Talk:IDF Code of Ethics

Edit request 11 June 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

Add both sides to the criticism section.

Kasher and Yadlin explain clearly their decision to rank the protection of soldiers over the protection of foreign non-combatants in 'Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: An Israeli Perspective' (https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570510014642).

These issues are discussed in the linked paper, and should be mentioned to provide a balanced and neutral perspective on the subject.


Diff:

In fact, Khalidi points out that Kasher and Yaldin stated they "reject the common conception of noncombatants having preference over combatants" in their 2005 paper Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: An Israeli Perspective.[8][9]
+
In fact, Khalidi points out that Kasher and Yaldin stated they "reject the common conception of noncombatants having preference over combatants" in their 2005 paper Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: An Israeli Perspective. Kasher and Yadlin justify this decision in their paper. It outlines clearly that the hierarchy of priorities they institute is the direct result of the local terror doctrine of using human shields to protect military assets/personnel, and explain the implication that if a soldier is forced to protect an enemy non-combatant it would make responding to the terror threat impossible and only further incentivise the use of human shields. An additional implication is that if a soldier is legally mandated to endanger themself in order to protect a foreign non-combatant, used as a human shield, the terror group can actually attack the local non-combatants directly, and the soldiers in the area would be required to endanger themselves to save them.

HealthyBias (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I suggest a discussion establishes a consensus as to potential issues of WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and WP:BALANCE before adding the material. Fortuna, imperatrix 11:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]