Talk:Shaul Mofaz

Removed material

In the following sentence: "However, he drew criticism for left groups because of the harsh methods he had undertaken (such as house demolitions)" I think the word "harsh" is a POV. It is a personal opinion and definitely doesn't add any information. Therefore I removed it.

Ever had your house knocked down? Tapered (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

---

I moved this part from the article on Mofaz.

In February 2004, Sharon signaled the world that all of Mofaz's & IDFs harsh tactics against the Palestinians including totally isolating Arafat, had failed completely and ordered the settlements in Gaza to be evacuated starting this summer.

It was from the following reason:

1. It is not related to Mofaz directly.
2. It is a commantary of the (unknown) writer.
3. "Completly faield" - according to who?
4. It is inaccurate. There wasn't any order from Sharon to evacuate Gaza. This plan is still under consideration.
5. It is very POV and lacks any encylopedian value.

MathKnight 18:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POV. Did Second Intifada "erupt?"

In the following sentence: But the most significant event in his tenure was the eruption of the Second Intifada, the word "erupted" is a POV and misleading. The intifada did not erupt any more than WWII had erupted. It was a pre-planned action by Arafat and his subordinates. 75.85.81.0 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Crucial context and content

The sentence: The tough tactics undertaken by Mofaz drew widespread concern from the international community but were broadly supported by the Israeli public. Controversy erupted over the offensive in Jenin, intermittent raids in the Gaza Strip, and the continued isolation of Yasser Arafat is problematic: the crucial content is missing and things are placed out of crucial context.

Changing it to The tough tactics undertaken by Mofaz froze the intifada and saved lives of thousands of people on both sides. They drew widespread concern from the international community but were broadly supported by the Israeli public. 75.85.81.0 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another "eruption"

In the following sentence: Controversy erupted over the offensive in Jenin, intermittent raids in the Gaza Strip, and the continued isolation of Yasser Arafat, the word "erupted" is a POV and misleading. The controversies "erupted" because Palestinian propaganda machine spread lies and misinformation, readily picked up by Jerw-haters of the world without an ounce of doubt about its veracity.75.85.81.0 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

UK Independent report on Mofaz "70" comments

I'm a supporter of Israel and the IDF in particular, but having read this news story, I wonder if it shouldn't be included on this page, especially considering he is vying to lead Kadima. From the article:

A leading candidate to be Israel's next premier called for a death toll of 70 Palestinians a day when he was head of the military during the second intifada, according to a best-selling book by two Israeli journalists.

The account of a briefing given in May 2001 to senior West Bank army commanders reinforces the image of hawkishness enjoyed by Shaul Mofaz. He has emerged as the main rival to the Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, for the leadership of the Kadima party being vacated by Ehud Olmert. Mr Mofaz is expected to stress his security credentials as a former chief of staff and defence minister in his campaign to defeat Ms Livni, the most popular among the Israeli public of the candidates to succeed Mr Olmert as party leader.

According to the book Boomerang, by Ofer Shelah, of Yedhiot Ahronot, and Raviv Drucker, of Channel Ten, Mr Mofaz convened a meeting of brigade and regimental commanders covering the occupied West Bank at Jerusalem's Ammunition Hill. It occurred early in the premiership of Ariel Sharon when the intifada was well under way.

Anyone else paying attention to this page, or have any thoughts? If I do write something about it, but I would keep it very short and tasteful. But I am also not sure it really deserves to be in here, as it is thus far just alleged. But it does seem relevant. Thoughts? --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure it has no place here. Just as I do not think that Wikipedia readers should be informed that Arafat was crucified (based on Aftonbladet article "The Crucifixion of Arafat." Or that IDF harvests organs of dead Palestinians (based on Aftonbladet article by Donald Boström). Or that accusations against Jews that were printed in Der Sturmer should be placed under entry about Jews. Things of this sort belong under entry "Antisemitism."

Therefore, I am taking it out.75.85.81.0 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniqueness?

"Mofaz has had the unique distinction of serving under four different Israeli Prime Ministers...". I'm sure that this isn't a unique distinction for Mofaz. Eli Yishai certainly fits in this category. The section should either be removed or reworded to something like "Mofaz is one of the few who have served...". Cymruisrael (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checked some more - Ehud Barak has served under 5 PMs: Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Sharon and Olmert Cymruisrael (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the statement is unsourced, and most likely incorrect, I am editing the sentence to remove the "unique distinction" language. The resulting sentence probably does not belong in the intro but I am leaving it there for now. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets take a look at some of the most eternal politicians of Israel. Shimon Peres served under [1] Meir, [2] Rabin, [3] Shamir, [4] Barak, [5] Sharon, [6] Olmert, before becoming president. David Levy served under [1] Begin, [2] Shamir, [3] Peres, [4] Netanyahu, [5] Barak, [6] Sharon. But the record holder is Yosef Burg, who served under [1] Ben-Gurion, [2] Sharett, [3] Eshkol [4] Meir, [5] Rabin [6] Begin [7] Shamir [8] Peres. That is 2/3 of all prime minsters to date! gidonb (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Will he commit suicide now?

СЛУЖБА (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)