Talk:Purity of arms

Objection to wording (?)

The article currently has an "objection to wording" section asking whether the IDF's code of ethics allows harming POWs, and some editors below raised even stranger questions and accusations. This is all absolutely ridiculous, because all this discussion is based on a wrong translation. Here is the official translation of the Spirit of the IDF document from their site:

"Purity of Arms" (Morality in Warfare) - The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.

This is, I think, quite clear: "The soldier shall not ... harm non-combatans or prisoners of war". He should not harm neither civilians nor POWs. How much clearer can this get? Were did the silly notion that the text says that a soldier shall not harm civilians, but POWs are fair game?

Therefore, I think the entire "objection to wording" paragraph needs to be stricken out. This is not an NPOV issue, but rather a reading comprehension issue... And while we're at it, how about fixing the English quote in the article to match the official English translation (which I quoted here above)?

Thanks, Nadav Har'El.

84.108.166.58 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I got curious about where the lousy translation, that caused all the comotion on this article, came from. I found that until about a year ago, it was indeed the official translation on the IDF site - see [1] (this is the link on the article). However, since then it appears that the IDF realized that this was a lousy translation and published a new translation, found on the same page - see [2]. This translation is written in better English, is more faithful to the original Hebrew, and it - not the old translation - should be used in the article. The quote I gave above was from the new translation.

84.108.166.58 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

An anonymous edit added the following sentence:

Note that this policy explicitly accepts the usage of arms against Prisoners of War, a violation of article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention.

While the doctrine does not prohibit the use of weapons against POWs, it does not explicitly condone it. The strongest statement that could be made here would be that it implicitly condones it, but even that may have POV problems (implication being a subjective issue). As such, I've added the POV template pending further discussion. --Safalra 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not even nessicary to the article and sure as hell POV. Deleted. --Lakhim 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the point of view tag. Since the section on the third geneva convention has been deleted, the article seems pretty neutral to me. I also removed the "sic". The only justification that I could find for that would be if someone had the POV that the IDF was used only to attack and not defend. I note that the same anonymous coward who added them also changed IDF to Israeli Military. Might as well go ahead and call it "Zionist Entity War Machine" NPOV says we use the name that the IDF commonly goes by and calls itself without endorsing the truth of its claims. I changed Israeli Military to Israel Defence Force.David s graff 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting perhaps to see in what cases IDF forces have disobeyed this requirement and if they have been officially punished for that. It would also be interesting to see in what cases IDF forces have run risks to their own lives in order to minimize damage to civilians. David s graff 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to learn more about this, may I suggest a book by Norman Finkelstein: This time we went too far, which deals with this topic extensively, and has footnotes to international investigations, in the context of the Cast Lead initiative. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Here is some curent data. I have not read it. I expect I know what it says. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

Jewish religious establishment and the IDF

The page in its present form cites rabbis advocating various points — e.g. its possible suspension in wartime, combatting hostile forces embedded within civilian populations, etc. — in applying the IDF's Purity of Arms doctrine per Jewish law. I fail to find any explanation of the relationship between the Jewish religious establishment (or individuals within it, regardless of position or authority in the military), and the policies and practices of the IDF. This could do with some substantiated clarification. -- Deborahjay 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Further: Meanwhile, I did my best by particularly citing the portions of the "Spirit of the IDF" doctrine relating to Jewish tradition and Israel as a Jewish state. -- Deborahjay 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of ground forces vs. air strikes

In an earlier comment, David s graff posed the question: It would also be interesting to see in what cases IDF forces have run risks to their own lives in order to minimize damage to civilians. I believe a case in point is the decision to use ground forces in southern Lebanon in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. While the Israel Air Force certainly had the capability of carpet bombing from a safe height, that would have caused extensive casualties among the indigenous south Lebanese civilian population who in effect served the Hezbollah as a human shield. Despite the backup provided by artillery coverage, IDF ground troops suffered many casualties, including tank crews who found themselves facing unprecedented armor-piercing weaponry. Only a present lack of sources prevents me from adding this content to the article; I'm hoping another User will do so. -- Deborahjay 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:SYNTH

Text

• Controversies

Main article: Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War

New Historians have challenged the vision that the IDF would have respected the code of the Purity of Arms during the 1948 War. During the War, the Yishuv militias (Irgun, Lehi, Haganah and Palmach) and later the IDF were responsible of about 20 killings and massacres that resulted in the death of 800 Palestinian Arab civilians or Arab unarmed soldiers.

discussions

Recently a new section was added about how New Historians claim that the Purity of Arms value was not respected in 1948. While I question the relevance of this claim, let's assume for a second that everything Shlaim says is correct and relevant. Even so, there appears to be inappropriate synthesis here. Firstly, Shlaim does not make the claim that the value was not respected in 1948, rather he says that Israelis teach in schools that Israel had a higher moral standard than its Arab enemies. It also says that the Purity of Arms value is relevant to the phenomenon, but does not make it clear whether this is taught in Israeli schools or whether it was really respected in 1948. Secondly, while I don't have a copy of Morris's book, the statement taken from it is only relevant to Shlaim's claim if he specifically mentions Purity of Arms. Because it is implied that he doesn't mention it at all, I'd say that Morris's analysis of the 1948 war is not related here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add another part here. Two things: first of all, if Shlaim is the only historian making this connection, there should not be a 'New Historians claim', but rather 'New Historian Avi Shlaim claims'. Secondly, I can't see how the claim is relevant at all to this article. Purity of Arms was written in 1994, as a result of the First Intifada, and as far as I know, no person other than Shlaim claims that it should or did apply to any period before that. If indeed no one person makes this connection, then I believe this is undue weight in the article, and a fringe viewpoint. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey,

I don't have much material concerning all this. We can mode this on the talk page until it is better structures and discussed.

For what I know :

• Shlaim is not the only one. The attack against the concept of purity of arms had been done by other. Morris uses the words. And I think I have read a text by Chomsky where he also attacks the principle in another context.
• I am convinced -by don't have reference in mind- that this principle dates back Palmach, where it was already a principle. (And in fact, I am sure I had heard about the code *before* 1994 ! :-))

Ceedjee (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just made a fast google book research and I confirm what I have just written :

In, Sam Katz (1988), Israeli Elite Units Since 1948, p.5 it is written : "When the PALMACH sprang into action against the British in spectacular fashion in late 1945, it took great care to attack military targets only. This policy was based on the sacred HAGAHAH and later IDF principle of TOHAR HANESHEK or 'purity of arms'. [And follows exemples of such actions.]"

In the article, there is currently also a link with the "convoy of 35", which is an event of 1948...

Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. It is quite interesting, and I didn't really say that the statement should be deleted outright, just that it had serious problems. Given the new sources, I believe it can be modified to be more informative and less political, i.e. more info on the code's historical origins. There could be a brief mention of the 1948 war (although again, Shlaim's statement about this is rather vague and ambigous, so the other sources you found should be used), but IMO the main point should be to explain how Purity of Arms was used in the past, and where it came from. To be honest, I have little personal knowledge of the value from before it was made official with the IDF Spirit's publication in 1994. Unfortunately, I don't have much sourced info on the IDF Spirit because all of the books I have on the IDF were written earlier than or in 1994 and thus don't have any mention of the code.

I will see if I have anything on it from Palmach-related books (e.g. Yoav Gelber (1981): The Struggle for a Hebrew Army), but it's possible that it was a value much more prominent with the Palmach than the IDF in general. And, while I'm pretty sure that the IDF didn't make the code official until 1994, it's likely that it was, if unofficial, then at least an unspoken law both in the Palmach and the IDF. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is worth trying to find the origin :-).

I will look on my side (but I still don't know where...)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Additonnal sources from google books

There are 500+ hits !

• Reuven Gal, a portrait of the Israeli soldier, has a small chapter about the Purity of Arms. He links this to the policy of Havlagah in the '30s and gives several definitions with examples... Worth reading.
• Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel, Routleedge, 1999 has a small chapter about the Myth of the Purity of Arms. He gives numerous examples when the principle was not respected based on Anita Shapira, Norman Finkelstein and others analysis.
• Uri Ben-Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism reports Anita Shapira analysis about the difference between the theoretical speech and the practice of the concept in the FOSH and the Haganah.
• ...

Ceedjee (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of

Please advise which sources are not considered to be RS, as there are plenty of examples of criticism of the myth of purity of arms, as any search will show.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

no reply, so I will be restoring the whole.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised a bit about this article as a whole. While it presents a standard of behavior during battle (just as say the Geneva Conventions presents such a standard), to me it gives too much the impression that the standard is followed (as we know it is not followed in the case of the US and Abu Ghraib, or Guantanimo, or cluster bombs, or the Strategic Air Command, or "all options are on the table".) In the case of the 2008 assault on Gaza, there is a good deal of evidence that virtually no resistance was offered (13 Israelis were killed, 4 by friendly fire, 3 civilians), yet over 1000 people in Gaza were killed. This is reported by Norman Finkelstein, with whom you may disagree on policy or interpretation, but whose facts seem to be very well supported in the footnotes. He does take facts from Morris. ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Lead sentence

I'd like to translate precisely this text and provide the equivalent sources to balance the lead :

"Ses détracteurs remettent cette image en cause60,61 notamment à la suite de certaines exactions et massacres qui ont marqué l'histoire de l'armée, dont ceux de la guerre de 194862, de Qibya63, de Kafr Qassem64, de prisonniers de guerre65,66, de Sabra et Chatila67, de Qana68 ainsi que, à la suite d'opérations controversées, comme la bataille de Jénine69, l'opération Plomb durci70 ou l'abordage de la flottille pour Gaza71. Certains de ces événements suscitèrent des bouleversements dans la société israélienne, en particulier le massacre de Sabra et Chatila qui donna lieu à des manifestations historiques en Israël72,73"

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Its detractors challenge this image (60,61), notably in the light of certain harsh actions and massacres which have marked the army’s history. Among these incidents are numbered massacres that took place during the war of 1948 (62), at Qibya (63), at Kafr Qasim (64), and with prisoners of war (65,66), at Sabra and Shatila (67), and the Qana (68). To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin (69), Operation Cast Lead (70) and the Gaza Flotilla Raid (71). A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society: the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx.

I will add this to the lead with the appropriate sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This gives :

Anyway, its detractors challenge this image, notably in the light of certain harsh actions and massacres which have marked the army’s history. Among these incidents are numbered massacres that took place during the 1948 War, at Qibya, at Kafr Qasim, against prisoners of war, at Sabra and Shatila, or at Qana. To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin, Operation Cast Lead, and the Gaza Flotilla Raid. A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society. The massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel. Anyway, according to Gideon Levy, the "majority of the Israelis is still deeply convinced that their army, the IDF, is the most morale army of the world, and nothing else".

</references>

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fast checking on googlebooks, there are numerous sources talking about the Purity of Arms. Shapira, Zionist Resort to Force book is an unvoidable source for the topic and its historical grounds. Most modern sources discuss how hard it is for an army to comply with this principle and why it is important to IDF to go on. I found references from Martin Van Creveld who states that in practice it is not possible for an army to comply but quite strangely, he doesn't refer to IDF...
• To balance Gideon Levy's view, we would need a sentence from WP:RS taking party for the for the idea the "Purity of Arms" is applied or tried to be applied on the field. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any convincing quote to "balance" this. So I introduce this as it is but I still think something lacks for NPoV. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your addition is shockingly POV problematic. The lede is not intended or repeat exactly what is already included in the Criticism section and it is surely not intended to expand upon that section. I'd like for some support for this inclusion outside of the usual POV pushers for this to be reinstated to the article.

I have reverted you.

I don't agree with your behaviour given I have discussed this on the talk page and if you had the article in your follow-up, you had also the talk page in it.

We can improve this. I don't mind. On the contrary but out of question of bargaining or whatever. Argue and be constructive.Pluto2012 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A good start would be for you to respond to the points I raised. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Criticism section

There appears to be some unreliable/non-neutral sources utilized in the section. More importantly some of the content appears to be OR as it does concern the concept of purity of arms. Please note that this section is not the garbage dump for whining about the IDF.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be open to moving the content or parts thereof discussed in the above thread to the Criticism section. At first glance it appears to be somewhat better sourced. An attempt was made to shove it into the lede, but per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV, it was removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this, of course.

• If you think there are "unreliable sources", you should state which ones precisely and explain why there are not.
• If you think the comment that have been discussed here 3 weeks before you decided to remove this without discussion, you need to say more than it is not in compliance with WP:NPOV or WP:LEDE. You need to explain why exactly.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the use (and attempted use) of cholera and typhoid bacteria by the Haganah and Irgun in the immediate post-WW II period might be of relevance ... but, of course, only if sources mention them in the context of Zionist leaders' espousal of "purity of arms."     ←   ZScarpia   01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Purity of Arms" was a morale principle in the Palmach (Mapam) and the Haganah (Mapai) but it was stated even by Mapam and Mapai that IZL and LHI (revisionnists) didn't follow this. LHI endorsed the fact they were terrorists. So I don't think they revendicate the principle.

I think the controversy is much about the fact that neither Palmach or Haganah or IDF are claimed to have never really followed this principle rather than stating that IZL and LHI didn't do so.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Although he may not have referred to it as "purity of arms", Menahem Begin claimed that the Irgun operated according to a set of highly ethical principles which, bombings of such places as marketplaces notwithstanding, included not attacking civilian targets.     ←   ZScarpia   23:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, IZL and LHI were terrorist organisations (even if NPoV makes it difficult to be written on wikipedia).

Do you have a reference stating that Begin claimed to comply with "Purity of Arms" ? I never heard about this and I would even say at the contrary that they rejected by principle and that's reason why they separated from Haganah (but I cannot know everything and I may be wrong).

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The obvious initial source is Begin's own The Revolt. Other sources then refer to that.     ←   ZScarpia   11:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember what was the point that we discussed and we/you wanted to modify in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, why are you removing the comment by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and also the one by Zvi Zamir? --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

POV hackery

Brewcrewer is consistently restoring POV statements such as Detractors of the IDF. Imagine if the concept of purity of arms was introduced as Supporters of the IDF claim that they follow this concept. Please do not restore this content without further discussion. I think that this is clearly POV. If you can find sources that describe the authors of the criticism as detractors of the IDF then feel free to add it. But do bot restore in the neutral voice of wikipedia. Socks do not write sentences like this.109.157.215.0 (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the removal of the comments in the Criticism section, I see it as problematic to oppose a change from "They argue that because the Hezbollah hides among the civilian population, it would be immoral not to attack Hezbollah—as Hezbollah poses an extreme threat to the Israeli civilian population" to "They argue that Hezbollah hides among the civilian population, and therefore it would be immoral not to attack Hezbollah—as Hezbollah poses an extreme threat to the Israeli civilian population". It's not a fact that Hezbollah does that.

What is "Thus, it would be unreasonable to not attack Hezbollah, which will result in allowing Hezbollah to kill Israelis, all based on the premise of avoiding Lebanese casualties" based on? I can't find a support for that in the article (Rabbis: Israel Too Worried Over Civilian Deaths). So it's correct to remove that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Purity of arms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100627072825/http://www.grotius.fr:80/node/406 to http://www.grotius.fr/node/406

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)