Talk:Gaza genocide

Insufficient sourcing for German ban

The article currently says:

Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.

The source used says:

Germany is supporting Israel at the ICJ and has banned the use of the word ‘genocide’ in relation to Israel, calling this charge ‘antisemitic’.

A straightforward reading of the source would indicate that the statement of the article is supported by the source. But the source itself doesn't cite any references with respect to this statement. And a google search also didn't yield much. If the German government has truly made such a ban it should be possible to find sources that directly support this (eg a source quoting the German government etc).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of stuff going on in Germany, which is worth looking into generally, as far as a ban on the word, I could only find this:

"The police in North Rhine-Westphalia started circulating an information brochure to regional schools, in which it states that accusing Israel of committing a genocide may constitute hate speech and may thus be indictable as a criminal offense" along with complaints of arrest for carrying genocide placards, etcetera.

I doubt that you would see a gov statement saying there is such a ban. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent Perhaps she is referring to this statement by Felix Klein:

"Anyone who accuses Israel of genocide is clearly acting in an antisemitic way because they are demonizing Israel, applying double standards, and specifically accusing the Jewish state of committing genocide like the Shoah. Because genocide would mean that the Israeli army is attacking to kill Palestinians - solely based on the fact that they are Palestinians."

Klein is Germany's Federal Commissioner for the Fight against Antisemitism. Kurat calls him "Germany's top bureaucrat dedicated to the fight against antisemitism," but this doesn't make his statements official political positions of Germany. DaWalda (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@DaWalda@Selfstudier@Vice regent: See e.g. this article, published this week. Describes the case of a Jewish woman arrested in Berlin last November for holding a sign saying: "Als Jüdin und Israelin: Stoppt den Genozid in Gaza" ("As a Jewish woman and an Israeli: Stop the genocide in Gaza"). The police say whether a statement like that is a hate crime is a "contextual decision arrived at on a case-by-case basis". (The case against the lady has since been dropped, without explanation.) Andreas JN466 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good source. I suspect, though, that the key basis for the suspicion of antisemitism is not the term 'genocide' itself, but rather its generalized association with Jewish/Israeli women (the police further explain: 'However, if the term genocide is used in connection with a blanket statement, for example, directed at the population of Israel, it could constitute a legally relevant statement.'). But by now, we would at least have enough for something like this:

While the accusation of genocide itself is not a criminal offense in Germany, the claim is widely condemned and often regarded with suspicion in public discourse.[FN 1: Germany’s Federal Commissioner for the Fight against Antisemitism has argued that accusing Israel of genocide is inherently antisemitic: Source] [FN 2: A brochure circulated by police advised schools that such accusations may constitute hate speech: Source 2] [FN 3: At least one instance is documented in which demonstrators were reported to authorities for using the term ‘genocide,’ though the case was dropped afterwards.] DaWalda (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Private court proceedings against Mark Regev

Mark Regev, former diplomat of Israel and adviser to Netanyahu, has had proceedings launched against him in Australia (where he has joint citizenship), for "advocacy for genocide". Wanting input on including a sentence on this in the legal proceedings section. Reported in:

• PENMelbourne (11 October)
• Middle East Monitor (21 October)
• Haaretz (22 October)

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Including everything single legal proceeding on this article is a bit too much. Obviously it's totally notable for inclusion on Regev's own article. On the other hand, the growing number of legal cases concerning this event deserves a separate comprehensive list article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yariv Levin calls for 20 year prison sentences for Israeli citizens that support sanctions

Something of possible interest to include in this and a few other related articles:

After Amos Schocken, the publisher of the Haaretz newspaper, called for international sanctions against Israel to put pressure for acceptance of a two-state solution and an end to ethnic cleansing, Israel's justice minister Yariv Levin demanded a new law imposing up to 20 years prison sentences for any Israelis who call for sanctions.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=tQmE0o4C9dE

https://www.jns.org/israeli-justice-minister-urges-jail-time-for-boycott-calls-by-citizens/

https://skwawkbox.org/2024/11/02/israeli-justice-minister-calls-for-law-for-20yr-prison-sentences-for-israelis-who-call-for-sanctions/

David A (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This should be covered in Human rights in Israel, as part of the lack of freedom of speech. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you willing to handle it please? David A (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a request: [8] David A (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Percentage of women and children and the New UN independent analysis

Recently, the UN published a report of its analysis covering verified victims from at least three independent sources found that 70% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza are women and children.

this is certainly a significant change, but i am not sure about somethings we should change in the article:

should we now raise the lower bound to the 70% figure in wikivoice ? This figure have been stated by Gaza health ministry and other sources earlier but in 2023, i cant find reports of this figure in 2024 sources.

or should we highlight the 70% figure and attribute it to the UN only ? (This is assuming that there are no other sources mentioning this figure since 2023, idk if thats true)

what do you think ? @Cdjp1 Stephan rostie (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the figure, there is the "systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law" that "may also constitute genocide", the reference to the ICJ rulings and a call to third states. This is a pretty serious upgrade of the UN response to what has happened in Gaza. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5wel11pgdo https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/nearly-70-gaza-war-dead-women-children-un-rights-office-says-2024-11-08/ https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20241108-nearly-70-percent-of-people-killed-in-gaza-women-and-children-un-finds Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The link you shared says "Nearly 70%". I think it can be used in Wikivoice where the 50% figure is now, but not as a lower bound. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to stay away from stating it in Wikivoice at this point, if we specify the percentage (as Bitspector highlights, it is "nearly" so we should state that) it is best to say it is from UN analysis from the sources. If others (news outlets, academic publications, NGOs) also come to a very similar number in their own analyses, we'd have footing to argue for stating the number in Wikivoice. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Genocide definition

Is there a particular reason why definitions for genocide are included in the article? No other articles on events that have been at least alleged as genocides by some include this, and including it at the start makes it read more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. Originalcola (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because there is an associated court case? Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

But that’s not really a justification for including the legal definition of genocide. To use a similar example, it’s like including the legal definition for defamation on a defamation trial page. You normally just link to another article like so. Furthermore, the “Other Defintions of Genocide” aren’t referenced even implicitly anywhere in this article nor are used in any of the trials; it is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article. Originalcola (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, idk about other articles but at this one, there has been a lot of discussion about the merits of the accusation and since this article is covering both the legal/non legal aspects, I think it doesn't hurt to have those definitions up front, it seems as if it would be helpful to the reader, I certainly don't agree that it is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You’ve convinced me, I hadn’t considered the readability of the article being lowered by not having a genocide definition. Originalcola (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unlike defamation, there is academic discussion about varying Genocide definitions. Genocide denial often involves using a non-standard definition of genocide (see this: "I do agree with the honourable gentleman," said Lammy, before redefining the term genocide in a way that no expert would recognise, let alone accept.)

There is no separate Gaza genocide denial article for now, so those views of genocide denial should be noted within this article. Unfortunately, genocide denial is a prominent view among western government officials. However, this is not unprecedented. For example, the genocide denial article dealing with the genocide of indigenous peoples also includes discussion of the definition of genocide. The section on rationalization also provides insight:

>>>American academic and activist Gregory Stanton has described ten stages of genocide, in which the ninth stage is extermination and the tenth is denial. During this final stage, Stanton argues that individuals and government may "deny that these crimes meet the definition of genocide", "question whether intent to destroy a group can be proven", and "often blame what happened on the victims". The concept of denial as the final stage of genocide has been discussed in more detail in the 2021 textbook Denial: The Final Stage of Genocide? Stanton also indicates that stages often co-occur; the first eight stages include classification, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, and persecution. Early denial of genocide often occurred through these stages. For instance, American historian David Stannard explained that European colonizers "purposefully and systematically dehumaniz[ed] the people they were exterminating".

>>>Further, South African sociologist Leo Kuper has described denial as a routine defense, referring to it as a consequence of the Genocide Convention. He argues that denial has become more prevalent because genocide is considered "an international crime with potentially significant sanctions by way of punishment, claims for reparation, and restitution of territorial rights".

I don't see how having an overview of the definition of genocide harms this article.

However, I'm going to add a "Main article" template to the "Other definitions of genocide" section that links to the Genocide definitions article, as that would provide important context. JasonMacker (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that my original point was poorly conceived and that including the definitions doesn't hurt, I'm no longer opposed to that. However, it seems like most of the arguments aren't strictly genocide denial per se, but more debating whether it should be considered a genocide. Since this is an article on genocide accusations, it's probably not wise to link to genocide denial, given a lack of consensus amongst editors or experts. Originalcola (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"it seems like most of the arguments aren't strictly genocide denial per se, but more debating whether it should be considered a genocide."

There's two different but related concepts when talking about genocide denial. First, there is a form of genocide denial that disputes the characterization of events. You can see the examples listed here, such as "It was self defense." This is not a denial of the events happening but rather offering a justification for it.

Second, there is the other kind of genocide denial, where specific events are claimed to have either not happpened at all or to have been exaggerated. An example given in the article is Mahmoud Abbas saying that only a few hundred thousand Jews died in the Holocaust.

In the specific case of Gaza genocide denial, there is definitely a mix of both of these forms of genocide denial.

In the first case, there are plenty of examples of people who are arguing that self defense is not genocide. see this Google search for plenty of examples (I should not that the terms in the search inquiry doesn't have words such as "Gaza" or "Israel" but almost all of the search results involve the Gaza genocide denial).

In the second case, there are also plenty of examples of people who dispute the number of Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza. (A search for "Hamas-run health ministry" should bring up plenty)

The point is that both of these are forms of genocide denial. It could be useful sometimes to distinguish between these two forms of genocide denial, but they're both genocide denial. JasonMacker (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I should note that a different way to parse the issue of Gaza genocide is through scholarly inquiry versus "petty" denial. Wikipedia, for example, has two separate articles on Holodomor denial and Holodomor genocide question. The first article details "petty" denial of the events by saying that there was no famine, or that the famine was primarily caused by weather. In contrast, the second article focuses on actual academics that have reached a consensus that the famine was man-made, but disagree on whether there was a specific intent to exterminate Ukrainians. Scholars are often reading between the lines to figure out what the Soviet intent was, because there were never any explicit statements of "We want to eliminate Ukrainians." This is in contrast with ww2 Nazis who have plenty of explicit statements referring to the extermination of Jews. In the case of the Gaza genocide, it definitely looks more akin to ww2 nazis than 1932-1933 Soviet officials. Plenty of Israelis, from the lowest ranking soldiers to the highest government officials, have spoken of eliminating Palestinians specifically.

For this reason, I don't think there is an actual academic debate in the Gaza genocide question. Denial is mostly in the form of "petty" denial rather than serious academic debate. See the McDoom article discussing this. JasonMacker (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Short description

This edit conflict over the short description of the article should be discussed [9] [10]

@Daran755, @Pyramids09. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The 9th word in the article is accused. Not committing/committed, but accused. Removing that word from the short article summary is a breach of NPOV, and only provides fuel to the biblical-size fire that this article has become. Pyramids09 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many separate articles such as Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, Gaza humanitarian crisis, Gaza Strip famine, etc. that focus on what Israel is doing in Gaza. However, this article's focus (for now) is how to characterize Israel's mass killings and destruction in Gaza. I think the short description should reflect that. We can uncontroversially state that Israel is (1) engaged in mass killings in Gaza, and (2) engaging in mass destruction in Gaza. Those two aren't disputed. Instead, the characterization of those two actions is in dispute (among a minority of scholars, and a majority of the very politicians who could be found criminally liable for the crime of genocide). The problem with the "alleged genocide" phrasing is that the genocidal actions themselves are not alleged to have happened. They have actually happened according to reliable sources. Israel has engaged in mass killings and destruction in Gaza, and that is not at all in dispute, even among the genocide deniers. What the genocide deniers are focusing on is the characterization of Israel's actions as genocide. They're not arguing that Israel is NOT engaged in mass killings and destruction. They're arguing that although Israel is engaged in mass killings and destruction, its actions are justifiable under international law and thus not genocide (although there are a few examples where the Israeli government falsely blames Hamas for some killings). And it's for that reason that I support having "Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza" in the short description as a better descriptor.

My issue with the "Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel" short description is that it's just not a short description of what this article is about. This article is primarily about the characterization of Israel's actions. The very first sentence of this article is:

"Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war."

That's a characterization, and is the main topic of this article. Thus, the short description should reflect that.

Contrast this with the Rwandan genocide article, which focuses largely on the genocidal actions. Should this article eventually transform into an article that is primarily focused on Israel's genocidal actions, I would be okay with the short description of "Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel." But until then, the short description should be what the article currently is about. And the article, as it currently stands, is primarily about how to characterize Israel's mass killings and destruction. Another point of comparison is the article Black genocide in the United States, whose short description is "Characterization of the past and present treatment of African Americans." My current assessment of the Gaza genocide article is that it's trying to be both. It's trying to be an article like Rwandan genocide, but with most of this article's content being a discussion of characterization, it currently has some similarity with the Black genocide in the United States article.

What the short description policy page says is that a short description should:

>1. focus on the purposes stated above [a very brief indication of the field covered by the article, a short descriptive annotation, a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields]

>2. start with the most important information (mobile applications may truncate long descriptions)

>3. use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional

>4. avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject

>5. avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)

>6. avoid time-specific adjectives like "former", "retired", "late", "defunct", "closed", "current", "new", "recent", "planned", "future", etc.

>7. avoid subjective adjectives like "small", "famous", "popular"

>A good way to draft a short description is to consider the words that would naturally follow if you started a sentence like this:

>"[Article subject] is/was a/an/the ... ".

Based on all of this, I came up with a short description for this article:

"Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza"

So let's go over the points raised in the short description article:

1. Focus on purposes stated above: yes, it's a very brief indication of the field covered by the article (discussion of the characterization of Israel's actions)

2. Start with the most important information: I wrote it so that on mobile apps, at least the "...Israeli mass killings..." shows up, and that's the most important information.

3. Use universally accepted facts: This is what led me to oppose the use of the word genocide, and instead to say "Israeli mass killings and destruction." The Israeli mass killings and destruction are universally accepted facts, even among the genocide deniers.

4. Avoid jargon: There's no jargon in my proposed short description.

5. Avoid duplicating information: The only word duplicated is "Gaza", which is critically important as its the primary location of the mass killings and destruction.

6. Avoid time-specific adjectives: I considered having "2023-present" or "Ongoing" in the short description, but I decided against it. Note that the Rohingya genocide article does use the word "ongoing" in its short description.

7. Avoid subjective adjectives: There are no subjective adjectives used. "mass" in mass killings is not subjective or controversial, as there are multiple incidents where the Israeli government themselves have admitted to mass killings of Palestinians (such as the hostage rescue operation, although the Israeli government does deny the death toll being hundreds).

Discussions regarding the scope of this article should be had, and should the scope of the article change, I think the short description of the article should change too. Personally, I do think too much weight is currently being placed on the "characterization" aspect and not enough on the material reality of what is actually taking place in the Gaza genocide, and too much weight is given to genocide deniers. Nevertheless, we need to have a short description that is actually reflective of what the article is currently about.

As for as an alternative short description, I'd also be okay with omitting "characterizaiton of" entirely, although I think that would require a discussion on changing the current scope of the article.

Let me know what you all think about changing the short description, for now, to "Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza" JasonMacker (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternate descriptions to consider based on this be "Characterization(s) of Israeli actions in Gaza as genocide" or "Characterization(s) of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza as genocide". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern with "characterization(s)" is that this isn't an article about various characterizations in general. This article is specifically about the genocide characterization. The term "Gaza genocide" refers to a "characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza" by scholars. That's what makes it a great short description of this article. "...as genocide" is not needed in the short description because the article's title already provides the information that the characterization is genocide. If anything, point 5 of WP:SDESC should lead to use omitting "in Gaza" ("Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction") instead of adding another word of the article's title. But, unfortunately, because Israel has engaged in multiple mass killings and destruction in different locations, even recently (see 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon), I think having the location in the short description should be there for disambiguation purposes. But the word "genocide" isn't needed. As for replacing "mass killings and destruction" with "actions", I'm opposed to that because the short description I gave is already within the max range of a short description.

As WP:SDESC notes:

"Fewer than 3% of short descriptions are longer than 60 characters, and short descriptions longer than 100 characters will be flagged for attention." My short description is 65 characters, including spaces. As noted here, there are about 6000 articles with 65 character short descriptions. Based on this, I see no need to shorten "mass killings and destruction" to "actions." If it's really necessary to shorten my proposal, I suggest just removing "and destruction" and just leave it with mass killings: "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" (49 characters) JasonMacker (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've come around to prefer "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" over "Characterization of Israeli mass killings and destruction in Gaza." Especially since this article is about genocide, which in common parlance specifically focuses on killing people. Although "domicide" is a part of the genocide, I think just having the mass killings is enough for the short description.

Does anyone here have objections to changing the short description to "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza"? I'll give it a few days for people to object, but if there's no response, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the short description. JasonMacker (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Domicide

In the previous section in the talk, I referenced the concept of domicide. Right now, domicide is not mentioned in this article. However, the bombing of Gaza is mentioned in the domicide article, as well as the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip article. I think it could be mentioned in this article. Right now, the infobox mentions bombardment in its "attack type" section. I think it would benefit from also mentioning domicide. It's a term that has become more widely used in the 21st century, with its usage significantly increasing since 2016 (see Google Ngram). If you look at the references of the domicide article, a lot of them specifically reference the Gaza genocide, such as this NPR article that mentions South Africa's case against Israel.

At the minimum, I think domicide should be included in the infobox, and then the "Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure" subsection can be expanded to include discussion of this domicide label. JasonMacker (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The article says that domicide isn't even a war crime. How does it factor in here? Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at the "attack type" section right now... "Bombardment" and "targeted killings" are also not war crimes. But it's what Israel is doing. Domicide is the same thing. Just because Israel's attack type in particular is not a war crime doesn't mean they aren't engaging in that attack type. Israel is engaging in domicide. It doesn't really matter if it's currently a war crime or not. This is the same as mentioning the use of biological weapons prior to the Biological Weapons Convention. I don't think it makes sense to say "oh we shouldn't mention the use of biological weapons by the Mongols because it wasn't a war crime back then." The fact that Israel is engaging in domicide should be mentioned, even if it's not currently a war crime. JasonMacker (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was only asking because not every Israeli military action is related to genocide, just like we don't normally reference the Warsaw domicide as part of Nazi genocide/war crimes. I know that Israel has been accused specifically of using hunger as a weapon of war, and that's significant. As far as domicide goes -I think it's relevant insofar as more than half the victims (as of now) are probably under the rubble (the frequently cited death count of "40,000" is almost certainly exceptionally low).

Also, I'm sure most of you are aware that the ICC just announced arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the German war crimes article, the very first war crime committed by Nazi Germany was the Bombing of Wieluń, and as that article's infobox states, the "Territorial changes" was the "Destruction of Civilian Infrastructure." Separate from that, the article of the Warsaw uprising has a section that focuses specifically on the Nazi plan to destroy the city of Warsaw. However, as I cited in the Google Ngram graph above, the word "domicide" was not commonly used during ww2 and the rest of the 20th century, and that's why it doesn't show up. It's a newer term that has been retroactively applied. Thats why the Destruction of Warsaw article doesn't use the term in the main body of text, but it does list "Domicide" in the See Also section, and the domicide article mentions the Bombing of Warsaw as an example of domicide (the Bombing of Warsaw is yet another article that details part of Warsaw's domicide).

But yes, as you say, the largest crime of the Nazis, the Holocaust, didn't actually entail much domicide, because it was a program of specifically targeting Jews (and other "undesirables")for deportation/killing while leaving the rest of the population subject to military occupation. In contrast, the destruction of Warsaw was a specific plan to destroy the entire city of Warsaw and replace its populations of millions with a German settler colony of about 130,000. This Gaza genocide article describes actions of the Israeli government that are more akin to the domicide of Warsaw than the Holocaust. Nevertheless, reliable sources in the present day (unlike most ww2 literature) are using the neologism domicide to describe Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip (see this Google Scholar Search). JasonMacker (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

CNN reporting a few hours ago[11]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Already in article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it. The legal proceedings section still says "A panel of ICC judges is considering whether to issue the warrants." Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Update on Genocide Watch

The "Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide" section lists "Genocide Watch", but it cites an article from them in 17 October 2023 and lists them as a "maybe." However, a recent article from Genocide Watch makes it clear that they have changed their position on this:

"These are the signs of the genocidal process in Israel's war in Gaza:

• Israel's leaders persist in conflating all Palestinian people with Hamas. [classification];
• Israel’s leaders incite genocide against Palestinians by dehumanizing Palestinians as “human animals” and by summoning Biblical justification for genocide [dehumanization, polarization];
• Israel collectively punishes all Gazans for the actions of Hamas. Israel’s leaders deny that there are any innocent civilians in Gaza. This falsehood denies any duty to obey the laws of war, which require avoidance of attacks on civilians. [dehumanization, polarization];
• This collective punishment is used to justify the bombing and killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian women, children, and noncombatants, including at least 85 journalists [persecution, extermination];
• Israel has forcibly displaced 1.7 million Gazans from their homes into tent cities [persecution];
• Israel bombs and assaults hospitals where wounded civilians seek medical care and shelter [persecution, extermination];
• Israel bombs Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza [persecution, extermination];
• Israel bombs and attacks areas in Gaza to which it has directed civilians for their “safety” [persecution, extermination];
• Israel bombs “escape routes” it has designated for Palestinians fleeing Israeli attacks [persecution, extermination];
• Israel's blockade and siege of Gaza is producing widespread famine [persecution, extermination].

Together, these actions demonstrate intent to commit genocide, the intentional destruction in part of the Palestinian people of Gaza."

Based on this article, it seems clear that they're no longer a "Maybe" but rather a "yes."

Is the "Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide" section open to updates? JasonMacker (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would add a new entry for the new position. I wonder what the threshold for scholarly/expert consensus is. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A few months ago some editors here had a discussion about how many scholars don't believe a genocide is occurring, and there didn't seem to be much dissent at the time, and there seems to be even less dissent now. I personally know of only one prominent genocide scholar who's still skeptical that a legal case of intent could be made at the level of state policy. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests

There are five edit requests related to this article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, some of which have been open for over a month. If anyone's interested in implementing/rejecting those requests (or copying over the ones that need discussion), I'm sure the requesting editors would appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)