of Manpower (אגף כח-האדם)

The military structure section needs to be somehow rearranged(perhaps by directorates instead of by fields?), and directorates of planning and operations added.
 * The Directorate of Operation deals with the actual operations of the IDF through the Regional Commands' and the various Arms'(The Ground Forces, The Air Force and The Navy are called "The Ground Arm", "The Air Arm" and "The Sea Arm" in Hebrew, respectively) headquarters.
 * The Directorate of Plans and Policy deals with strategic planning. It also deals with planning for the Ministry of Defense.
 * The Directorate of *** is responsible for all of the communication, computing, command and control and information security in the IDF(refered in the article as the "C4I Directorate", however I'm not sure it's acurate since it does not deal with intelligence).

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)

Suggestion to move Technology section to child article
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)


 * I agree, although the list of major technologies should be left in the main article IMO (with a possible expansion of details in the child article). -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 15:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Israelie Army medic insignia?
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)


 * The IDF has always used (and still uses) a red Star of David on a white background, as seen in the following images:, - they're toy models, but pretty representative (I couldn't find a real-life photo). Regarding protection, wearing clear insignias was not the (I think) the main factor in determining whether IDF medics were accorded special protection. Except for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, during which the Hadassah medical convoy massacre occured, there were few instances when IDF units were at Arab armies mercy, making medics protection an issue. Indeed, many IDF medics fought (and died) with front-line soldiers, but I don't believe the Geneva conventions apply (or are loggical/enforcable) in most such cases. In any case, the medics died not because their insignias were not officially recognized by Geneva - I doubt that even one percent of Arab soldiers knew this fact, so it was never a real factor. altmany 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * IDF combat medics are, in fact, eligible for the same protection as other medics under the Geneva convention for the simple reason that they are fighting troops, whose first duty is to fight and secondary is to act as a medic. The geneva convention affords protection to medics who do not carry offensive weapons. The models are of ambulances, and medics who are not combat medics in the full sense of the word (with regards to the IDF). Hope this helps clear it up a bit. [[User:Israelish|Israelish}} 17:45, 6 January 2007 (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".


 * Those are combat ambulances, used to rescue wounded soldiers in tough situations. They obviously have to have powerful armour and some attacking power. The army uses many types of ambulance vehicles, including regular civilian ambulances. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Insignia
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)

is this link correct?
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)
 * Sorry, I should say that if you think it would make more sense for the word in the article to say Adyghe then by all means change it to that - I'm not an expert on this but Circassian is to my mind a more usual although less specific term so advantages to both. I'll let someone more knowledgeable decide. Iancaddy 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
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)
 * I can probably tell you a lot of this information off-hand, but this website has a lot of information of IDF technology, including US-made equipment. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:23, 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

Manpower
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)
 * data in infobox. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:24, 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)
 * 3(years for men)*50000+2(years for women)*~48000=~250000 (+3year for women in combat). Is that so hard to figure out? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That would ignore the professional part of the army. --62.251.90.73 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * well add couple of dozen of millions than. have any sense of numbers, uh? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:45, 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)
 * number of young males are you reading what i'm writing? wikipedia is not a place to look for reliable sources. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good reason not to give information someone asks for. --62.251.90.73 12:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Manpower 2
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)
 * 3(years for men)*50000+2(years for women)*~48000=~250000 - Tasc already gave an answer. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bad calculation... there are also professional soldiers.--62.251.90.73 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How many people work in the Israeli army? About 20% of the people in it :)

It needs a summary and evaluation of Israel's military strength
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)
 * How is the existance of a US antimissile system or Taepo-Dong launches relevant to this article?Edison 16:02, 26 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)
 * Israel wasn't the first and indeed not the only the country in the world with ABM systems. Russia had(has?) the ABM-1 "Galosh" which was deployed around Moscow, and its SA-12B's have the capability as well.Wikiphyte 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Qana Shelling?
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.

Israeli nuclear capability
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


 * I've reverted this, and then added a link to the relevant Wiki article. It's reasonable to have the claim uncited here, given that it is extensively cited in that article. Given that the anonymous editor left the subsection on Israel's nuclear program untouched, there's no logic for removal. Mtpt 08:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Weapon Systems
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)
 * Hmm... I think M16 is standard issue, but since I haven't served in the IDF, I wouldn't know for sure. The matter needs to be researched futher. -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  18:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * M16A2s, M4 carbines and Galils are all standard service rifles in the IDF. 'Long' M16s are generally not used in combat however. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Compulsory service
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)
 * Yes, it is compulsory, for Jews of course. Those of a certain age (not sure what, but I think around 30 and higher) need to only do tironut and then they can do limited reserve duty (although I'm not sure this applies anymore). Those aged 40 and higher who make aliya don't need to do service at all. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's not directly article-related, but I was quite curious. Todah rabah. LordAmeth 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only 30. younger people do serve less than the normal 3 years standard. 24 years old do 1.5 years, and so on... above 30 do only basic training for a period of one month. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.199.227.230 (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2007 (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]

Non Israeli & Foreigners in IDF?
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)
 * http://www.sar-el.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flayer (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

See my above clarification on this issue. DETCORD

OGG file
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)

Reliable references
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)
 * I think it wouldn't be difficult to provide reliable sources to most major points, but many users will not consider the official army website a reliable source, on grounds of NPOV. This is IMO ridiculous, but it would be very difficult to come up with solely non-partisan sources that are accurate. As most can probably guess, a lot of information about the IDF is 'inside information' - that is, not necessarily classified, but also not readily available to the public. This information is 100% correct but cannot be used as a source. This is why using only (or mostly) 3rd party sources is an invitation of misinformation. However, I invite any user who can to provide reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can include language stating "according to the army..."? This would certainly appease those who believe it to be an unreliable source. It is certainly possible that the army is skewing facts in one way or another, but it's just as possible that it is not true. If there is some doubt, perhaps we should keep ourselves distanced from taking a side and try to present both sides of the issue. In most FAs, you can see a controversies section that handles issues just like this. If there are multiple reputable sources saying different things, then it's possible that it's worthy of mentioning that there are differing opinions on the issue. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is not therapy, but there are bound to be a number of users that come here and refuse to participate in the talk process to make wholesale changes based on their own anecdotal evidence. I think an article like this has lots of potential if we get several sensible people from each side of the debate discussing the facts and sources in a civilized manner. The onus is on you guys to present this information in as NPOV of a way as possible. It's a challenge, but a worthy one :-D.  JHMM13  00:04, 9 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.

Black Hebrews
"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)
 * I am also fairly sure they serve. In fact, in my prison one tried to commit suicide a couple months ago. He sure didn't volunteer. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove this part from the article then. -- Israelish (Talk) 09:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Women in the IDF - first sentence
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)

sentance makes no sense
"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).

Please clarify section on ranks to make it meaningful to English speakers.
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).

IDF Table.
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)

Specific weapon systems
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)

IDF Template
Could somone please help me fix the colors of the table ? Acidburn24m 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Targeted killing
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)

Graphic of the Army Structure
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 will try to create a simple graphic on PowerPoint, if I have time. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your offer of help :-) I don't need a PowerPoint presentation- you could just write it down like we did it with the Italian Army:


 * “Acqui” Division
 * “Garibaldi” Mechanized Brigade in Caserta
 * 131° Tank Regiment in Persano
 * 19 °Cavalry Regiment “Cavalleggeri Guide” in Salerno
 * 1° Mechanized Regiment in Cosenza
 * 8° Mechanized Regiment in Caserta
 * 8° Self propelled Artillery Regiment “Pasubio” in Persano
 * 21° Engineer Regiment in Caserta
 * “Granatieri di Sardegna” Mechanized Brigade in Rome
 * 1° “Granatieri” Mechanized Infantry Regiment in Rome
 * 2° “Granatieri” Mechanized Infantry Regiment in Spoleto
 * 8 °Cavalry Regiment “Lancieri di Montebello” in Rome
 * 33° Self propelled Artillery Regiment “Acqui” in l'Aquila
 * 91° Training Battalion “Lucania”
 * and so on for all units


 * I think creating such a list would be much quicker than PowerPoint. Furthermore if you would do such a list, it could than be included in the article- something we have done with almost all Armys now. --noclador 01:10, 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)

Orbats Ahoy

 * The 24th Special Edition of RAIDS is entirely dedicated to Tsahal. It also includes a lot of information on the general structure and organisation of the ground forces. I have translated the French bits that might be hard to understand to an English-speaker, but didn't bother with the others. If there is anything you can't understand, then just poke me.
 * General Remarks on credits and all: what information was taken out from the magazine is fully credited to Pierre Razoux, the author of the special edition. I simply translated. What information was fished from the Hebrew Wiki was translated by Boris Karpa, a friend of mine who reads hen-writing. In the end, I compiled it all into a more or less comprehensive list that, while lacking a lot of stuff, still is a good start for a nice orbat. 
 * From there on, here goes:


 * Here is the general overview.
 * 36th Armour Division (from magazine):
 * Armour Recon. Bat
 * Two armoured brigades (7 and 188) (each brigade comprising: Arm. Recon. Coy, three Armour bats, Tank Hunter Coy.)
 * Golani Mech. Inf. Brigade
 * Sayeret Golani recon infantry coy ("Flying Tigers") (SF)
 * Mech. Inf. Bats 12, 13, 51
 * Tank Hunter Coy
 * Combat Engineer Coy
 * Armoured Artillery regiment 212 (comprising Arm. Art. bats 334, 405, 411)
 * Transport Regiment
 * Signals Battalion
 * 162nd Armour Division (from hebrewiki):
 * Armour Brigades 401 and 264
 * Regional brigades 228 and 417
 * Kfir Brigade
 * Infantry Battalions Nahshon, Samson, Haruv
 * Combat Engineers battalion 601
 * Artillery regiment 215
 * 252nd Armour Division: no idea, the magazine doesn’t cover it, hebrewiki doesn’t have an orbat.
 * Reserve Armour Division structure:
 * Armoured Recon. Bat
 * Three Armour Brigades (each with an armoured recon. Coy, three armour bats and one tank hunter coy.)
 * Armoured Artillery Reg. (three battalions)
 * Combat Engineers Coy.
 * Transport Regiment
 * Signals Bat.
 * Territorial Mechanised Division structure:
 * Recon Infantry Bat
 * Three mech. Infantry brigades
 * Two infantry brigades
 * Transport Regiment
 * Signals Bat
 * Nahal Brigade :
 * Infantry Battalions 906, 932, 933
 * Parachute Battalion 50
 * Engineers Coy
 * Tank Hunter Coy
 * Signals Coy
 * Special Recon. Unit 374
 * 35th Parachute Brigade :
 * Sayeret Tzanhanim recon parachute coy. (SF)
 * Parachute Battalions 101, 202, 890
 * Parachute Tank Hunter coy
 * Combat Engineers Bat.


 * That be the info I managed to fish out. As always with fortress mentality Israel, information is quite confusing and I don’t guarantee that it’s 100% accurate. But it’s a start, at least! Russoswiss 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Artilery
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)

The article is not neutral
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)


 * Your position is hardly neutral either. A more-objective postion might describe both parties as toddlers arguing over who pooped in the sandbox first. :) - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

controversies
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)


 * Doesn't look very anti-Israeli to me. If anything I would say it is a bit sparse on the controversies section. 24.87.96.92 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a strong supporter of Israel and the IDF, and personally I don't see an anti-Israeli bias in this article. It is much better then it used to be.  If you see anything in particular feel free to fix it yourself- that is the Wikipedia way!  Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I second this. Anti-Israel would pretty much be the worst way to describe this--Hamster X (talk) 08:51, 14 April 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.

Mistranslation
I removed the following sentence and its citation from the article;


 * At least one general in the IDF advocates a Palestinan Holocaust as a appropriate response to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

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)

Inapropriate vocabulary
"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)
 * I don't think we have published statistics for junior, senior and general officers, not to mention that in the IDF, while there is an official distinction between junior and senior (major and above) officers, the distinction mentioned in the statistics (lower-rank, captains/majors, lieut. col. and above) is much more common in practice. Maybe the wording should be changed, but not the distinction itself. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversies should be expanded...
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)

Undue weight in 'controversies'
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:
 * 1) Accusations by Amnesty International, HRW, the Red Cross and other international organizations are not covered in this specific article, although a general reference is given to acknowledge their criticism. Under the 'West Bank and Gaza' section (i.e. sections dealing with Palestinians), there is another sourced note of criticism. In light of this generally low coverage of criticism, it is strange that a barely notable Israeli leftist organization should get more coverage than all of the above combined. By comparison, the organization Machsom Watch, which is much more known than Breaking The Silence, is not mentioned in the article even once.
 * 2) Even if the criticism section is expanded, it is inappropriate that all the criticism by these organizations, including Breaking The Silence, be included. The reason is that much of the criticism is leveled not specifically at the organization called the Israel Defense Forces, but on the Israeli Security Forces in general - I have heard a lot against the Israel Border Police, as well as the Shabak, both unrelated to the IDF.
 * 3) PR's specific edits don't appear to be helpful and don't adhere to policy. For example, he added 2 sentences about Breaking The Silence, which were shortened and re-written by me for the first reason above (as stated in the edit summary). In response, PR again expanded the section, this time with a different anonymous testimony randomly selected from Breaking The Silence's website. Both times, misleading edit summaries were provided, the issue was not discussed, and clearly the 2nd edit was to make a point.

Editors, please provide input on this issue. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy is to write articles to the reliable sources - which overflow with large numbers of personal testimonies amounting to confessions, normally considered the most convinvincing evidence possible. Here is a second Israeli source, then numerous US sources, then numerous UK sources, then the soldiers themselves and I've even included a non-western source - I'm not sure what more I can do to prove these testimonies were highly notable: Haaretz: IDF questions reservists who organized Hebron photo exhibit, New York Times: Former Israeli Soldiers Tell of Harassment of Palestinians, Washington Post: 'Breaking the Silence' on West Bank Abuse, CBS News: Israeli Soldiers Talk Of Abuses (Includes Videos), CNN News: Soldiers' photo exhibit strikes nerve, ABC News: Israeli conscripts break the silence, Guardian: Army fury at Hebron soldiers' brutality exhibition, The Independent: Breaking silence over the horrors of Hebron, The Independent: Our reign of terror, by the Israeli army, Breaking the Silence official website, Breaking the Silence: The Next Phase, Breaking the Silence: Israeli Soldiers Reflect on Patrolling Hebron, Photo gallery presented by Breaking the Silence, English translation of the photo gallery above, Video: Dotan and Yehuda - Breaking the Silence: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out, presentation by Dotan Greenvald and Yehuda Shaul, members of Breaking the Silence, Aljazeera News: Fmr. Israeli soldier exposes abuse of Palestinians. The only problem is to know which allegations we should write up and how many references to include. Maybe you should help me instead of trying to claim this is some kind of WP:FRINGE story. PRtalk 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read my post again please, WP:UNDUE was only one of my 3 complaints. Regarding WP:UNDUE, the reason is, as I said, that there are much more notable organizations with criticism against the IDF, so it's unthinkable that they should get little coverage as opposed to extensive elaborations about Breaking The Silence. For each source you provided, there are probably about 100 dealing with Amnesty's, Red Cross's, HRW's, etc. criticism about the IDF. Even so, they only take up a small part of the aritcle, because there's a lot more to be said about the IDF than how it supposedly beats up Palestinians. For a good example, see the article Israel, which includes little scattered criticism, despite the thousands of sources that can be found delegitimizing Israel.
 * Also, please address the other two complaints, and hopefully, other editors will comment on them as well.
 * -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for responding in a cooperative fashion. In the light of recent events I am drawing up in my mind a short-list of POV-pushers who, IMHO, have made edits which amount to cheating. You will (perhaps) be pleased to know that your name doesn't appear on that list and probably never will. eg there was extensive toing-and-froing at First Aliyah (an article you started yourself) but you eventually accepted what I'd done. I think I recall you self-reverting on one occasion when challenged and you may have defended me against other POV-pushers. Nor have I ever noticed you behaving badly at "disciplinaries", a regular problem from some editors.
 * 1) I'm not sure I can take seriously criticism that "Breaking the Silence" is not the best possible source for these allegations. Supporters of Israel have sought to tie my hands, since all other sources can and will and are accused of antisemitism or being "self-hating Israelis". This testimony neatly side-steps that problem, we now have confessions from 100s of soldiers over a period of 4 years. The case is as water-tight as it could possibly be, and denial is simply, well, denial.
 * 2) and 3) Same thing applies. Small adjustments may be desirable or even necessary, but the article has been improved and removal of the text would be vandalism.
 * The only disadvantage to you from acting honorably is that I'll be tempted to wiki-stalk you round to articles where good (cooperative) editing is possible and won't be blocked by cheating. I mention this because I'm being wiki-stalked myself and the respected individual concerned seems to think it's justified by improving the content of articles. PRtalk 08:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about. Thank you for the vote of confidence, but it doesn't change the fact that you have side-stepped the issues I have raised by posting an elaboration of your editing practices and dealings with other editors. Frankly, I don't understand what you're saying in your argument anyway. If you're saying that self-criticism (e.g. Breaking The Silence) asserts greater notability than secondary criticism (Amnesty, HRW), then the answer is no, it does not. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have not reverted your edits in this article because I generally restrict myself to 1RR, and edit-warring is not a way to solve problems on Wikipedia (as I'm sure you know from experience). It absolutely does not mean that I agree with what you put in the article, and will attempt to have it completely removed through discussion. FYI: I have posted a link to this discussion on WikiProject Israel. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:59, 14 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 don't think there's such an article, although it's difficult to say whether one is needed, or is indeed appropriate per WP policies (especially WP:POVFORK). I don't mind expanding the criticism section in this article, but do mind when it tries to mention each and every half-notable reaction, criticism, etc. Same goes for a separate article by the way - it shouldn't be bordering 35 kB just because it can, and should only serve as a reference page with proper prose, as opposed to a list/timeline of random individual snippets criticising the IDF.
 * Such an article/section would ideally discuss a few issues:
 * 1) Accusations of intentionally targeting civilians, both Palestinian and otherwise
 * 2) Accusations of human rights violations and humanitarian misdeeds (e.g. allegations that the IDF doesn't allow proper medical care, etc.)
 * 3) Domestic criticism, especially from organizations like Profile 21 and organizations which claim that the IDF destroys young peoples' careers, etc.
 * Each section/sub-section should have no more than 2-3 paragraphs, and focus on the general claims (e.g. Claim: IDF block ambulances from passing through checkpoints) and responses (for NPOV, the IDF's official responses should be included as well), as opposed to individual events. In fact, I think individual events like the exhibition that PR added should not even appear in such an article, and can instead appear in the article about Breaking The Silence (or whatever organization).
 * I think this is the only way we can keep this encyclopedic and prevent it from being a lame POV fork listing every supposed misdeed of the IDF (I'm sure PR can find thousands of sources for these).
 * -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns. Neither the criticism section nor a potential independent article should become a coatrack for the latest book/film/report/interview by a new organization. I was thinking of something like "Anti-war movement in Israel", which would chronicle organizations from Peace now down, and readers could be linked to their activities and opinions. -- Nudve (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Padlock page
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)

Serious bias, re-writing needed.
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. PRtalk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The investigation committee (not a Knesset committee, it didn't have MKs) did state that Sharon was personally responsible (indirectly), although this article isn't about Ariel Sharon, and there's sufficient coverage of the event in the Sharon article (an entire section, in fact), and of course the main article for the massacre. Sabra and Shatila isn't even that relevant to the IDF in general, but I don't mind its inclusion in this article because the event was major and changed the IDF in many ways (although it's hard to say what ways, and there's probably no RS for it). Also note that Sharon wasn't in the IDF at the time of the massacre.
 * Anyway, all of the above doesn't matter because we've already had a very similar discussion regarding the entire criticism section above, and I personally proposed to rewrite it (this is what you are suggesting too, right?) However, if anything, it should be much more generalized and include shorter recounts of more events, rather than elaborate explanation about each event like Sabra and Shatila. There are seriously many events which changed the IDF more than this massacre, and/or which were more relevant to the IDF. For example, in the Second Lebanon War, the IDF was highly criticised (esp. CoS Dan Halutz), and this directly impacted the IDF in a million ways, much more than Sabra and Shatila.
 * -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to understand why the allegation that IDF forces permitted the Phalangist troops into the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps (which nobody denies) is said to come from "some Arab and other left-wing groups" as if this was dubious. The only dispute there might have been is whether Arial Sharon knew that allowing in these militias was going to/likely to lead to a massacre, and the Israeli investigation appeared to say that was the case. PRtalk 20:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to provide sources for notable and non-WP:UNDUE non-Arab and non-leftist groups who also make this claim. Then it can be written differently. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:PalestineRemembered, you need to be very careful about what you post, as you risk exposing this project to lawsuits. The very statement you made above, that Sharon knew that letting the Phalangists into the camp will result in a massacre, was the subject of a well known libel lawsuit by Sharon against Time magazine, during which the court found that Time could not establish the veracity of that claim. Please don’t repeat this again. The Kahn committee did not make that finding, nor did it imply it – it found that as the Minister of Defense, Sharon bears indirect responsibility for all actions of the IDF – whether or not he had any direct knowledge of what was going on. That’s it – and that’s what our article states. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here's what HRW says: "As Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon had overall responsibility over the Israeli Defense Forces and allowed Phalangist militias to enter the camps where they terrorized the residents for three days".
 * I am reluctant to unilaterally modify an article that others know much better than me, but the statement I've picked up on is not just highly misleading, it seems calculated to undermine the respect in which we hold other ethnicities. PRtalk 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure why we're arguing about Sabra and Shatila. Some things should be included in this article and some should not - the main criterion is the relevancy/effect on the IDF. Certain recent events affected the IDF in a phenomenal way - the Yom Kippur War, the First Gulf War and the Second Lebanon War - Sabra and Shatila did not have a very strong effect - I am not aware of a single internal change in the IDF as a direct result of the event. Sure it affected Israeli politics and public opinion a lot, but that does not belong in this article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew Name in Opening
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)

Anders Army
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)

Minorities
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)


 * First of all, English is not an official language in Israel. There are only two official languages - Hebrew and Arabic. There are no special units designed for foreign volunteers and minorities, except 299th Inf.Btn (Druze) and 585th (Bedouin) desert recon. btn. Both specialize in pathfinding skills, Arabic is common and accepted in these units. Jewish immigrants do learn Hebrew before conscription and within IDF, they can do nothing before the acquire basic Hebrew. Flayer (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So I guess your answer is that, yes, whatever few Arabs choose to join will be expected to speak Hebrew? - Matthew238 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Few (Muslim) Arabs that choose to join usually serve in 585th btn among Bedouins. The few of that few that wish to do something else are expected to speak Hebrew. Probably all young Arabs in Israel know Hebrew, more or less. Flayer (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda
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)
 * Are you suggesting any changes to the article? If so, please list them below, and don't forget to sign your comment with 4 tildes ( ~). If there are no objections, I will remove the POV tag. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the POV template- for it to have stayed or be reinstated there needs to be some reasons outlined that are actionable and thoughtful while relating directly to the article. The comment by the anon who posted the template is not, it is an unproductive rant. dvdrw 21:02, 3 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)

Equipment statistics
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)

Alice Miller
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)

Krav Maga
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)
 * Krav Maga is more of a self defense use than a sport it is used by I.D.F mostly, but some other special ops/forces use the techqnique. It does have similarities with some other martial arts such as jiu jitsu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.89.91 (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

US military aid - inconsistency in article
"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)

NPOV Dispute - Values of the Code of Conduct
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)
 * I saw that too, how do you post that the article has been vandalized? I'll try to change it as best I can, laggy connection though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.150 (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Terrorism
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)

could someone please put the emblem above the template properly?
?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidburn24m (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Killings of Palestinians and Occupation of palestinian territory
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).

Phalangist
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)

Semi-protected edit request
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."
 * It appears the dubious phrasing about ethnic-cleansing has been removed. ~ mazca  t 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF)
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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 10:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it "highlights negative... viewpoints or facts", and to me is "a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article". There is already a section under IDF for criticism and the IOF has been merged into that. It would be like having a separate article on Tony Bliar (a phrase commonly used by the anti-war lobby). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's not what WP:POVFORK says; it says a POV fork is "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to highlight..." You've quoted an ancillary part of the definition while ignoring the main one. An article titled Israeli Occupation Forces which went into detail about IDF operations, the occupation etc, would be a POV fork, but that was an article about the term, which didn't duplicate any information in this article, so I don't see the applicability of WP:POVFORK. I don't know about the notability of the term "Tony Bliar" so I can't evaluate the analogy. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 10:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a POV fork because it could quite easily be covered (and is covered) in the IDF article's criticism section. Whilst it is a legitimate redirect, alternative names for things (especially POV alternatives) are not stand-alone articles. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair enough. I don't think it's a POV fork but I can't think of a reason why we really need an article about a fairly obscure partisan term, when a redirect would do just as well. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:20, 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)

IDF flag
I've never seen this flag before, is there an official source that uses it? Yonatan talk 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find one right now, but I've seen it used. Maybe one of my IDF-related books has it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: It appears that the flag appears on FOTW. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New structure chart
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)
 * Graphically, it look great. What's the source? -- Nudve (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I used one of noclador's main sources, globalsecurity.org, as well as the official websites of the units and IDF (especially the navy/AF sites were helpful!), newspaper publications, Bamahane, etc. Many clarifications about things which were not clear came from Hebrew Wikipedia and Wikipedians, which can amount to some original research, but this was used mostly for unit sizes and cases where sources were contradictory. Finally, the APP-6 standard was used for the symbols. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright :) -- Nudve (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Border Police images
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)

Organizations accused of terrorism
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)
 * You included it in the table, based on your original research. It seems the entire template is nominated for deletion. See also WP:TERRORIST. -- Nudve (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, until it is deleted, it deserves a spot just as well as it does on the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. One would argue that the IDF has killed 100x more civilians than the DFLP has. The whole controversies section of this article has been littered with such accusations of Israeli terrorist actions. And you will find the same to be true for the articles on Hamas, and the PFLP, which both share the same tag as this one I am trying to add.

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)
 * Why is the POV tag being removed? How has this issue been resolved? 99.9.23.19 (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the IDF practices "state sanctioned terrorism". I'm sure that if you look hard enough you can find someone who accuses the IDF and other armies of terrorism, but that does not make it a fact, especially considering WP:TERRORIST. -- Nudve (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of terrorist on that section.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Is this article about a anti terrorist force or an army ?
From this article it seems that it is a Anti-terror force rather than an army.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean. Can you please elaborate? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't use the unanswered tag for every question you have. It is not meant for that use. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 23:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti terrorist is all over the place.So it seems similar to Elite police. '''yousaf465'
 * Can you be more specific? I don't really see how the IDF history, which includes several wars, or its military equipment, makes it look like an Elite police. Also, I don't really see how the factual accuracy tag is justified. Just because an editor failed to insert the History of Terrorism template does not mean the entire section is false. -- Nudve (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)