Talk:Purity of arms

message: 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)
thread_title: Objection to wording (?)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish religious establishment and the IDF 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of ground forces vs. air strikes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additonnal sources from google books 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Purity of arms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified