This is an archive of past discussions about 2000 Ramallah lynching. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Referring to the two Israelis as "IDF reservists" is an inaccurate representation. They should be referred to as civilians, because they are civilians. IDF reservists makes it seem like they are willingly involved in the military. Almost all Israeli's are required to be reservists, and that does not change the fact that they are civilians. It should still be mentioned that they are reservists, but for the opening paragraph it should be changed to "Civilians". In summary change " Israel Defense Forces reservists." to "civilians." Ed1225 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The Israeli press called them "reservists" or "soldiers". They were reporting for duty in uniform with their weapons. Not civilians. Zerotalk03:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, this is one of the more interesting and puzzling requests I have personally seen in the topic area. The perspective is surprising, that foreign soldiers on active duty on foreign soil are civilians because they are reservists. This is a way of thinking I've not seen before. I wonder how common it is in Israel (or Russia), how it comes about and whether any Wikipedia articles address it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Minor corrections to the record here. They were not on "active duty on foreign soil". They were reservists (as non-combatant drivers) of a foreign country driving in a civilian car to report for reserve duty -- which is not the same as active duty -- who were detained at another foreign country's roadblock. They were then transported by the local police to a police station. They were also in plainclothes, if one were to look at the (quite disturbing) photos of the incident, because reservists (in any country's military) are not considered to be on "duty" until they reach their base for assignment. This is different than the case of reservists who are activated to serve on active duty, such as what is occurring during the current Israel-Hamas war. So yes, technically, they were still civilians at the time of their detention, but non combatant would be a more appropriate word here. Zero0000, what sources support your statement that they were in uniform, because photos and video (not linking) of the lynchings beg to disagree? Longhornsg (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. So, in fact, I now realize that I probably don't really understand the nuances of the transition from non-combatant to combatant status as a non-combatant moves through time and space to report for duty as a combatant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I looked up the Jerusalem Post of the time and read the account of a journalist eye-witness that he knew that one of them was a soldier because of the khaki trousers and military boots. That's all I know about what they were wearing. Maybe they were dressed differently? The story linked above speaks of Arab headdress. I think that the clothing issue is confused by the rumor that they were undercover operatives. The Hebrew wiki explicitly says that their personal weapons were taken from them, so I take it that they were armed. It also says their duty began the day before(?). Israel considers enemy soldiers to be military targets whether they are on duty or not (same as US military law, also international law, see para 1677 here) so I don't see why the same shouldn't hold in reverse. In any case, none of this matters because we follow sources and all of the many sources I have looked at in the past couple of hours refer to them consistently as reservists or soldiers so we should too. Zerotalk09:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course, IHL also says they should be treated as POWs.
Thanks for your thoroughness. The page could use a lot of work anyway, so will make sure the language is also faithful to what the sources actually say. Longhornsg (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)