Talk:Dahiya doctrine/Archive 1

Archive 1

"as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population, thereby establishing deterrence"

That statement, in the header of the article is exceptionally inflammatory and hard to support, given its source (listed in the references section as "The Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict", commonly referred to as the Goldstone report, after its chief author). This claim is not backed up by the supposed source material.

The reference given for this statement in the Goldstone Report (footnote 583) is an essay (found here) written by a retired Israeli general. This general (Giora Eiland) was not part of the military or government when he wrote his essay, and thus had no role in the formation of policy. More importantly, Eiland's essay, referenced by the Goldstone Report, was about his suggestions for a future war with Hezbollah, and had nothing to do with the Dahiya Doctrine. The Dahiya Doctrine was not mentioned once in the whole essay! Instead, it speaks about how any future war with Hezbollah must be a war against the country of Lebanon that harbors Hezbollah. The would inevitably bring suffering to a larger proportion of Lebanon's citizens. A contentious and morally dubious statement for sure, but a long way from advocating the goal of "inducing suffering on the civilian population in order to establish deterrence".

Eiland's essay clearly did not advocate inducing suffering for its own end as a means of establishing deterrence. And it was not written about the Dahiya Doctrine. And he was not in a position to make policy at the time that he wrote it. Therefore this article should be edited, to remove such an inflammatory yet unsupported statement. Squiems (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Attack on Civilian Population

The source material clearly indicate that the doctrine advocates targeting civilian populations yet some users, including Brewcrewer, seem to have repeatedly removed any such description, claiming that it is inconsistent with the sources and POV. Allow me to quote directly from the source, which in this case happens to be YNet, the online English version of Israel's most popular newspaper, Yediot Ahronot:

1 "Israel would use 'disproportionate' force to destroy Lebanese villages from which Hizbullah guerrillas fired rockets at its cities in any future war, an Israeli general said in remarks published on Friday." Link

2) "In practical terms, the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad." Link

3) "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases." Link

The third quotation is from a IDF Norther Command Chief and is cited in the Goldstone Report. Also, note the title of the second article which is "Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts". Also note that a "village" is not a "Civilian infrastructure" as Brewcrewer and others seem to suggest. It is a civilian population center. Hence the notion that civilian populations are deliberately targeted is completely consistent with the sources and does not suffer from POV bias.

Furthermore, references to Richard Falk's comments on this issue are regularly removed without explanation. Falk is a distinguished professor of international law at Princeton university with a significant level of involvement in this conflict. His analysis is certainly relevant to the topic.

If anyone feels differently, please discuss.

Poyani (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

None of these excerpts advocate targeting civilian populations. In addition, none of these excerpts are necessarily expositions of the Dahiya Doctrine. Your recent changes are OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the name of the doctrine is from the YNet article I posted. It was YNet which termed the doctrine the "Dahiya Strategy". Every one of the sources listed explains that Israel will attack "villages". "Villages" are not "civilian infrastructure". "Villages" are population centers. If you want I can change "civilian population" to "population centers" as a compromise. But the notion that the doctrine implies that Israel will attack "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists" is ridiculous on several grounds.

1. A village is not a "civilian infrastructure". It is a civilian population center. Civilian infrastructure defines physical structures like bridges, dams, schools, roads, etc. None of the authoritative sources define the "Dahiya Doctrine" or "Dahiya Strategy" in this way.

2. The doctrine is named after the war between Israel and Hezbollah and the notion that Hezbollah are "terrorists" is a very controversial one. Only a handful of countries list Hezbollah as terrorists. Wikipedia refers to them as "a Shi'a Muslim militant group and political party" for this very reason.

Hence the description of the doctrine as attack against "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists" is factually inaccurate and totally represents a POV. Furthermore, there is absolutely no justification for removing Richard Falk's statement from the article. It is relevant and verifiable and the source is authoritative. I am going to revert back and change the mentioned part. Poyani (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article which defined the "Dahiya Doctrine" has the subtitle "Israel finally realizes that Arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts". I sincerely doubt that anyone would consider "Arabs" to be a "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists". The contents of the article make it clear that the doctrine is aimed at civilians, not "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists".

The Israeli general promoting the doctrine defined it as follows during an interview wity YNet:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

It is abundantly clear that he is not talking about roads, bridges, schools (civilian infrastructure) used by terrorists. He is talking about flattening villages (population centers). Poyani (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The status quo definition of the Dahiya doctrine as a policy of targeting "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists" is simply the definition given in the Jerusalem Post article, which says: [The IDF] will continue to target civilian infrastructure that is used by terrorists. This is known in the IDF as the "Dahiya Doctrine".... The London op-ed and the Eizenkot quote neither contradict this straightforward definition nor support your proposed alternative definition. You are reading into the latter sources many things that they do not say, which is an exercise in OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Eizenkot quote which is quoted in a UN report and published by YNet (the secondary source which originally defined the "Dahiya Strategy") clearly does contradict the opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post which you are citing. Eizenkot said that "from our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases". One more time, I am going to address the issue which you seem to be avoiding. A village is not an "infrastructure" and Hezbollah are not universally accepted as "terrorists".

Also note that the opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post which you are citing contradicts itself in the very next sentence, and supports the Eizekot quotation. The full quote is "Still, the IDF does not plan on significantly changing the way it fights in future conflicts. On the contrary, it will continue to target civilian infrastructure that is used by terrorists. This is known in the IDF as the "Dahiya Doctrine," in reference to the neighborhood in Beirut that can only be accessed by card-carrying Hizbullah members. During the 2006 war, the IDF bombed large apartment buildings in the neighborhood since they were also used as Hizbullah command-and-control centers." Note that apartment buildings are not infrastructural buildings. They are residential buildings.

I am going to suggest another compromise. If you feel that the use of the term "population centers" is still OR, then how about we change it to "villages, towns and cities". "Villages" is the actual quote from the secondary source and towns and cities reflects the use of the doctrine during the Gaza War. I feel that this would be extremely POV and representing a pro-Israel bias since the purpose of the doctrine is to hold Arabs "accountable for their leaders’ acts", which very clearly is describing attacks against civilians. But if you are seriously concerned about OR, despite the fact that I am quoting the Israeli press I will compromise.

Otherwise, if you keep reverting, I think we should pursue arbitration. Poyani (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A village being used to store munitions, and to launch rocket attacks, can be reasonably describes as "terrorist infrastructure". That Hezbollah are not universally accepted as "terrorists". has no relevance to Israeli policy which views them as such. I think arbitration would be a good idea, not the least in order to find out your true prior identity. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the universality of the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist group is irrelevant. And, Poyani, since the notions you're reading into the Jpost article (which is not an opinion article) are by your own account contradicted by the article itself, perhaps you should avoid over-interpreting and just accept what the article says. There is also no contradiction between the Jpost definition and the Eizenkot quote (which is, BTW, not necessarily an exposition of the Dahiya doctrine): "villages" is general and "civilian infrastructure" is specific. Your original definition, "attack on civilian populations", is not supported by the sources, and neither are your new definitions. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article is formed around "Israeli policy which views them as such", then that is a very classic example of POV. Note that your first statement regarding villages being "terrorist infrastructure" is totally irrelevant (aside from also being inaccurate - villages are not infrastructure). The article does not even refer to "terrorist infrastructure". It refers to "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists" based on one contradictory opinion piece by a non-notable author. At least 3 other reliable sources, define the doctrine as attacks against "villages". I wonder if you would accept the same rules of conduct and definitions to be applied to Hezbollah. That is, I wonder if you would accept that Israeli towns where military hardware, including munitions, are stored are legitimate targets of rocket attacks, and do not constitute attacks against "civilian populations".

In any case, I will try to come up with another compromise. The doctrine is certainly not attacks against "civilian infrastructure used by terrorists" but we can use the concept that it is an attack against infrastructure if you wish. I think the UN report on this subject talked about it extensively. I was just reading it and they make it seem like it is a deliberate attack against civilian infrastructure (often not used by terrorists) in order to punish the country. They quote many Israeli sources and provide references. It looks like it is the most authoritative source I will post under a new heading below. Poyani (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Breaking it down

Let's go through the changes one by one, shall we? The proposed first sentence of the introduction reads:

The Dahiya doctrine refers to an Israeli Defense Forces military doctrine in which the army deliberately targets civilian population centers considered to be sympathetic or supportive of the enemy, as a means of establishing deterrence.

This is sourced to [Harming the population is the only means of restraiing Nasrallah an Israeli opinion article]. Another book source supporting this definition is Beware of small states: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East (2010). See page 396: note that Eizenkot explicitly says "Harming the population is the only means of restraiing Nasrallah". Note too the author's commentary which supports the definition being proposed explicitly.

I looked up the original quote in Hebrew because no Israeli commander would say something that awful. The original quote translates to something similar to reference #5.Tsubery (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone object to this proposed change to the introduction by Poyani? Are there objections to one or both of the sources? Any suggestions on how to incorporate some the edit? Tiamut^talk 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed change replaces a long-standing, straightforward definition that is carefully taken from the best source currently used in the article. The proposed definition is not supported either by the London op-ed or the Hirst book (which are inferior sources in any case), and your tortuous straining to connect it with the sources serves to illustrate this fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the best source in the article?. Its also an opinion piece in an Israeli newspaper. Not a very good source. David Hirst (journalist), the author of the book to which I linked above, is veteran Middle East correspondant and author of at least 4 books on the region. If you re-read what he wrote, you wil see that it can be paraphrased as in the edit being proposed. Would you like to suggest another wording that incorporates some of what he writes? Because the longstanding consensus text isn't doing it for me. The source is less than high quality and the use of the POV word terrorist without any attribution or qualification is unacceptable. Also, there should be some mention of the population being a target, as is clear from Eizenkot's words and the analysis provided by Hirst, among others. Tiamut^talk 13:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is also important to note that the Jerusalem Post opinion article's definition of the Dahiya Doctrine is clearly contradictory. It defines it as an attack against "infrastructure" but then goes on to explain that the doctrine's first time use (against Dahiya) actually included attacks against apartment buildings. As I noted before, apartment buildings are not infrastructural buildings, they are residential buildings. The JP article is far from the best choice. Poyani (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would add the article does not attribute Israeli definitions sourced to opinion editorials, but instead presents them in the first paragraph in Wikipedia's neutral voice. This is unacceptable. I like your proposed first paragraph, but am willing to entertain other options too, and am particularly interested in hearing on alternate proposals form those refusing your proposal. Tiamut^talk 14:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article, which is not an opinion piece, deals directly with the Dahiya doctrine and is written by the military editor of the paper. The Hirst book deals with Lebanon and only mentions the Dahiya doctrine peripherally; and the book's own blurbs say that the author is partisan and reactionary. The JPost article is only contradictory according to your OR and bizarre interpretation of it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The YNet source is a secondary source which is superior according to WP:PRIMARY to the JPost article you are citing. The UN is also a far superior source than the JPost article you are citing. The JPost article is contradictory according to the wikipedia article for "apartment buildings", but that is irrelevant and besides the point. I also don't think we are here to pass judgments on authors, describing them as "partisan and reactionary". Herst book is not the only one which described the doctrine in this way. Norman Finkelstein's "This Time we went too far" also defines the "Dahiya Strategy" using quotation from Eizenkot. In the end, you are placing undue weight on the analysis of Yaakov Katz over the statements released by IDF official Eizenkot cited by several books, at least one UN report and news reports. The IDF has not defined the Dahiya Doctrine as targeting "terrorist infrastructure". Only Yaakov Katz has defined it in this way. The IDF commander has clearly defined it as targeting civilians. Poyani (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to take your opinions on due weight seriously when you're implying that Norman Finkelstein is notable in this context. Finkelstein has no recognized expertise on the Israeli military and is simply a wingnut author. The IDF commander has not defined the Dahiya doctrine as targeting civilians; darned if I know where you got that from. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, we are not supposed to be passing judgments on authors here. It is actually hard to take your opinion regarding OR seriously when you keep dismissing legitimate authors like Herst and Finkelstein as "wingnuts" as a way of excluding their work. Finkelstein is described in wikipedia as a political scientist and author with expertise on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He has written a book specifically on the Gaza War and he addresses this issue there. The article currently does not define the doctrine as "targeting civilians". I changed it a while ago to "civilian infrastructure" after you objected to it. As for the issue of due weight, you misrepresented my argument. I argued that we have Yaakov Kats in JPost defining the doctrine as you have put it. We have one UN report, a YNET article (which is a secondary source), Finkelstein's book, Herst's book, and an IDF general defining it in a completely different way (as attacking civilian infrastructure as a means of inducing deterrence). And for the record, "wingnut" means "right-wing nut".Poyani (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the original interview with Eizenkot which happened in Hebrew and it did not contain the awful misquoute about harming population being the only deterrent. It translates to something similar to reference #5 Quite far from Harming civilians on purpose.

Here it is Tsubery (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Gal

References

Reliable Sources

I think all reasonable people can agree that the JP piece, which this article is quoting, is not a good authoritative source. First, it is an opinion piece. Second, it clearly contradicts itself. I don't see any value in using this source at all, considering that there are so many good authoritative secondary sources. The best in my opinion is "Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" which is has references and footnotes and is from a reliable source.

62. The tactics used by the Israeli armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.

1194. In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.

1196. After the war in southern Lebanon in 2006, a number of senior former military figures appeared to develop the thinking that underlay the strategy set out by Gen. Eiskenot. In particular Major General (Ret.) Giora Eiland has argued that, in the event of another war with Hizbullah, the target must not be the defeat of Hizbullah but “the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure and intense suffering among the population… Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s behaviour more than anything else”.

1197. These thoughts, published in October 2008 were preceded by one month by the reflections of Col. (Ret.) Gabriel Siboni:

With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite… In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hizbollah’s military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centres of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government, the more the elements of the Lebanese State infrastructure should be targeted. Such a response will create a lasting memory among … Lebanese decision makers, thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programmes… This approach is applicable to the Gaza Strip as well. There, the IDF will be required to strike hard at Hamas and to refrain from the cat and mouse games of searching for Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be expected to stop the rocket and missile fire against the Israeli home front through attacks on the launchers themselves, but by means of imposing a ceasefire on the enemy.

1198. General Eisenkot used the language quoted above while he was in active service in a senior command position and clarified that this was not a theoretical idea but an approved plan. Major General Eiland, though retired, was a man of considerable seniority. Colonel Siboni, while less senior than the other two, was nonetheless an experienced officer writing on his field of expertise in a publication regarded as serious.

1199. The Mission does not have to consider whether Israeli military officials were directly influenced by these writings. It is able to conclude from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what is prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.

1304. The Mission recalls in this regard its analysis of the Israeli objectives and strategies during the military operations in chapter XVI. There the Mission referred to statements made by Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai on 6 January 2009: "It [should be] possible to destroy Gaza, so they will understand not to mess with us”. He added that “it is a great opportunity to demolish thousands of houses of all the terrorists, so they will think twice before they launch rockets”. The Mission also referred to the so-called Dahiya doctrine, which requires widespread destruction as a means of deterrence and seems to have been put into practice. These objectives and strategies should be kept in mind with regard to the following analysis.

Given this, I propose that we change the first sentence of the article to the following:

The Dahiya doctrine refers to an Israeli Defense Forces military doctrine in which the army deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population and establishing deterrence.

This definition is also consistant with other sources which state that according to the Dahiya doctrine, Israel is holding "Arabs accountable for their leaders acts" and that according to the doctrine "the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad." Poyani (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I made changes according to this Poyani (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article is not an opinion piece, and it does not contradict itself but your original and bizarre interpretation of it. It is the best source in the article and the only one that provides a straightforward definition of the Dahiya doctrine. The Goldstone report, apart from the fact that it has been heavily criticized by analysts and its author has retracted its central conclusion regarding Israel, does not support the alternative definition that you are trying to push; your alternative definition is OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The YNet article (which defines the strategy) and the UN report are clearly a better source then the Jerusalem Post article. For one thing the YNet article is a secondary source (quoting a IDF offical) whereas JPost piece is just the opinion of the writer with little expertise on the matter. There is no OR whatsoever. You have never even tried to demonstrate OR. It just seems like a charge repeated in bad faith. Poyani (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JDE. The Ynet article is a 100% legit source and I second the OR concerns elaborated above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, you meant to say that the Jerusalem Post article is a 100% legit source? Although, I would'nt argue with that, I agree with the position that the YNet articles better describe the doctrine, the Jerusalem Post article being very brief and lacking in detail. The criticism of the Goldstone report presented is non-neutral. Alan Dershowitz's criticisms have themselves been heavily criticised. What the Goldstone report says about the Dahiya doctrine can be readily sourced back to public statements made by IDF officers. Although I wouldn't have written the definition quite the way Poyani did, accusations of OR are unjustified as the basis of what she or he wrote can be seen to be well sourced. In my opinion, the replacement for Poyani's version is less neutral than what it replaced.

On an unrelated matter, something that seems a bit odd is that there is no link to Wikipedia's Dahieh article (also spelled Dahiyeh) within the current one.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. I think you are confused about the discussion between me and JDE. As ZScarpia noted, I am the one who is arguing that the YNet article is 100% legit. It is a secondary source. It interviews and quotes an IDF commander, and defines the "Dahiya Strategy". The same YNet article is cited in the UN report. JDE is claiming that the YNet article and the UN report are not legit and is instead using an opinion piece from JPost which only mentions the strategy in passing. The JPost article is neither a primary, nor secondary, nor tertiary source. It is not a news story (it is not reporting on any event) and it does not even specify or qualify its definition of the strategy. If you have a problem with the posted definition just fix it, instead of reverting to a previous version based on a very poor source. Poyani (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Poyani and ZScarpia are continuing an attempt to push a definition of the subject which, as I have already noted without receiving a reply, is not supported by the cited source (the Goldstone report, which is itself problematic). Additionally, they took the opportunity to blanket revert a number of my unrelated additions to the article, with no talk page explanation whatsoever. Original research and blanket deletion of sourced material are simply unacceptable behavior, so I have no choice but to revert. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages, please refactor the above accordingly. nableezy - 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to write a proper answer, but note the following:

• I may not have addressed a comment to you on the talk page, but I did address one to Brewcrewer, whose revert it was I was in turn reverting. That comment outlined the reasoning behind my actions.
• You describe the Jerusalem Post article you have cited as the only one that provides a straightforward definition of the Dahiya doctrine. Simple, yes; straightforward, no. A definition which does not describe what distinguishes the thing being defined, as the Jerusalem Post article does not, fails to be a definition, let alone a straightforward one.
• It is due to its appearance in the Goldstone report that the Dahiya doctrine is given so much attention and, therefore, it is what the Goldstone report says about the Dahiya doctrine, which is carefully sourced back to public statements made by IDF commanding officers, which is most worth describing, not what an insignificant, short and hygenised article in the Jerusalem Post has to say. (Richard Goldstone in an October 2009 PBS interview: We found evidence in statements made by present and former political and military leaders, who said, quite openly, that there's going to be a disproportionate attack. They said that if rockets are going to continue, we're going to hit back disproportionately. We're going to punish you for doing it. And that's not countenanced by the law of war.)
• Neither Goldstone, the other inquiry members or the panellists responsible for writing the follow-up reports have indicated a wish to withdraw anything the Goldstone Report said about the Dahiya doctrine.
• In the light of what was written in the initial follow-up reports, Goldstone indicated that, had that information been available at the time, the report named after him wouldn't have concluded that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure during Operation Cast Lead (in the way, presumably, that they believed Israel had done in Lebanon). However, the writers of the follow-up reports have indicated that they believe that Goldstone misused the information contained therein in order to make his retraction. Also, the three other members of the original inquiry have also stated that they believe that their report should stand. (See, for instance: New Statesman, John Dugard article)
• The Goldstone report was subject to heavy opposition by Israeli and pro-Israeli groups and individuals. As it happens, Goldstone also faced fierce opposition in South Africa, Rwanda and the Balkans, the other countries where he carried out human rights investigations. People in all of those places would probably describe the reports on their respective countries problematic too. But, those are just opinions, and, it looks to me, minority opinions at that.
• Hopefully, you realise that, just as you find the Goldstone report problematic, others might find the announcements of figures such as Alan Dershowitz, which you introduced to the article, somewhat problematic too (see, for instance: [[1][2][3][4][5]) Also, given that you stated above that Norman Finkelstein is a "wingnut author", hopefully you are able to discriminate between opinion and fact.
• Editors here have an obligation to write neutrally, presenting the significant points of view in a balanced way. Tacking a couple of quotes from the anti-Goldstone campaign onto the end of a description of what the Goldstone report says looks to me more like a drive-by defecation than an attempt to write in a balanced way.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC) (extended: 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

The following article doesn't mention the Dahiya doctrine directly (meaning, I'm presenting it for information purposes), but it does discuss the last war in Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone Report and the targeting of civilians: Richard Forer - Cutting through the confusion about Israel/Palestine, 21 June 2010.     ←   ZScarpia   22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

I was going to ignore it but if a POV check is out of the question then I am just going to say what is wrong:

• It is hard to tell how it has been received in Israel. Are IDF commanders following through or are we just assuming they are based on biased sources. How widespread is it according to sources that have a reputation for being neutral?
• One of the sources actually says why it is there. This isn't mentioned in the article. They feel there is good reason. Why is that left out?

Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was trying to add this -> The article has been POV tagged twice now. The reasons can be listed and discussed below to see whether a tag is necessary. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you are unable to address issues through editing then you can tag the article. However, you made no attempt to edit the article. That isnt how things are supposed to work. nableezy - 13:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you guys want to expand the article, then I am in favour. Just go ahead and add the info you are talking about. I don't think the "why" is left out as Cptnono claims. It very clearly states that the policy is applied in order to achieve deterrence. It's in the very first sentence. If you want to expand that then go ahead.

What is not acceptable is to change the wording into some derivative of "the Dahiya strategy where the IDF attacks infrastructure hijacked by terrorists", as some other users were trying to do. That is clearly not how the doctrine is described by secondary sources. Only online opinion pieces have made this claim. The IDF spokespeople have described the doctrine quite clearly to the Jerusalem Post (secondary source). There is no need to rely on opinion pieces. Poyani (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@NableezyI am not going to fix it since I am not interested in edit warring. I have provided reasoning for a neutrality tag. So is the reason for removing the tag because it was "drive by" or because I did not edit the article? I asumed actually using the talk page would be a good thing but if you would rather I start editing 1//r is about to end s I can start making massive change. SO massive changes or the talk page? And restore the tag since the clock is ticking and I love AEs regarding battlefield mentality. Reverting, wikilawyering... whatever: There is a case. So how about instead of using the talk page to bicker about why the tag does not belog you actually address the issues already provided in my first comment. They are right there. They are clear. They are easy enough to address. What is the delay unless it is intentional? If you cannot allow a neutrality check tag I doubt I can edit this article anyways. Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Poyani: I agree with your first statement. I also agree with the revert of the editor who added "allegedly" in since that is a word to watch. What IO don't agree with is using massive paragraphs to make a point with only a single line. The reason for the "doctrine" deserves more than a single line. It deserves a detailed reasoning. The sources have it so why don't we? And again: Does anyone have a source on how prevelent it is that is not from a biased source? If you do not like opinion pieces then I assume the same train of thought leads you to understand that the biased tone from biased RS need to not be mirrored even if they are used.

So can anyone actually dispute the reasoning for the neutrality tag or is this all dancing?Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I removed the tag not Nableezy. Remember that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel that way, but if you are not interested in editing the article there is no reason for you to be here. You cant just tag an article because you feel like it. If there as an issue that you cannot address through editing then you may place a tag. You cant just tag an article and say "even though I cant be bothered to spend the time to actually edit the article, I think this is POV". If you want to open an AE against Sean or myself thats your life. But that is not a topic for this talk page, which is meant for addressing the content of the article. Kindly try to not misuse this page. nableezy - 13:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Cptnono - I am not sure I understand you. You say that the article is missing information which is relevant. You state that you do not want to add it. Then why are you tagging it NPOV? Shouldn't you tag it EXP? Also, please don't assume I will edit-war over that. If you present it fairly, I will leave it or edit it, I won't revert. I agree that this article needs improvement and expansion, especially over the reasoning of the Israeli government. I just objected when JDE gutted the article by stating an incorrect definition. The correct description should convey the message that the doctrine includes attacking "villages" (or some abstraction - we used "civilian infrastructure" as a compromise - I argued for "civilian population centers") in order to achieve deterrence. I have no problem with you expanding the notion of deterrence. Just don't deviate from the definition provided in the orginal article by JPost. Furthermore, I absolutely do not agree with your suggestion that JPost is a biased source? In what world is JPost biased against Israel? Poyani (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one fixed it and there was still a POV issue, I made a change based on a publication by the Air Force Research Institute from a conference sponsored by King's College. The POV issue was (and still is to a certain extent) that we have zero internal docs from the IDF and no real good in depth info from sources not showing bias. We still do not truly inderstand how prevalent the strategy is accepted by the brass. We have opinions from third parties who are not NPOV like we are supposed to be.So I have attempted to clarify and added some much needed structure. Feel free to revert but I will be adding a POV tag again. It would be preferred if editors actually sought out better sources to clarify the extent of what only looks to be a single sound bite jumped on by critics.to me but as a way to highlight harsh tactics by others. While looking at sources, you should also consider the why and not the what. I found one source that actually detailed good reasoning but also criticized why it would backfire. Have fun.Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

sources

This article is cited by several academic sources as describing the Dahiya Doctrine, even though it doesn't use the name itself. An example of a source citing it is Eyal Weizman (2010). "Legislative Attack". Theory Culture Society. 27: 11–32.. Another is this. Zero^talk 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are using INSS as a source for defining the Dahiya Doctrine. I think they are using it as a source with regards to the dis-proportionality of Israel's response. The source Bisharat cited for Dahiya was "Joseph Nasr, Israel Warns Hezbollah War Would Invite Destruction, REUTERS, Oct. 3, 2008, http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNewsidUKTRE4923I020081003" which repeats exactly what this article says, namely "what happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on . . . We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases . . . This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved." Poyani (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The paper of Weizman, after mentioning the 'Dahiya Doctrine' by name, says "The Institute for National Security Studies, a think-tank based in Tel Aviv University, articulated Israel’s possible response in the context of this doctrine" and then quotes from the INSS article. So it really does connect the two (rightly or wrongly). Zero^talk 03:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Dahiya doctrine may be an extension of the policy of dis-proportionality. But how should we change the article to reflect that? Or should we even reflect that? Poyani (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

IAF or IDF?

As I stumbled upon this page this morning, I was struck by what seemed to be a quite obvious typo. The fourth paragraph of the article begins by "Noting that Dahiya was the Shiite quarter in Beirut that was razed by the IAF during the Second Lebanon War...". Shouldn't it be IDF instead of IAF? Perhaps this subject has already been discussed at length, so I abstained from speedily correcting it myself. Oclupak (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think IAF stands for Israeli Air Force, a division of the IDF. In any event I don't think we should change the quotation attributed to someone else. Poyani (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a quotation. Anyway, IAF is ok in this context, especially after the disambig wikilink was fixed by Oclupak. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Poyani. I quite agree that a quotation should not be altered in any way. I nevertheless altered the link wich was pointing to a disambiguation page and reoriented it to the proper article. Oclupak (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

Cptnono,

Why do you keep tagging this POV? I understand your above-noted claim that the article requires expansion. That is no reason to keep tagging this POV. Just add the info. If you don't want to add it then either leave it alone or tag it so others know it requires expansion. This article does not violate NPOV. The sources are diverse. They include the UN and Israeli sources. Poyani (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the fact that Cptnono has refused to actually attempt to address any perceived POV issues highlights the weakness of the case for adding the tag. I think it should be removed absent an actual attempt to correct any issues. nableezy - 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I removed the tag. If a case is made for why it should be there I will either address the case or add it back. But for now there absolutely no reason which I am aware of, why a POV tag belongs here. Poyani (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

falk

The only thing i would change is removing "Critics have argued that the Dahiya Doctrine falls under the definition of terrorism" because Falk is one person, not plural. IMO the section is undue, one person - not a military expert - taking up 1/4 of the article, very unbalanced. source is also an editorial, and mostly rhetoric. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then the question is if Falk's opinion expressed in his blog is important enough to be included in the article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it is but his status at the UN and association with Palestine-related efforts could arguably justify inclusion. I already moved the edit and was reverted so it will be have to discussed here. A specific commentary on the Dahiya doctrine would be nice but Falk is so one-sided it doesn't help the article at all. At least the claims made by Falk and the anti-torture rights groups need to be paired with something challenging. Not sure if this is useful.

The real problem is that the Dahiya doctrine has never formally been mentioned by the Israeli army or the state. So all we have is an apparent mode of warfare cited by a lone general. In fact, it seems this term is almost exclusive to Eizenkot.

After doing a little research on the references it seems the Doctrine itself isn't fulled defined. For example, this source isn't fairly represented. It supports this sentence:

Israel at least partially implemented the strategy during Operation Cast Lead

"Whether by design or default, it was at least partially executed during the Gaza confrontation in 2009. As was the case in the summer of 2006, the implementation of this doctrine in Gaza was filmed by every television and news crew..etc...etc..."

If I had it my way this article would be merged to Eizenkot and any other mentions of Dahiya would go to Goldstone Report or OCL/Lebanon War. Has the army ever come out officially? Or the government? Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And that is why I tagged this as POV awhile ago. We don;t have enough info for an article here. We have biased sources making mentions. Not enough to support more than a stub. Not enough to actually know if it is even implemented or not. I would support deletion of the article if the couple decent sources available were moved over to current articles that meet GNG. Cptnono (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up everybody! You can always go and include a few more of Alan Dershowitz's opinions somewhere to make yourselves feel better.     ←   ZScarpia   11:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not funny. How can you compare a neutral and notable scientist with biased political activist? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have been a bit more specific. My remark wasn't aimed at you.     ←   ZScarpia   00:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear ZScarpia, your remark was very funny and absolutely in place. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So ignoring that, anyone have any thoughts on moving sources into other articles, potentially deleting this article, or actually finding RS that isn't opinion pieces or completely biased? But please feel free to make only snide comments instead since I enjoy that too.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) My feeling is that the article should stay. There is enough material, the subject relates to more than one other one, I'd say that it's likely that we haven't heard the last of the Dahiya Doctrine so more material will be added to the article in the future and there is information here which wouldn't be important enough to other subjects to include elsewhere and it would be a shame to waste all the effort that's gone into it. As for merging it, I would say no again as I think that users are as likely to be looking up the current article as the one on Eizenkot. As far as using opinion pieces is concerned, so long as opinions are represented as opinions not facts, Wikipedia does permit the use of them. There's a curious thing that I've noticed: editors tend to describe the word of writers they agree with as neutral and notable and those they don't as biased, mere opinion and worthless. That is the idea that my previous comment, though snide, was addressing.     ←   ZScarpia   12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why ignore it? Has Alan Dershowitz ever mentioned the Dahiya doctrine? The article doesn't explain what the Dahiya doctrine exactly is from its designers. The point is Israel has laws as does its military but there doesn't seem to be any sign of data pointing to a "Dahiya doctrine." The Goldstone cite also relies on Eizenkot: "Siboni, op. cit. This appears very similar to the so-called Dahiya doctrine. See, for example, Ed Blanche, Jane’s Rockets and Missiles, 3 February 2009, citing Major General Gadi Eisenkot" page 255. The Dahiya doctrine is mentioned two times in the Goldstone Report, one time referencing the 2006 Lebanon War:

In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military

thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut neighbourhood of that name.579 Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the premise of the doctrine:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military

bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.

And then page 24:

The tactics used by the Israeli armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with

previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely

what was put into practice.

No math or actual data is used to quantify the Dahiya Doctrine (disproportionate use of force, civilian-combatant ratios, military objectives, etc.) Every cite simply repeats what Eisenkot said. And he seems to be the only one. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And that was my point (apologies for not making it clear). 1 general said something. Since then it has received mentions but little more. Until firm data is actually out there I see no reason to keep this article. I assume that there is something out there since I found a handful of mentions on my own. If a paragraph is available in a google boo search then I would not be surprised if a full chapter is available somewhere else. But I question if it is worthy of its own article. I will be happy to flip flop on this as soon as someone provides in depth info (the sort that warrants an independent article). Until then, I am looking at a coatrack with severe POV potential. DO we have enough info for a stand alone article or not?Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this article is ready for an AFD but for clarity this cite: "Cain, Anthony C., ed (September 2010). "Deterrence and the Israeli-Hezbollla War". Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century" is actually an essay from this. So "detterence and the israeli-hezbollah war" isn't an actual book. Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the above. To break up th two discussions: (and I cited conference not book. see the edit. and it was published in some form so you can verify. look at the conference info before disputing it.)

Does a blog from Falk deserve any space

• Comment I am conflicted. An easy solution would be to find RS that will not be questioned to source the info. Falk may not deserve mention unless it was actually picked up by RS and what he presents as facts were not vetted for accuracy by an editorial staff. However, his opinion is more worthy of notice than most.Cptnono (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The presence of Falk's opinion in the article has been kicked over a lot already.     ←   ZScarpia   16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the cute response. Can you try harder to actually word responses so they men something? So you want to point to a discussion? Since this article has been POV since the very start (not that long ago which highlights the reason to ignore your comment) I don't care what previous discussion came to since I assume it was wrong. So kick around some collaboration or stop talking.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I said it before. I am not against removing the Falk reference. I think there should be a better developed criticism section though. The UN report criticizes the Dahiya Doctrine on the basis of violation of proportionality (protocol 1 of Geneva Convention). Falk is just one person who noted that technically speaking it is terrorism. Chomsky made the same point in an article following the war. There are also other sources of criticism. Poyani (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of removing Falk altogether, it may better to just note that he has criticized the doctrine. Poyani (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have enough sources to make this article work or should it be merged

• Comment I don't know. GNG is questionable since there are mentions here and there in news archive and book searches but there does not appear to be enough info to actually create a factual and informative article. POV is criteria for deletion per WP:NOT. If we cannot write an article without relying primarily on opinion pieces then I question its suitability.Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge where? The doctrine itself is summed up more or less at Gadi Eizenkot. If the article is to remain, a serious rewrite of the led must take place to emphasis the fact that this "doctrine" is the opinion of Eizenkot. In fact, he didn't even use the word "doctrine." That was invented by third party commentators. Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I thought you suggested Gadi Eizenkot? Other info could of course go into other articles as well. Some of the reasoning is valid, IMO. If the info is already in then a deletion or redirect are other options to add.Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean the core of the "Dahiya Doctrine" is located at Eizenkot article. The citations from the Goldstone Report, Herst, and Cain all repeat Eizenkot's original statements about the bombings in Dahiya and then apply his attitudes to conflicts in the South with their own analysis. Eizenkot, btw, is a commander in the North, not the South and as far as I know played no role in the Gaza War. I am slowly sifting through the sources. The only reference I haven't fulled read is stop the torture cite. That too is predicated exclusively on Eizenkot's statements, and suggests his beliefs are now part of official Israeli policy:

The implementation of the Dahiye Doctrine, the principal tenet of which was to cause intentional suffering to civilians so that they would bring pressure to bear on those who were fighting against the IDF. The No Ris policy, which placed absolute priority on preventing harm to IDF soldiers, even at the cost of greater danger to Palestinian civilians.

The 29 page report doesn't provide any core data, math, or statistics to support the "Dahiya Doctrine." What I gather is that these activist groups have assumed the personal statements of general without any real challenge or investigation. the reality is there doesn't seem to be any doctrine - or a codified set or rules - within the Israeli Army, at least not officially. remember, none of the references actually explain the casualties in the war, the definition of disproportionate use of force according to international law, or Israel's official policies in Gaza which was submitted to there UN here. Unfortunately, the report doesn't mention Dahiya Doctrine but responds to what individuals/activist movements have described as part of a "Dahiya" doctrine. I'd say a deletion is in order unless editors can prove the Dahiya Doctrine exists outside of a quotation from a lone general. Wikifan^{Be nice} 13:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Please see my comment of 12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC).     ←   ZScarpia   16:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - These google book hits may help. <added> I also meant to say that I would prefer a separate article because the "doctrine" seems to be discussed in terms of being a property of the IDF with it's own set of intrinsic properties rather than a property of a person, Eizenkot. In other words, it's described and discussed in its own right (in addition to being described and discussed in relation to Eizenkot) rather like general relativity and Einstein. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I've read all the sources referenced here, and every single one of them - with the exception of Falk - cited Dahiya in the words of Eizenkot and then writers go on their own analysis. No evidence has been provided that a Dahiya Doctrine exists. Just because writers say something is a doctrine (code of rules) again and again doesn't make it true. Where is the proof? If the Israeli Army officially posted something called the Dahiya Doctrine similar to say the Samson option that would be very helpful but I can't find anything. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources available. In fact this topic not only has many sources but has had periodic mention within the media. There was an article in New Statesman which mentioned it just a few weeks ago. I would argue that the article needs expansion and work. But sources are definitely available.

On the issue of merging, I am not sure which article this would fit under. I would certainly argue that this is notable enough to deserve its own article.

On the issue of naming the article, I am uncertain. The original source called the the "Dahiya Strategy" but every other source since then has called it the "Dahiya Doctrine". What is the applicable guideline on this? Poyani (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources you post. Dahiya is only mentioned once, and that is an editorial.

Eizenkot was threatening to deploy a strategy known as the Dahiya Doctrine, named after the Shia district of Beirut where Hezbollah has its headquarters, an area that came under heavy aerial attack during the summer of 2006. A similar fate awaited the residents of Bint J'Bayel, el-Hiam and elsewhere, Eizenkot promised. However, the attack never came.

I've look through a lot of references, all point back to Eizenkot and then writers draw their own conclusions independent of Eizenkot. Why is this? Maybe because there is no such thing as the Dahiya Doctrine outside of a quotation made by a single general? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I also included a link to a google search of news archives pertaining to the Dahiya Doctrine. It is certainly notable and worthy of an article. As for its existence or accuracy, Eizenkot has stated its premise and noted that it is in practice. No IDF official has denied or contradicted this, so I don't really understand what the problem is. Poyani (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read through the google search news archives. Virtually all of the articles cite Eizenkot's statements. Poyani, that is junky logic. Hitchen's would say "something presented without evidence needs no evidence to argue against it.." not his precise words mind you, but same idea. Israel has dozens or possibly hundreds of generals, statements from one doesn't necessarily reflect the policy of the entire army. Franks said "We don't do body counts" during the Iraq War, well...we now know they do. And that received way more news than this. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the sources is "Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century Proceedings By Air Force Research Institute".[6] They are talking about the strategy. The general provided a convenient name. I think it's like scientists giving newly discovered species names. We write standalone articles about the species. We don't incorporate the description of the properties of the species in the article about the scientist. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Air Force Institute actually made a disclaimer saying they did not necessarily agree with nay of the presenters. But it is still good enough for RS. However, if that paragraph is the best we have then we do not have an article. No editor has provided an in-depth RS on such a strategy which puts its legitimatecy in question. We know a comander talked about such a move and we know that there have been accusations but we really don't have any meat to write an article. Right now we have a structure (I made that) and we have some info but it is too unclear for an article. So you all can complain about a POV tag when you really should have been more worried about AfD 06:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That is probably about as good a source as it gets at the moment and seems to be pretty representative of the relatively shallow-depth of coverage. However, if people are "worried" about AfD or the purity of arms reputation of the IDF etc they probably shouldn't be editing the article. I wouldn't oppose it being sent to AfD but I suspect it would be kept as no consensus. The article is in a lot better shape than a great many others. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"That is probably about as good a source as it gets" (thank you and I told you so). I have been assuming someone can swoop in with an amazing source. But it hasn't happened. I thought proposing a merge unofficially would result in some sources but it hasn't happened. So does anyone have anything? I would hate to request an AfD (I lean towards being an inclusionist when it comes to articles) but right now we are looking at a POV coatrack that has quotes that are/should be in other articles. Can anyone present a source to actually describe this supposed doctrine? We could always change the title to "A doctrine that some people say exists that may be named after some town" but that would just highlight how ambiguous the subject really is. WP:NOT is criteria for deletion. Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century Proceedings By Air Force Research Institute" isn't the actual source, that is just the book/journal/collection that hosts a short essay written by Cain called "Deterrence and the Israeli-Hezbollla War." He doesn't describe the Dahiya Doctrine independent of Eizenkot, and he only mentions it once in the same context all the other sources have described it. The only source that actually expands on the Dahiya doctrine is the Falk blog link but he doesn't really specify what Dahiya Doctrine is other than a quotation made by some general and thus explains Israel's ROE in Gaza/WB/wherever conflict is. Doctrine is a heavy word. We have The Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine, etc. If no codified rules exist then all we have is a quotation from Eizenkot morphed into a "doctrine" by third party commentators. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, are you proposing a move to "Dahiya Strategy"? I understand a lot of your concerns, but I think you are setting the bar for the article a little too high. You have stated numerous times that Eizenkot is the only person from the IDF who has actually referred to this. That is true. But I don't think we need a second source from the IDF. Note that the Bush Doctrine and Obama Doctrine articles you linked actually have no source from the US Executive. None whatsoever. They are just terms which have entered the foreign policy lexicon. The same is true of Dahiya Doctrine. It is widely used to describe an Israeli military policy of creating deterrence via attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure. I think that warrants an article. It does not actually need to be codified within the IDF as "THE DAHIYA DOCTRINE". That name though, is the most widely used reference to that apparent policy (much like the Bush, Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and Obama doctrines). Even if you call this a strategy the same rules apply. Note for example that there was no German manual in WWII refering to the Blitzkrieg strategy. That just a widely used term in academia and the media to describe an apparent German tactic/strategy. Poyani (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So now it's a strategy? Poyani, we can only go by what the sources tell us. Perhaps comparisons to the Obama Doctrine and Bush Doctrine weren't fair, but the Dahiya doctrine is not up to par with those articles. Bush had a doctrine, Obama has a doctrine. Israel probably has a doctrine too - but not the "Dahiya" doctrine. If the article is gonna stay, it should be moved to Cptono's "A doctrine that some people say exists that may be named after some town." That's what the sources tell us. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not implying it was a strategy. I was asking you for your opinion. However, regarding Cptnono's statement, it is important to note that his description of "doctrine" is actually true of essentially every military doctrine. As I noted before, neither doctrines nor strategies need be part of a military's official documents. They enter the foreign policy lexicon because they are predictive systems for analyzing a nation's behaviour. This is just as true of the "Dahiya Doctrine" as it is of any other doctrine. That is why I brought up the definition of "Blitzkrieg". The article for it clearly states "Academics since the 1970s have questioned the existence of blitzkrieg as a coherent military doctrine or strategy". If so, why does it have its own article? The answer is, because it has entered the foreign policy/military lexicon. The "Dahiya Doctrine" has one more official source (Eizenkot), than Blitzkrieg does. Poyani (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My position on deletion or merge is strictly based on the lack of sources to support a unique article. Every source in the article relies on a single man and they all appear to mimmick or emulate what other sources said. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to not seek merger or deletion if:

1)Multiple unbiased sources detail the implementation of proposed strategy.

or 2) Multiple unbiased sources discuss the accusation and the article is clear that it is not known if it is in place

or maybe even 3)if a hybrid of the above was done with NPOV in mind.

It all boils down to wikifan's comments above. Show us some sources or it really is time for it to go. I think the accusation alone could meet GNG but haven;t found enough RS. What about you guys? Care to try harder?Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono - please review this selection of RS to see if they meet your requirements. Note, these RS are neither exhaustive nor a representation of all RS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Poyani (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Poyani, every source you've listed basically says the same thing.

• "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot No mention of any "doctrine."
• Fox link isn't loading for me.
• "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot. No mention of doctrine
• One army officer, Maj.-Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, has spoken of the "Dahiya doctrine," named after the Beirut suburbs considered a Hezbollah stronghold where Israel destroyed dozens of buildings in 2006. Okay, she says "Dahiya doctrine." But doesn't explain what it is or how it is implemented. A general policy of deterrence does not = Dahiya Doctrine. The source still defers to Eisenkot. Not sure how reliable whig is, I think the source might be a lift from NYT
• One army officer, Major General Gadi Eizenkot, has spoken of the "Dahiya doctrine," named after the Beirut suburbs considered a Hezbollah stronghold where Israel destroyed dozens of buildings in 2006. Same source as the one above, different publication
• Not sure how reliable this is. Hirst says Gaza is one of the most "densely populated places on Earth" which is patently false. Hirst too refers to Eizenkot, but assumes his statements are part of general Israeli policy. I don't know - he is a journalist. Whatever makes a story sound juicier. But none of these sources indicate a "dahiya doctrine" exists outside of Eizenkot. Hirst puts the concept in quotations, and for good reason. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we have two different questions here.

1. Notability of the term Dahiya doctrine per WP:N.
2. The meaning of the term Dahiya doctrine: is it an IDF strategy or phrase by Eizenkot that journalists liked a lot.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan - the fox news link does work for me. It is called "Israeli general warns Hezbollah of harsh response". Maybe you can access it if you google the name. Furthermore, please note that the notion that Gaza is among the most densely populated places on earth is not patently false. It is true. Note that "places" and "cities" are not the same thing. The Gaza Strip is not a city. It is a tract of land. I don't see how the UN source is not reliable. Poyani (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other links as well:

• Dahiya Doctrine: Fighting Dirty or Knock-Out Punch
• This tactic was used in Lebanon in 2006 and was referred to as the Dahiya doctrine, after the district in south Beirut where Hizbullah was based.
• The investigation concluded that the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Israeli forces was the result of the “Dahiya doctrine” which emerged during the Lebanon war of 2006.
• Let me turn now to the substance,” he said in a soft voice, and described the “Dahiya doctrine.” That principle was established after Israeli forces destroyed a Beirut neighborhood in 2006 Poyani (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer ElComandanteChe's questions:

1. It is certainly notable. It is covered in many places. Aside from the print media, it is covered in a UN report

2. As I noted above, it is not relevant whether or not the IDF have the same name for the same doctrine. As previously noted, the Germans never had anything named "Blitzkrieg", yet there is an article which describes that military doctrine. Same is true as Wikifan noted of the "Carter Doctrine", the "Reagan Doctrine" or the "Bush Doctrine". These are not names of official American doctrines, but rather phrases which have entered the foreign policy lexicon. For the sake of argument, pretend tomorrow it is discovered that the Israelis have the same doctrine entitled "Doctrine #171597546". Even if that happened to be the case, it does not follow that we should rename the article to "Doctrine #171597546". Instead we should continue to use the phrase which has penetrated the foreign policy lexicon and is in use. Poyani (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

More content and sources to be added

The suggestion made above that this article could be deleted or merged as not notable represents a truly extraordinary "reach". As was noted previously, the specific phrase that gives this article its title is used and discussed in literature from sources as diverse as the Air Force Research Institute and Israel's own Goldstone Mission report, which employes it extensively. Already mentioned in the article, is the (also extensive) discussion of the term in a report by the internationally recognized human rights organization, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

Not yet mentioned are papers from the Brookings Institution, one of the most prominent thinktanks in the world, where a new-this-month analysis also discusses the doctrine in considerable depth.. Nor are any of the multiple scholarly articles that use and discuss the phrase and the policy it identifies mentioned in the article; see footnote.

Dershowitz even uses and discusses the phrase, as do Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, although Finkelstein calls it the "Dahiya strategy" in his book, This Time We Went Too Far, not mentioned previously here..

Besides the JPost, Haaretz, and Y-net links already mentioned, Al Jazeerah uses the phrase. The New York Times also uses it, and discusses its implications. My local access point for the Proquest newspaper database has been down for maintenance most of the day, but I imagine a search via that indexing/"clipping" service would yield more newspaper results, as well.

Btw, like other sources, the New York Times article I cited very properly refers to a particular statement made by an Israeli Colonel ( now in the reserves ) and "senior advisor to the IDF" named Gabriele "Gabi" Siboni, and our own article should, too. Siboni's statement was published by the (Israeli) Institute for National Security Studies that he directs, and was entitled, Disproportionate Force: Israel’s Concept of Response in Light of the Second Lebanon War.

Although Siboni's statement didn't employ the name "Dahiya doctrine", it was widely seen as direct support for it. That statement needs to mentioned and cited in this article, along with most of the other refs editors have provided here in response to the suggestion that this isn't notable.

Just below I've provided a local ref list for the citations in my previous comments. If you need to include any refs of your own anywhere on this talk page, please be sure to provide your own {{Reflist|local="yes"}} line like the one I've used here, to keep your refs (and mine) below text that they correctly apply to.

-- refs for my preceding comments --

Btw, I'm not devoting much time to Wikipedia currently, nor really to checking my watchlist, either, so I'd be grateful for a ping to my talk page if anyone were to actually make any serious attempt to delete or merge this article. For the same reason, I'd also be grateful to anyone who can find the time to add content based on these or any of the other relvant sources mentioned by other editors, or to (for example) revisit Google Scholar to complete the review that I only touched on with one paper as an example. Given my reduced participation, I can't promise when or if I'll make time to introduce any of this into the article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read the sources and all are like the others - rely on one Israeli general or anonymous sources. Many of the sources you list were already discussed.

• entire explanation of "dahiya doctrine" comes straight from General Gadi Eisenkot, pg 20.
• at least one senior Israeli Army commander — have called the “Dahiya doctrine,” referring to the intention to inflict immense damage and destruction, an approach that would inevitably lead to civilian deaths.
• editorial
• "The “Dahiyah doctrine” that Israel revealed in 2008, which calls for an intense bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, serves as a factor of deterrence" - not enough to support an article. Only mentioned twice in a passive voice
• Doesn't even mention Dahiya
• Not sure on Finkelstein

This article should have been deleted awhile ago. There is no evidence to suggest a "Dahiya doctrine" exists outside of a quote from a single general. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we all have our opinions. But it'd be pleasant if you'd read what I wrote and what the links I provided actually say with greater care next time. For example, you obviously read only the executive summary for the 23-page Brookings Institution paper that I said was downloadable at the page I linked to, since you think it mentions the doctrine only twice, and are also apparently unaware that its discussion of the doctrine is integral to the analysis it presents. Doing so might also prevent you from repeating back to me the things I just explicitly stated myself as if they'll come as some shocking surprise, e.g. that the link I supplied to Disproportionate Force from the director of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, doesn't name the doctrine. ( Sidoni's INSS piece was, as I said, widely seen as supporting the doctrine. To be still more explicit, The New York Times cites it for that reason exactly, while the Brookings Institution paper discusses it as an extension of the doctrine. )

But what matters isn't your opinion or mine, but rather that an abundance of reliable sources use the name "Dahiya doctrine" to refer to a particular military policy that they assert Israel operates by, and which calls for a massively disproportionate response to destroy civilian infrastructure under rules of engagement that make little practical distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and that has the goal of inflicting so much pain directly on a civilian population that it will require its own soldiers to refrain from any hostilities against Israel. Whether that's moral or likely to prove effective are separate questions that many of these sources also take up, but there's simply no reasonable way to deny that it's a policy that's broadly attributed by reliable sources to Israel under just the name our article uses to identify it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please copy and paste what the Brooking Institute specifically says? All the other sources you listed - including the editorials - assign the "Dahiya doctrine" to one source - Eisenkot. The rest is their own commentary. Doctrine infers a codified rules of engagement. So far the Israeli Army has yet to announce any "Dahiya doctrine" and the "doctrine" was mostly used in reference to the bombing of Dahiya in the second Lebanon War. The Goldstone Report only mentions Dahiya like 3 or 4 times, and not in the way editors here insist it is. The article, as it stands currently, has very little value and most of it is lifted from the 2006 Lebanon War and Gadi Eizenkot. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to download it for some reason? If so, perhaps I or another of your wikifriends can send a copy to you as e-mail attachment, e.g. to a single-use/disposable e-mail address created for the purpose with Google or Yahoo Mail? It's about 366 KB, roughly a third of a megabyte. The name/phrase "Dahiyah doctrine" is explicitly used six times in the paper, and the concept is discussed most explicitly and at greatest length beginning on page 18 under the subheading "A Limited Aims Strategy". That discussion comprises all of page 19, as well, although the concept is discussed elsewhere in the paper; as I said, it really is integral to the paper. All this makes a copy-paste impractical, as does the pdf's two-column format; sentences from one column ended up being interleaved and confused with sentences from the other when I tried. Please let me know on my talk if you'd like to make arrangements for me to send a copy of the file to you via e-mail attachment.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to understand your apparent objection to this article more clearly, if possible. You seem to imply that opposing editors believe there's some ultra-secret Israeli policy document entitled "The Dahiya Doctrine" that spells out these rules of engagement; but no one here is saying so. What we are all saying is that Israel isn't trying to hide the fact that it responds disproportionately in the ways I and others have described here, and that "the Dahiya doctrine" is simply the name that has "stuck" for the nature of that response.

Nations and empires throughout history have often responded to guerrilla warfare or acts of sabotage in ways similar to this. If you leave moral questions completely out of it, and think only in terms of strategy, it's easy to see why: When a nation's military can't find its opposing combatants, making the surrounding civilian population suffer until that population demands that its combatants stop fighting can seem like the only alternative. This isn't exactly the same thing as what's usually called a "scorched earth" policy, but it's closely related; you might like to have a look at that article. The American military operated by a similar policy, at least in part, in Vietnam and Cambodia, for example, especially in its massive aerial bombardment of Cambodia. I don't understand why, despite the existence of such extensive evidence to the contrary, you seem to think its impossible that Israel should follow such a policy as well?  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think editors understand the concept of "proportionality" when it comes to warfare in international law. And Norman Finkelstein is not exactly a balanced source. He too defers to Eisenkot and relies on his own original research. What is in the article right now is simply not enough to support its existence. There is no such thing as a "Dahiya Doctrine" in the Israeli Army. All mentions of Dahiya should be merged to 2006 Lebanon War (where the vast majority of courses describe it in that conflict) or Eisenkot himself, assuming the content isn't already there. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors probably understand what the reliable sources state, that Israel has, and intends, to respond "disproportionately". This is a word increasingly used by other national leaders and the reports of observer bodies. 86.160.230.76 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead

"Israel has been accused of at least partially implementing the strategy during Operation Cast Lead."

That sounds awkward. Wouldn't it be better just to write:

"Israel has been accused of implementing the strategy during Operation Cast Lead."?

It's more concise and less awkward this way. Poyani (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Date in article in Footnote 4

I changed the date in Footnote 4. The article shows the date in wrong date format. It was not published in 10.03.2008 but in 3.10.2008. See for example this article referring to the Ynet article one day later: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\10\04\story_4-10-2008_pg7_54 or this one 2 days later: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/analysis-idf-plans-to-use-disproportionate-force-in-next-war-1.254954

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

I think that a tag should be added to the use of this tactics in the latest Gaza war. 79.181.112.220 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. - Arjayay (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

New reference - WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks recently released some documents about Israel, including this one: REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.37.144.189 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Category

We on Wikipedia generally use more specific categories where appropriate. Terrorism is to broad a category for acts committed by a country, which is why there is a sub-category Terrorism committed by country. Im restoring that original, long-standing category to this page. nableezy - 18:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"The doctrine is defined in a 2009 report ..."

How is this a "Criticism"? It is an attempt to justify the doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Aumann passage

The article included this paragraph, under the heading "Similar suggestions", but I've moved it here in order to discuss it.

Similar suggestions

Israeli game theorist and Nobel laureate in Economics professor Robert Aumann suggested a similar strategy in a lecture, that would theoretically deter Hamas from launching rockets. The concept is simple in game theoretic terms, but causes a fairly heated debate when viewed from a moral perspective. Aumann proposed a system of automatic retaliation, that would launch a missile aimed randomly at the Gaza Strip, every time a rocket was fired out of it. Because this hypothetical system would be automatic, it basically creates a diffusion of responsibility for Israeli forces, essentially making it so militants would be firing missiles at both Israel and themselves. Most of the criticism of this theory, comes from the simple fact that Israel would be divorcing itself from the responsibility and moral repercussions of the killing of innocent civilians.

References

Neither of the sources mention the "Dahiya doctrine". If there is no reliable source connecting this with the Dahiya doctrine, the connection is a novel synthesis. Gabbe (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dahiya doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215081903/http://www.stoptorture.org.il/files/no%20second%20thoughts_ENG_WEB.pdf to http://www.stoptorture.org.il/files/no%20second%20thoughts_ENG_WEB.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dahiya doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103151014/http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291226472866.pdf to http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291226472866.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Undid the recent move — no consensus and against WP:ARBPIA3 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Dahyia doctrine → Dahiya doctrine – An obvious typo Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broken links

The link in footnote 1 leads to "This site can’t be reached" with Chrome, "Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site." with Firefox, "Hmmm… can't reach this page" with Edge.

References