Talk:Israel Defence Force

Israeli bulldozers
I don't mean to be a P.C. thug but this is a really gross way of looking at Israeli bulldozers that are proven to be used for destroying private homes of law abiding Palestinians.--158.143.165.215 20:42, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * You missed the sarcasm? human  21:03, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, it totally went over my head--158.143.165.215 21:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)
 * Sorry you missed it. It seemed pretty obvious when I wrote it.  But maybe that's because the gov't here doesn't bulldoze buildings with uparmored D11's (yet), only the occasional crazy person does (really). human  23:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)

An attack article?
Wow, this is pretty much just an attack on the IDF, which is the military force of a sovereign nation. It seems like every HRW report has nothing to do with IDF in particular, but rather with Israel's national policies. I would suggest making this article just a redirect to Israel because of this, and merge the content. Thoughts?--Tom Moore fiat justitia 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't a merger is the right way to go. I think it's less of an "attack article" than it could be, but a little more level-headedness wouldn't go amiss. 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why being "the military force of a sovereign nation" makes a group immune from articalization? Although if you mean that they are only the "instrument" of the national policy, rather than the "source" of their actions, I guess it could become a section there.  20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean, yes.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The IDF deserve an article as much as the US Army deserves one. Both armies have a scary amount of military power, but both are the military arms of their respective governments. The IDF is merely the medium through which the (abhorrent) Israeli policy is carried out, so its a bit stupid to target it exclusively. MarcusCicero 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the only question is how much any despicable methods are "approved" or condoned by the respective governments, and how much they are made up in the organization itself. Since in both countries (?) the military is subservient to civilian control, I suppose in the end the moral burden of any military activity rests with the government?  It's not like the POTUS says "Army, please secure the border" and they nuke Mexico on their own initiative.  22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In perhaps one of the greatest films ever, one U.S. general launched a nuclear strike on Russia out of fear of loosing his precious bodily fluids to the reds. People should take these things seriously! 86.40.222.227 22:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need PLO and Hamas articles as well.--BobNot Jim 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Try getting a stone against your empty head or through your car window
and then claim, that it is not a deadly weapon. Or a knife shoved through your throat or back.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: When someone throws a rock at you, are they commonly charged with attempted murder? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Depends on the rock and the circumstances. In Israel, there've been stricter laws passed in the last few weeks, e.g.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stones are all they have, and some knives. Against one of the most sophisticated military oppressors in the world.---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That an especially idiotic pile of shit and appeal to emotion, even coming from you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting a stone on the same level as a heavily armored soldier with a weapon in hand is dishonest. As the saying goes, it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. And that's not including the fact that some of the Jewish settlers carry arms like they own the place (i.e. Oath Keepers or those idiots who bring guns in malls like they're hot shit). ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ...until the terrorist with the knife manages to use teh element of uranium  adamantium  surprise and knifes the soldier. Often, the knife-wielder's health doesn't benefit from that action, but it happens.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any evidence to this. Some apologists mentioned that Palestinian militants laced their weapons with hepatitis or rat poison (i.e. Alan Dershowitz), but this was later proven to be false and the Palestinian bomber already had hepatitis to begin with. Physicians for Human Rights - Israel had a report on this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The stuff about uranium was a goddamn joke (hint: the snark link) and adamantium doesn't even exist! Are you drinking and editing at the same time??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure. I exercised caution. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen newspaper reports of people in the USA being charged with "assault with a deadly weapon, a shod foot" and similar things. I guess it depends on what the prosecutor wants to do. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are situations in which throwing a rock could reasonably lead to an assault with a deadly weapon charge. However, the Palestinians would trade in their rocks for the first class weapons the Israelis have in a heartbeat. It truly is David v. Goliath.---Mona- (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stabbing soldiers who are enforcing the theft of your land and your subjugation is not terrorism. What would be your basis, Arisboch, for saying that is immoral?---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whose land? That of Jordan or that of Egypt?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch translated: "Stop asking me questions I don't want to answer. I'm also not going to say whether Israel has policies to maintain its 'Jewish character' because I don't like where the answer leads."---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona translated: "I love to gaslight people and put nonsense in their mouths, whether they say something or whether they don't."--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch: "I'm still not going to answer either of those questions."---Mona- (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona: "I love to JAQ off in public and think about Greenwald, when doing it."--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (ich widme diesen edit conflict dem internationalen Djihad gegen die Religion) Claiming land belongs to someone a priori is a rather dangerous road to go down for someone willing to ignore Jewish claims on Eretz Israel. Just sayin' Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Palestinians. Jordan and Egypt's occupations were illegal, not as brutal but still illegal. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As counter-intuitive as it may seem
The good guys can indeed be the guys with the better weapons. Just think of the second world war, where it thankfully was the USSR, the USA and the UK who had more and better bombers and tanks and not the Nazis Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the bad guys can indeed be the guys with the better weapons. Well, that's not including the USSR who was responsible for a genocide a decade earlier than the Nazis. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew the was on mission. To cut a long story short: You're wrong. And in line with the far right fringe of the German discourse. It's just amazing how often the latter two are one and the same thing. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stupid question
Given current trends in Gaza, how many Jews do you think would live in a Palestinian state encompassing all territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty. There are many Jewish human rights activists who go through Gaza and are unharmed. Jews were generally well protected by relative standards in the area of Palestine until the Zionist movement came above and tensions became far more pronounced. The issue is with settlements and occupation, not a person's religion. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Visitor suffered for PR reasons =/= full and equal citizen. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe under the PA constitution and Hamas' legal system (charter is not a legal document, it is a historical document so it doesn't count), Jews have a right to freedom of religion. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In practice, it's the opposite. In practice, they FUCKED .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, at least from a historical perspective. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So tell me once again what happened to the Jews who by some accident of history found themselves in Arab countries after 1948? If that is Arab tolerance, I don't want to be on the wrong side of Arab intolerance Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a different topic not related to how Jews are/could be treated in the area of Palestine. And you might want to cite the Jews who live in Iran, Turkey, and Azerbaijan who are doing relatively fine. Some governments are more oppressive than others. The PA is oppressive, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as say Saudi Arabia who is hostile to any kind of minorities. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

An aside to an aside: The Historikerstreit
Basically the whole quarrel was whether the "Asian" crimes of the Soviet Union that happened in the 1930s or their "class murder" were a precondition to what happened in Nazi Germany and their "race murder" or whether Hitler's acts were in some sense a "reaction" to that. To cut a tedious year-long exchange of letters to the editor in the FAZ and other outdated modes of communication short: Nope. And most of those who proposed that shit in the first place went off the right wing deep end later on. Though it has to be said that quite a bit of new sources were thoroughly studied to dismiss this particular "interpretation" of history. Shall I add it to our "to do" list? Or discuss the topic in the bar first? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting they were a precondition or produced Hitler's actions. I was suggesting at the time that putting the USSR under the section of good guys included with the US and UK is problematic given their actions a decade earlier. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We live in the real world "good guys" is a relative term in warfare. I don't deny Soviet war crimes or the horrible treatment of POWs and political prisoners in the Soviet Union. But even the devil and his evil twin brother would have been acceptable allies against Hitler. Heck I would've even considered asking Bin Ladin if he could overlook his shared Antisemitism with Hitler and fight him as a supposed "infidel". Churchill (whom I also don't particularly like) said when questioned on Britain's de facto alliance with Stalin "And if Hitler were to invade hell, I'd say a few nice words about Satan" (or something to that effect). He was right. Just like the bastard was right many times. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WW2 in the circumstances at the time may be the exception to war being evil. But taking a dovish approach on my part, I think WW2 could've been avoided with a far less punitive Treaty of Versailles and less greed exacted during the Great Depression that made conditions for the Nazi's rise to political power. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "He (Churchill) was right. Just like the bastard was right many times." You mean Stalin? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)


 * With bastard I did indeed refer to Churchill. Stalin was hardly ever right about anything. Even his fabled industrialization of the USSR could have been achieved at a much lower death toll (though maybe not as fast) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch: "Mona: 'I love to JAQ off in public and think about Greenwald, when doing it.'"
That's Arisboch's latest to me and it is quite typical of Zionist commentary online when confronted by individuals having a decent command of the facts bearing on Zionists and Zionism. However smart and reasonable they may be in virtually every other context, on any matter pertaining to Israel this is how they behave. Like especially mean adolescents.---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch: Sexualizing a woman during an argument is an ancient sexist ploy. There is nothing you won't stoop to apparently. You also had to invoke my gender vis-a-vis another editor supposedly "white knighting" for me. And then there is all your foul terms directed at me, such as "fuckface." (I think "cunt" was in there once as well.) None of this bothers me in the least but is material that should tell you something about yourself. What you become when Zionism is at issue is most repugnant and worth your time to reflect upon. ---Mona- (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I curse at and use "dirty" words with anyone, no matter, whether they've got a cock or a pussy between their legs (and besides, on the net, you can pretend to be anyone you like). If you don't wanna get cursed at or read dirty words, bugger off to the more PG-13 parts of teh web, RW ain't one of them.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well some fucker chose to censor NSFW images that you can freely see on WP pages on subjects like . Or so I've heard... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again Arisboch, you are sexualizing interactions with me which is repugnant and sexist. Moreover, almost no one at RW calls others names as you have done to me. I don't, tho I do say "shit" and "fuck" rather frequently. You are behaving as a sexist boor and it's because you lose all rationality when Zionism is the issue.---Mona- (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I talk to everyone like that here, no matter, what plumbing they have, so stop using throwing around completely baseless accusations.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh go fuck yourself, Mona, would you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Arisboch, you do not ever tell a male he is "JAQing off" to a female he is friends with or otherwise admires. Ypou do not sexualize a male's relationships like that. You never do that. Nor do you invoke "white knighting" except for females, including me. Moreover, I have only seen you act in this disgusting manner when Zionism is at issue.---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a goddamn lie. I told a ton of people to stop JAQing off, no matter, what set of genitals they had and the stuff "white knighting" was a honest misunderstanding of what the term meant.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch, do you want me to whiteknight for you or does that very question constitute JAQing off? Also: Why does Mona only ever accuse Zionists of evil and vile things? Also also what is shystering? Also also also why can't I use a footnote here to make this even more meta? Quadruple also: Am I just asking Questions? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Will Arisboch answer hard questions?
So far he is pointedly refusing to substantively answer two questions:
 * 1) Does Israel adopt laws and/or policies meant to maintain it's "Jewish character?"
 * 2) Is it immoral to commit violence against soldiers of a country that has taken your land and is subjugating you?

The first he does not want to answer because the only truthful reply supports my claim -- which he detests -- that Israel is an ethno-religious supremacist state. The second he won't answer because he prefers all Palestinian resistance to be labeled as terrorism and deemed to be wholly wrong.---Mona- (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is goddamn bullshit. Israeli Arabs have more right in Israel than Arabs in any Arab country. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Will Mona answer any questions?
Like for example those on this talk page, her talk page or the talk page of the Israel article? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually do not engage you and will not pretend to have intellectual exchanges with you. You are a moron incapable of such interaction on a level acceptable to me. Now, be about whatever it is you do.---Mona- (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And now you expect of people to answer question, if you psam them often enough, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, the whole "not talking to you" shtick only works if you are even approaching a semblance of consistency on it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No Arisboch. You have never been able to answer certain questions, and why you can't is utterly obvious.---Mona- (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)