Jump to content

Talk:Dahiya doctrine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Removed references available on Archive.org

[edit]

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

"Was, not were"

[edit]

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

Biased introduction

[edit]

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

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

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

Questionable chapter on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war

[edit]

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

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

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

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

The "Criticism" chapter

[edit]

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

Israel-Gaza conflict is wrongly named

[edit]

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

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

IDF Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot not sourced

[edit]

"The doctrine was outlined by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot." is unsourced, can we add a source for this or remove the statement? TheJoFe (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should get a notification on the top for biased / contested content

[edit]

According to international military law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, civilian objects (such as buildings and infrastructure) lose their protection if they are used for military purposes or by enemy combatants. These can then be considered legitimate military targets under the principle of distinction.

Sources:

Geneva Convention IV (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) -> Article 53 prohibits the destruction of civilian property unless "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) - Article 52(2) -> Civilian objects can only be targeted if they are being used for military purposes, contributing to military action and providing a definite military advantage.

Customary International Humanitarian Law (Rule 10) -> Civilian objects used for military purposes become legitimate targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.150.251 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the article is biased? You've only provided quotes from international law without elaboration. I EAT PINBALLS (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False "retraction" claim regarding the UN report should be removed

[edit]

"The op-ed has been interpreted by some [who?] as a retraction of the report and its conclusions." -- This statement regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has been on present on this article since 2014, and has not yet been substantiated. The citation at the end of the sentence is simply a link to the op-ed, which does not substantiate the claim (and which properly should be placed in the previous sentence where the op-ed is introduced). The op-ed by one of the report's authors defends the legitimacy, scope, and objectivity of the report in the author's view, and while noting some ways in which the investigation might have been improved by more full cooperation, the author does not retract it or its conclusions. Curlsstars (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the description of the op-ed as a retraction was an unsourced comment by a Wikipedia editor. I have removed it. Burrobert (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 17:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dahiya doctrine → Dahieh doctrine – Very few sources refer to "Dahieh" area as "Dahiya." I think the main article should be "Dahieh doctrine" with alternative spellings being mentioned in the first sentence of the article.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dahiya%22 only returns results as it relates to this military doctrine NOT the area it is supposedly named after. RisingTzar (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit Request: Clarification in "Criticism - Counterproductive"

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed:
    −
    Paul Rogers argues that in their using the Dahiya doctrine, Israel will fail in its goal of eradicating Hamas, which will come back in a different form, unless "some way is found to begin the very difficult task of bringing the communities together.
    		+
    Paul Rogers argues that in their using the Dahiya doctrine in the [[Israel–Hamas war]], Israel will fail in its goal of eradicating Hamas, which will come back in a different form, unless "some way is found to begin the very difficult task of bringing the communities together.
  • Why it should be changed: The doctrine isn't only used in Gaza with the aims of harming Hamas, but has also been used against civilians of other regions with the aims of harming other groups. Therefore, context for what Rogers was talking about should be clarified before mentioning Hamas. Otherwise, the mention of Hamas is quite sudden.

I EAT PINBALLS (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done but without the link, since there already is a link to the page before this sentence (MOS:REPEATLINK). Thanks for the request, weird pinball-ball–eater.
FunLater (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you normal levity delayer! I EAT PINBALLS (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Warning or threat of mass destruction from Netanyahu to Lebanese general population

[edit]

An editor may wish to add Netanyahu's recent warning/threat to the Lebanese people of destruction and suffering should they fail to overthrow Hezbollah.

Per https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly3x1w0595o , "During a video address directed at the people of Lebanon, Netanyahu said: "You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.

"I say to you, the people of Lebanon: Free your country from Hezbollah so that this war can end." " CloudBoy9001 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pursue not sue for peace

[edit]

I think there is a typo in the first paragraph "...forcing the enemy to sue for peace." should be "forcing the enemy to pursue for peace." There is no way the "Dahiya doctrine" is about to put the enemy into a legal battle. MartonAndras (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Suing for peace. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to that article since while the terminology is correct, its meaning may not be immediately obvious. It might be worth rewording, but a link does the trick for now at least. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dahiya_doctrine&oldid=1255173953"