military

Israel Defense Forces

Israel’s military institution, scored separately from the civilian government because its ordinary function is coercive force and its recent conduct has generated extensive war-crimes and civilian-harm findings and allegations. Israel Defense Forces scores low because of coercive violence, documented human harm, and person-dependent governance, with extractive economics and poor loss-bearing fidelity reinforcing the negative evaluation.

Why this matters: A military should not inherit a civilian state’s democratic credit when its institutional purpose and harm profile are materially different.

Letter grade F Malignant Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score -70* F - Malignant

FMALIGNANT-70 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material3

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap3

Penalties-73

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

F - Malignant

The score turns mainly on Governance, with the largest penalty coming from Coercive Violence.

Strengths

Governance1/10
Labor Sovereignty1/7
Product Integrity1/5

Penalties

Coercive Violence-30
Human Harm-20
Ecological Harm-7
Reversibility-5

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims9
Direct axis claims9
Coverage9/17

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	0 / 10	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Ownership: decisive control remains with shareholders, private owners, executives, or state insiders rather than affected people. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 11 tied, 215 above on Ownership. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	1 / 10	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Governance: ordinary users, workers, customers, or affected communities cannot change the rules that govern them. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 2 scored entries below, 68 tied, 156 above on Governance. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	0 / 10	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Extraction: the business model makes extraction from workers, users, suppliers, customers, or the public central rather than incidental. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 1 tied, 225 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	1 / 7	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Labor Sovereignty: labor remains managerially controlled, replaceable, or exposed to coercive employment and contracting conditions. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 1 scored entries below, 6 tied, 219 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	0 / 7	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the model provides little protection for people who leave, are excluded, or cannot bargain from employment. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 2 tied, 224 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	0 / 7	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Loss-Bearing Fidelity: losses, hazards, or adjustment costs are routinely pushed onto workers, customers, suppliers, communities, or the public. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 11 tied, 215 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	0 / 5	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Market Conduct: market power, lock-in, coercive pricing, or exclusionary conduct is a major part of the institution's position. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 14 tied, 212 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	1 / 5	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Product Integrity: the core offering is closely tied to harmful, addictive, deceptive, degrading, or low-integrity product design. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 5 scored entries below, 17 tied, 204 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	0 / 5	The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. The linked record identifies The IDF as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. That keeps Israel Defense Forces low on Scale Integrity: scale magnifies harm, gatekeeping, opacity, or extraction rather than disciplining it. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 13 tied, 213 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body. [1]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	Any restraint by the IDF depends on command policy, civilian oversight, courts, and wartime choices rather than institution-level democratic control by affected civilians. Any restraint by the IDF depends on command policy, civilian oversight, courts, and wartime choices rather than institution-level democratic control by affected civilians. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence Any restraint by the IDF depends on command policy, civilian oversight, courts, and wartime choices rather than institution-level democratic control by affected civilians. [2]
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-20	Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report severe Israeli military abuses in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory, including alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report severe Israeli military abuses in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory, including alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. That warrants a severe Human Harm penalty because ordinary operation, documented misconduct, or institutional power creates serious injury, deprivation, abuse, or foreseeable human damage. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 9 tied, 217 above on Human Harm. Linked evidence Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report severe Israeli military abuses in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory, including alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. [3]
Coercive Violence ? Direct or institutionally enabled killing, torture, detention abuse, armed repression, forced displacement, violent domination, or nonconsensual crisis-line emergency escalation that exposes callers to confinement or force. Range: -30 to 0.	-30	The IDF is Israel's military command institution and is directly tied in verified claims to Gaza war harms, alleged war crimes, and military domination of civilians. The IDF is Israel's military command institution and is directly tied in verified claims to Gaza war harms, alleged war crimes, and military domination of civilians. That warrants a severe Coercive Violence penalty because the institution uses, enables, profits from, or materially supports violent domination, detention abuse, war, or armed coercion. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 2 tied, 224 above on Coercive Violence. Linked evidence The IDF is Israel's military command institution and is directly tied in verified claims to Gaza war harms, alleged war crimes, and military domination of civilians. [4]
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-7	The Israel Defense Forces get a material Ecological Harm penalty because UNEP-linked conflict evidence describes extensive rubble, waste, pollution, and environmental damage in Gaza. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 33 scored entries below, 9 tied, 184 above on Ecological Harm. Linked evidence UNEP reports extensive environmental damage from the Gaza conflict, including destruction, rubble, waste, and pollution risks. [5]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Military targeting, intelligence, detention, and wartime operational systems create substantial opacity and accountability barriers. Military targeting, intelligence, detention, and wartime operational systems create substantial opacity and accountability barriers. That warrants a severe Accountability Opacity penalty because material facts, risks, conflicts, ownership, or accountability information are obscured from the public. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 52 tied, 174 above on Accountability Opacity. Linked evidence Military targeting, intelligence, detention, and wartime operational systems create substantial opacity and accountability barriers. [6]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Military institutions inherently produce strong identity, obedience, and enemy-category pressures, which are especially acute in prolonged occupation and war. Military institutions inherently produce strong identity, obedience, and enemy-category pressures, which are especially acute in prolonged occupation and war. That warrants a substantial Identity Capture penalty because users, workers, customers, or publics are pressured into identity attachment that protects institutional power. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 13 scored entries below, 10 tied, 203 above on Identity Capture. Linked evidence Military institutions inherently produce strong identity, obedience, and enemy-category pressures, which are especially acute in prolonged occupation and war. [7]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-4	The IDF operates within an Israeli security architecture of surveillance, targeting, checkpoints, intelligence, and movement control affecting Palestinians and civilians in conflict zones. The IDF operates within an Israeli security architecture of surveillance, targeting, checkpoints, intelligence, and movement control affecting Palestinians and civilians in conflict zones. That warrants a severe Surveillance Capture penalty because customers, workers, users, bystanders, or the public are exposed to invasive tracking, biometrics, or behavior scanning. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 13 scored entries below, 11 tied, 202 above on Surveillance Capture. Linked evidence The IDF operates within an Israeli security architecture of surveillance, targeting, checkpoints, intelligence, and movement control affecting Palestinians and civilians in conflict zones. [8]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	Israel Defense Forces's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Israel Defense Forces combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with… Israel Defense Forces's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Israel Defense Forces combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise. That warrants a severe Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Israel Defense Forces's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Israel Defense Forces combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise. [9]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 70/100

9 verified linked claims 9 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 9/17 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

9 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

9 direct claims across 17 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 5/10

9/17 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1The IDF describes itself as Israel’s military, making coercive command authority and organized violence its institutional purpose rather than a democratic workplace or civil-service body.

Governance Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

IDF official siteGeneral web source · 58%

2Any restraint by the IDF depends on command policy, civilian oversight, courts, and wartime choices rather than institution-level democratic control by affected civilians.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

IDF official siteGeneral web source · 58%

3Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report severe Israeli military abuses in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory, including alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Human Harm Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Human Rights Watch: Israel and PalestineGeneral web source · 58%
Amnesty International: Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories reportGeneral web source · 58%

4The IDF is Israel's military command institution and is directly tied in verified claims to Gaza war harms, alleged war crimes, and military domination of civilians.

Coercive Violence Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Human Rights Watch: Israel and PalestineGeneral web source · 58%
Amnesty International: Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories reportGeneral web source · 58%
IDF official siteGeneral web source · 58%

5UNEP reports extensive environmental damage from the Gaza conflict, including destruction, rubble, waste, and pollution risks.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

UNEP: Environmental impact of the conflict in GazaGeneral web source · 58%

6Military targeting, intelligence, detention, and wartime operational systems create substantial opacity and accountability barriers.

Accountability Opacity Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Human Rights Watch: Israel and PalestineGeneral web source · 58%

7Military institutions inherently produce strong identity, obedience, and enemy-category pressures, which are especially acute in prolonged occupation and war.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

IDF official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Human Rights Watch: Israel and PalestineGeneral web source · 58%

8The IDF operates within an Israeli security architecture of surveillance, targeting, checkpoints, intelligence, and movement control affecting Palestinians and civilians in conflict zones.

Surveillance Capture Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Human Rights Watch: Israel and PalestineGeneral web source · 58%
Freedom House: West Bank, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

9Israel Defense Forces's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Israel Defense Forces combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Israel Defense Forces official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Human Rights Watch: Israel and PalestineGeneral web source · 58%
Amnesty International: Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories reportGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

AGOOD51 Republic of Finland government · Finland

Competitors

FMALIGNANT-19 Palestinian Authority government / limited self-government authority · same market FMALIGNANT-52 State of Israel government government · same market FMALIGNANT-60 Hamas armed group / de facto authority · same market AGOOD51 Republic of Finland government · Finland CPERFORMATIVE37 Kingdom of Norway government · Norway DEXTRACTIVE27 Federal Student Aid U.S. Department of Education student-aid office · United States DEXTRACTIVE23 United Nations intergovernmental organization · Global FMALIGNANT-17 United States federal government government · United States

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Israel Defense Forces Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding

View Full Audit Log